The emergence of Knowledge Management (KM) in recent decades as a result of numerous academic, social and business activities. The roots extend further back for millennia, across particular countries in the West and East. Meanwhile, others have interconnected with recent cognitive and information sciences (Wiig, 2000). KM itself has become a significant approach of an organization with its complexity that often infuriates information system (IS) researchers. But the field is still considered to be in development for quite a long time. The people responsible for success in the competitive environment have often worked their hardest to create the best knowledge in their area of ​​expertise. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay A combination of knowledge and other information communication (IC) acts as two principles within the organization (Steward 1997; Sveiby, 1997). They have created key resources for effective activities and are valuable resources for exchanging or selling (Wiig, 2000). IS researchers, for example, have begun to encourage IS classes. It is specifically known as Knowledge Management System (KMS). The importance of KMS is to help in the creation, transfer and application of this knowledge to the organization (Alavi & Leidner 2001). KM is defined as a process through which a systematic method is used to learn, build, manage and disassemble knowledge within the organization. Therefore, making an organization work faster, rework the same good methods, and reduce the costs of various projects (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Pasternack & Viscio 1998; Pfeffer & Sutton, 1999; Ruggles & Holtshouse, 1999). However, an organization strives for continuous KM improvement, as do competitors in supporting KM practices. These practices become more sophisticated and well beyond scope and must originate from the historical roots of the knowledge-based perspective (Wiig, 2000). To uncover future opportunities, researchers must pay attention to the power of past KM. According to Wiig (2000) knowledge management has so far had complicated and unsystematic aspects. However, in the 13th century, the methodical and philistine perspective of KM was taken into account (Wiig, 2000). Many researchers have identified that the current knowledge focus in the field of KM is skewing towards business effectiveness. While effective behaviors emerge to support competitive excellence, numerous factors must also be understood (Boulding, 1966; Cronin, 1986). Alavi and Leidner (2001) highlight that the knowledge perspective on services rendered by valuable goods is based on the integration of both and knowledge know-how. This is applied in the organization. However, knowledge resources are difficult to understand and socially abstruse. Knowledge is implanted in the company and can be carried forward across multiple sections that include culture, identity, daily routines, systems as well as individual employees. If the organization is able to apply this knowledge and treat it as an asset, it may be able to produce a long-term sustainable competitive advantage. But to achieve these goals, information technology plays an important role in its implementation. To do this, prominent researchers, especially in the computer science literature, often seek to understand knowledge by differentiating knowledge, information, and data (Alavi & Leidner, 2001). Fahey and Prusak (1998) described that if knowledge is no different fromdata or from information, then there is nothing formidable about knowledge management. In a general perspective, data is treated as raw numbers and facts, while information is treated as processed data, and knowledge is authentic information (Dretske, 1981; Machlup, 2014; Vance, 1997). However, knowledge is information possessed by individuals. It is treated as personalized information that may or may not correspond to facts, rules, procedures, concepts, scope and judgments. The radical aspect of knowledge may be similar to other forms of IS. It is often aimed at individuals who can assign meaning to information and learn knowledge from information or data (Alavi & Leidner, 2001). With the mind focused on this perspective, knowledge allows individuals (users) to expand their knowledge and apply it to organizational needs (Alavi & Leidner, 2001). In accordance with knowledge, it is suggested that KM focuses on strategic advancement and creation of intellectual capital. By applying the various knowledge concepts, each view can be taken as different ways of managing knowledge and another dissimilar role perspective when assisting KM. Discussion and analysis. The roots of Knowledge Management. Nowadays, schools and universities aim to provide the necessary support lesson to guide the minority in KM. The knowledge they acquire comes from philosophical thinking while others obtain it from the particular experience of the environment. Meanwhile, the rest is absorbed by learning through reforms by educators and business leaders. KM's recent intellectual roots stem from the explanation of economic driving forces in the knowledge age and the steps taken by 20th century achievements to improve capabilities (Kelly, 1996; Romer, 1989). Wiig (2000), stated that the roots of KM can be further drawn from historical efforts and 20th century achievements to improve effectiveness, as explained below: - Historical efforts. I. Religion and philosophy. Instill the character and nature of knowledge and sanctions individuals “to think for themselves”. II. Psychology. Understanding the important role of knowledge in human cognition. III. Economics and social sciences. Recognize the importance of knowledge in society. IV. Business theory. Understand the work activity and its organization. 20th Century Achievements to Improve Effectiveness I. Taylorism. Also known as work rationalization. It includes total quality management (TQM) and management science to define effectiveness. II. Psychology, Cognitive Sciences, Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Learning Organization. Improving quickly against the competition therefore provides the foundation for people to be more effective. 