Krishna Venkitachalam


Visa sidan på svenska
Works at Stockholm Business School
Telephone 08-16 46 53
Visiting address Kräftriket hus 15
Room 15:303a
Postal address Företagsekonomiska institutionen 106 91 Stockholm

About me

Dr. Krishna Venkitachalam (PhD, University of Melbourne) is an Associate Professor of Strategy and a Docent in Business Administration at Stockholm Business School (SBS), Stockholm University, Sweden.

He previously held positions at Cardiff Business School, Cardiff University, UK and La Trobe Business School, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia. Previously, he has consulted for a UN client in the area of knowledge management and firm performance.


He teaches strategy, both at the undergraduate and graduate levels. He is the course director for "Fundamentals of Strategic Management" in the Bachelors Programme and "Strategic Management" in the Masters Programme.

He regularly supervise Bachelors (Exkaman) and Masters (Exman) thesis in the discpline of management. 


He has been carrying out research in areas such as corporate and business strategies, strategic knowledge management (SKM), tacit knowledge and knowledge processes in large and small organizations. In 2014, his article on KM strategy alignment in the Journal of Knowledge Management won the Emerald Literati Award. He has published in regarded journals such as Knowledge Management Research & Practice, Journal of Knowledge Management, Journal of Strategy and Management, Journal of Strategic Information Systems, International Journal of Information Management, and various international conferences. For more information on his research publications, please visit his google scholar webpage.


He is a regular organizer/chair of a number of track sessions in several international conferences such as the International Forum on Knowledge Asset Dynamics (IFKAD 2017, 2018, 2019) and the Nordic Academy of Management (NFF 2015, 2017, 2019). He is a member of the scientific committee of IFKAD. He is a regular reviewer for a number of scholarly journals in the field of knowledge management and strategy reseacrch. 

He is an Associate Editor of the Journal of Strategy and Management (Emerald Publishing Ltd, UK)


He is the Principal Guest Editor for an upcoming Special Issue of KMRP (Knowledge Management Research & Practice) journal in 2020, focusing on the Dynamics of KM - From Strategy to Knowledge Worker's performance.


Selected Publications (Peer-Reviewed)

•Venkitachalam K, Bosua R. 2019. Perspectives on effective digital content management in organizations. Knowledge and Process Management 26(3): 202-209.

•Jose S, Venkitachalam K. 2019. A matrix model towards CSR - Moving from one size fit approach. Journal of Strategy and Management 12(2): 243-255.

•Venkitachalam K, Willmott H. 2017. Strategic knowledge management - insights and pitfalls. International Journal of Information Management 37(4): 313-316. (Impact factor – 5.063)

•Venkitachalam K, Ambrosini V. 2017. A triadic link between knowledge management, information technology and business strategies. Knowledge Management Research and Practice 15(2): 192-200. (Impact factor – 1.485)

•Venkitachalam K, Willmott H. 2016. Determining strategic shifts between codification and personalization in operational environments. Journal of Strategy and Management 9(1): 2-14.

•Venkitachalam K, Willmott H. 2015. Factors shaping organizational dynamics in strategic knowledge management. Knowledge Management Research and Practice 13(3): 344-359. (Impact factor – 1.485)

•Bosua R, Venkitachalam K. 2015. Fostering knowledge transfer and learning in shift work environments. Knowledge and Process Management 22(1): 22-33.

•Venkitachalam K, Bosua R. 2014. Roles enabling the mobilization of organizational knowledge. Journal of Knowledge Management 18(2): 396-410. (Impact factor – 4.604)

•Bosua R, Venkitachalam K. 2013. Aligning strategies and processes in knowledge management: a framework. Journal of Knowledge Management 17(3): 331-346. Emerald Literati Award Winner - Highly Commended Paper (Impact factor – 4.604)

•Venkitachalam K, Busch P. 2012. Tacit Knowledge - Review and Possible Research Directions. Journal of Knowledge Management 16(2): 357-372. (Impact factor – 4.604)

•Zyngier S, Venkitachalam K. 2011. Knowledge management governance - a strategic driver. Knowledge Management Research and Practice 9(2): 136-150. (Impact factor – 1.485) 

•Dwivedi Y, Venkitachalam K, Sharif A, Al-Karahouli W, Weerakkody V. 2011. Research trends in knowledge management: analyzing the past and predicting the future. Information Systems Management 28(1): 43-56. (Impact factor – 2.042)

•Busch P, Venkitachalam K, Richards D. 2008. Generational differences in soft knowledge situations: status, need for recognition, workplace commitment and idealism. Knowledge and Process Management 15(1): 45-58.

•Richards D, Busch P, Venkitachalam K. 2007. Ethnicity-based cultural differences in implicit managerial knowledge usage in three Australian organizations. Knowledge Management Research and Practice 5(3): 173-185. (Impact factor – 1.485)

•Scheepers R, Venkitachalam K, Gibbs M. 2004. Knowledge strategy in organizations: refining the model of Hansen, Nohria and Tierney. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems 13(3): 201-222. (Impact factor – 4.0)


A selection from Stockholm University publication database
  • 2017. Krishna Venkitachalam, Veronique Ambrosini. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 15 (2), 192-200

    The extant literature shows that the connection between KM strategy and business strategy and business strategy and IT strategy has been extensively studied. However, the link between KM strategy and IT strategy remains unclear. To better understand how KM strategy influences IT strategy and vice versa within the context of business strategy, we synthesize the literature and contribute to the conceptualization of a triadic connection of the influences between business, KM and IT strategies and its deeper understanding in determining efficacy of knowledge use in organizations.

