Knowledge is a concept of realizing and understanding the patterns and implications of existing data and information (Filemon and Uriarte, 2008). In general, there are two types of knowledge: tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge. Tacit knowledge is knowledge that resides in the human brain and is difficult to express in words, text and drawings (Laudon and Laudon, 2014). In contrast, explicit knowledge is knowledge that resides in documents, databases, memos, and other forms of storage. Mainly, knowledge is known to be one of the intangible assets of an organization (Laudon & Laudon, 2014). In an organization, knowledge is generated through various “organizational learning” mechanisms such as data collection, experimentation and feedback. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Organizational learning can be defined as the process of change in which organizations can sustainably improve their use of accumulated knowledge in response to turbulent environments. (King, 2009). Typically, organizations are not able to fully exploit the knowledge they possess. However, through knowledge management (KM), organizations can seek to obtain or generate knowledge that can be useful and make it easily accessible to those who wish to use it. Knowledge management (KM) revolves around the interest of many disciplines since the last decades (Wiig, 2000). Database technologies, organizational sciences, decision support systems, performance support systems and web technologies are among the disciplines of knowledge management (Dalkir, 2005). Due to the multidisciplinary nature of knowledge management, the term "knowledge management" is too complex to be explained in a universal definition. However, to put it simply, the concept of KM technically involves a cyclical process of creating, capturing, using and sharing knowledge (Filemon & Uriarte, 2008). Nowadays, knowledge management has become one of the fundamental factors for organizational survival and competitive advantage (Jeon et al., 2011; Omotayo, 2015). Basically, knowledge management has four key elements: knowledge, people, technology and processes (Desouza, 2011). However, an organization's success may depend on its ability to leverage its knowledge-based assets. According to the historical perspective of KM, classic KM evaluation emerged in the 1970s (Filemon & Uriarte, 2008). The work of Peter Drucker and Paul Strassman has highlighted that information and explicit knowledge are considered valuable assets of an organization. While the work of Peter Senge emphasizes the learning organization and knowledge management. However, in the late 1970s, Everett Rogers and Thomas Allen laid the foundation for an understanding of how knowledge is generated, implemented, and integrated within the organization. Although the notion of knowledge as a competitive advantage emerged in the 1970s, it was in the mid-1980s that it became increasingly evident. During this period, Peter Drucker and other writers developed the idea of ​​knowledge management dependent on artificial intelligence and expert systems. This development led to such a concept of "acquiringknowledge”, “knowledge-based system” and other IT entities. Therefore, this has also led to even faster growth of knowledge management systems. Later, in the 1990s, a number of large management consulting firms began launching internal knowledge management (KM) initiatives (Filemon and Uriarte, 2008). Additionally, as knowledge management has attracted the attention of businesses and organizations, the number of published articles, books, and journals has increased significantly. In 1994, the International Knowledge Management Network (IKMN), based in Europe, went online, followed soon after by the Knowledge Management Network, Management Forum, USA. Subsequently, many other groups and publications related to knowledge management began to appear. By the late 1990s, knowledge management projects had become big business for large international consulting firms implementing “knowledge management solutions”. For example, Ernst & Young, Arthur Andersen and Booz-Allen & Hamilton. This can be attributed to the failure of total quality management (TQM) and other business process initiatives, making knowledge management (KM) a very desirable alternative. The evolution of knowledge management (KM) includes two generations. The first generations of KM were primarily technology-driven and primarily involved the process of knowledge capture. However, the non-realization techniques of the first generation of KM prompted theorists to further investigate how knowledge is created and shared. As a result, the second generation was primarily concerned with people, behaviors, and work style instead of focusing on the application of technology. However, in current times as well as in the future prospects of knowledge management, the use of technology is becoming more and more indispensable. Nowadays, with the emergence of smart technologies, they can have a great influence on the way we work, learn and interact. John Bordeaux, IBM Global Business Services associate partner in social knowledge management, said intelligent technology will affect knowledge management over the next three years and change the way individuals, as well as organizations, integrate technology in the decision-making process. (Trees, 2015). Given the dynamic nature of knowledge today, knowledge management (KM) has become the focal point and necessity of organizations (Omotayo, 2015). The need to manage knowledge within the organization can be explained by various environmental driving factors. For example, the effect of globalization, technological progress, a highly competitive market as well as an aging workforce (Wiig, 2000; Dalkir, 2005; Omotayo, 2015). According to Ridge (2007), organizations that can effectively manage and leverage their knowledge are more likely to achieve better results. Furthermore, knowledge management (KM) plays an important role in the governance of innovation at the organizational level (Ridge, 2007; Du Plessis, 2007). For example, by encouraging the culture of open innovation by sharing knowledge and collaborating between employees and other external parties to develop new ideas. Through innovation, the organization will be able to differentiate itself from its competitors and will provide assistance (Desouza, 2011). According to a study conducted by Forbes in 2004, Fortune 500 companies, 2009).