3.2 Driving forces influencing knowledge management The driving forces behind KM can be explained by the evolution of several factors. KM is essential for driven forces such as competition, market demands, new operational and management practices. This could also include the availability of KM approaches and information technologies (Wiig, 2000). The driving forces that influence KM are classified into two: external driving forces and internal driving forces. External driving forces. Indeed, to remain competitive, most organizations must be agile and operate at the rapid pace of an ever-changing environment. Their growth and success are often subject to the ability to use external forces wisely. Wiig (2000) states that external factors such as globalization, sophisticated customers and competitors should be taken into consideration if organizations want to be agile in changing environments.rapid growth. I. Globalization. With the increasing amount of business going global, international trade has also increased recently. Companies tend to compete with each other to increase sales volume by selling low-cost products or services. Products that were once created within the local country can now be assembled from multiple sources around the world at low cost (Wiig, 2000). Take for example the smartphone we use daily, some parts are produced by different countries, even though the brand itself largely comes from well-known countries such as the United States or Korea. Limited resources in developed countries can now be found in developing countries. Although manufacturing and service capabilities are found in advanced countries that manage knowledge and know-how to achieve development, they act as cut-throat competition to ensure survival and effectiveness in terms of operations, marketing and development of products and services. II. Sophisticated customers. If businesses want to thrive and grow, they must listen to customer demands. One reason Toys R Us failed is that the company didn't listen to its customers. Nowadays customers prefer better features, new requirements, high product quality, reasonable prices and quick feedback in terms of products and services (Wiig, 2000). In the case of Toys R Us, the company does not take into account the fact that customers prefer to buy online rather than going to physical stores (Hartung, 2017). By failing to invest in e-commerce, this had led the company to lose its customers and therefore bankrupt them (Lutz, 2017). III. Sophisticated competitors. Indeed, the bellwether for continuous improvement in every organization is the competitors. Without competitors, the organization may not constantly seek to innovate by producing better products, services and practices. The organization may need to implement discontinuous innovations using new technologies and knowledge practices to ensure that it is able to maintain requirements in building more competitive competencies (Wiig, 2000). A good example would be Apple vs. Samsung. To compete and become the world's number one smartphone brand, they simultaneously continue to improve their technologies and use knowledge to create better products and services specifically for their customers. Other internal factors called sophisticated suppliers may also need to be considered for the compelling case against KM. Internal driving forces. In addition to the visible factors displayed by the organization, it is also important to look through the internal driving forces. In an organization, the creation of numerous processes and activities, provided favorable circumstances to better manage knowledge. While in some cases it could be treated the opposite way. Examples of significant changes may include: I. The barrier in organizational effectiveness In general, organizational effectiveness is limited by workflows within the organization, access to information, and other factors. The barrier itself has been reduced through continuous improvement and investment in technology such as IT, IC and logistics. The work and tasks of the staff have also been assigned correctly and the information is improved with greater accuracy, completeness and timeliness for decision making (Wiig, 2000). Instead of focusing on the inefficient and daily routine, the current demand focuses on greater effectiveness and intelligent behavior by the individual within the organization. Bottlenecks (barrier) from the typical and tangible field to the knowledge-related perspective may require agreater understanding and improvement of skills (Wiig, 2000). II. Increasing technological effectiveness Through the use of KM methods, progress in information management, technology and the application of artificial intelligence is made possible (Wiig, 2000). Evidence can be demonstrated through the collaboration of groupware work, the ability to codify knowledge bases, the performance support system (which can be learned through the academic module in certain circumstances), and the advancement of search engines (Wiig, 2000). A good example of the advancement of search engines would be the Google search engine itself, where you can use specific words and queries to search for particular topics. III. Understanding Human Cognitive Capacity Third, the reason behind the internal forces of KM would be the understanding of how people act as the intellectual and mental center as the center of an effective organization (Wiig, 2000). Similar to the subject acquire through human resource management and organizational behavior, people play a role for effective KM in the organization. By incorporating understanding cognitive functions such as mental models, how knowledge is understood, they can influence decision making and knowledge work when devising strategies for conducting KM (Wiig, 2000). If human cognition is not understood, the organization may not be able to move forward and keep making the same mistake without making any progress. 3.3 Knowledge Management in the Future KM practitioners perceive that KM has brought new characters into the organization (Wiig, 2000). KM capability is currently growing as managers at all respective levels within the organization must take action to become smarter at work and agile with the demands of advancing technology and workforce reductions. Traditional practices are not suited to today's high-tech environment and ephemeral employment (Warier, 2003). As highlighted above, KM methods and technologies can support the organization in improving not only product quality, but also in examining processes and meeting customer expectations. Imagine that KM is considered an object of or associated with access to information, then KM is assumed to develop and manage knowledge reserves. If it is seen as a process, then it can focus on the flow of knowledge, the creation, sharing and distribution of the knowledge process. (Alavi and Leidner, 2001). KM is quite broad and has very different meanings. It depends on how users use the knowledge. In 2004, it was predicted that the public and private sectors globally spent $5 billion to $12 billion on KM services (depending on the nature of the market for the study group) (Warner, 2003). Even though it takes a huge amount of investment and hours to build this KM, it helps the organization i.e. government agencies and institutions to understand things better and helps them create room for improvement and control costs. Nowadays, the organization realizes that it is necessary to store numerous amounts of information. Without KM, they would not understand how to include data in context and what factors and methods can be employed to bring greater benefits to the organization. By using KM systems, the organization may be able to consolidate its resources, understand how to carry out its internal operations in a better way and building foundations (Warier, 2003). With KM it markets the development and application of a method that can be considered enrichment for staff and.