  • 2017. Krishna Venkitachalam, Hugh Willmott. International Journal of Information Management 37 (4), 313-316

    In an increasingly globalized and hyper connected business environment, using knowledge strategically is often critical for competitive performance. This article is motivated to illuminate the notion of strategic knowledge management (SKM) in organizations. In this regard, executives need to develop an informed understanding of what types of organizational knowledge (and how much) can be 'structured' and/or allowed to 'proliferate' in order to sustain both work productivity and innovation capacity toward a harmonious conceptualization of strategic knowledge in their organizations. This conceptual paper is based on analysing certain exemplars of why organizations need to put greater emphasis on the equivalence between codification and personalization in the context of strategic knowledge management. Our explanations on managing strategic knowledge through different examples provide insights and pitfalls that organizations must be aware of and are as follows. Firstly, we argue that an exclusive emphasis on codification or personalization runs the risk of 'knowledge structuration' or 'knowledge proliferation' respectively in an organization's strategic knowledge management. Secondly, executives should continuously realize the need to emphasize on equivalence (or congruence) between codification and personalization aspects of SKM in order to keep enduring work productivity and innovation capacity in organizations. Thirdly, we argue that SKM initiatives that prodigiously focus on either codification or personalization can lead to pitfalls despite plenty of managerial interventions. We further believe that our proposed ideas will be worthwhile considerations for executives/leaders responsible for strategy, IT and innovation divisions of the organization to determine whether its organization's knowledge engine is running smoothly, and if not, where to direct their energy to yield long term and robust outcomes.

  • 2016. Krishna Venkitachalam, Hugh Willmott. Journal of Strategy and Management. 9 (1), 2-14

    The purpose of this paper is to indicate that managers responsible for decision making often have a limited appreciation of strategic shifts between codification and personalization of knowledge in different operational environments. This study is motivated by a concern to illuminate the influence of diverse business environments in the shift between strategies of knowledge in organizations. A qualitative multiple case-study method was adopted to research four case organizations drawn from multiple industries – manufacturing, research, education and consulting – that are positioned within contrasting operating environments (i.e. local, national, international and multinational, respectively). Results from the case studies suggest that four factors condition shifts between codification and personalization strategies in different operational environments that are of critical significance for the effective use of knowledge in organizations. The authors have also found that strategic shifts between codification and personalization are continuous and emergent. The study suggests that the combination of multi-operational types and four elements (i.e. competition, organizational size, organizational structure and information technology) are highly relevant for determining the shifts between codification and personalization strategies in organizations.

  • 2016. Saju Jose, Krishna Venkitachalam.
  • 2015. Krishna Venkitachalam, Hugh Willmott. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 13 (3), 344-359

    Knowledge as a valuable asset of organizations is increasingly incorporated into thinking about strategy. Studies of knowledge management (KM) suggest that executives engaged in decision making often have a slender understanding of the strategic significance of knowledge. When addressing the challenge of explicating and designing a knowledge strategy, logics of codification and personalization have been differentiated and commended. The paper draws upon evidence from four case studies to identify factors that shape the evolving contexts of knowledge strategies. It is in these contexts that the challenge of continuously reviewing and revising the mix of codifying and personalizing aspects of strategic KM is practically accomplished. The cases are analysed with reference to external competition, leadership, organizational politics, culture and technology as a basis for advancing a more dynamic framework for the analysis of knowledge strategies.

  • 2015. Rachelle Bosua, Krishna Venkitachalam. Knowledge and Process Management 22 (1), 22-33

    Shift work is a continuous ‘round-the-clock’ work practice that involves rotating work schedules with a vital process of ‘handover’ denoting a change of teams between shifts. Handover as an activity requires that outgoing shift teams pass on insights and responsibility to incoming shift teams. Knowledge transfer in shift work environments is therefore crucial to allow for a seamless continuation of work practices between shifts. Studies in shift work indicate that knowledge transfer between shifts often fails—that is, incoming workers tend to solve problems with inadequate information, have an incomplete understanding of significant events that occurred in prior shifts, while workers often attempt to solve the same problems across different shifts. This study investigates the challenges associated with shift handover and proposes knowledge transfer enablers that can make a difference to handover. In addition, these enablers can foster learning, a process often overlooked in shift environments. A qualitative research methodology was used to study three distinctive case organisations in the manufacturing and educational sectors, where the nature of day-to-day work is shift-bound and transfer issues were present during handover processes. Our findings suggest that three enablers facilitate knowledge transfer problems associated with shift work: (1) a purposeful knowledge codification and classification culture, (2) open access to established boundary objects and boundary spanners and (3) a unified information infrastructure to facilitate knowledge transfer during shifts and handover.

Show all publications by Krishna Venkitachalam at Stockholm University

Last updated: March 25, 2020

Bookmark and share Tell a friend