This file was created with JabRef 2.1 beta 2.
Encoding: UTF8
@STRING{QUOTE = {Great Quotation}}
@ARTICLE{AlaviLeidner_2001_ReviewKnowledgeManagementAndKnowledgeManagementSystems,
author = {Maryam Alavi and Dorothy E. Leidner},
title = {Review: Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual
foundations and research issues},
journal = {MIS Quarterly},
year = {2001},
volume = {25},
pages = {107-136},
workingstatusmatthias = {summarized for vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
abstract = {Knowledge is abroad and abstract notion that has defined epistemological
debate in western philosophy since the classical Greek era. In the
past few years, however, there has been a growing interest in treating
knowledge as a significant organizational resource. Consistent with
the interest in organizational knowledge and knowledge management
(KM), IS researchers have begun promoting a class of information
systems, referred to as knowledge management systems (KMS). The objective
of KMS is to support creation, transfer, and application of knowledge
in organizations. Knowledge and knowledge management are complex
and multi-faceted concepts. Thus, effective development and implementation
of KMS requires a foundation in several rich literatures.
To be credible, KMS research and development should preserve and build
upon the significant literature that exists in different but related
fields. This paper provides a review and interpretation of knowledge
management literatures in different fields with an eye toward identifying
the important areas for research. We present a detailed process view
of organizational knowledge management with a focus on the potential
role of information technology in this process. Drawing upon the
literature review and analysis of knowledge management processes,
we discuss several important research issues surrounding the knowledge
management processes and the role of IT in support of these processes.},
keywords = {Author Keywords: knowledge management; knowledge management systems;
research issues in knowledge management; organizational knowledge
management; knowledge management review
KeyWords Plus: ORGANIZATIONAL KNOWLEDGE; DYNAMIC THEORY; MEMORY; FIRM;
INNOVATION; CREATION},
owner = {matthias},
pdf = {AlaviLeidner_2001_ReviewKnowledgeManagementAndKnowledgeManagementSystems.pdf},
review = {Contributions
- Review and interpretation of knowledge management literatures identifying
important areas for research
- Detailed process view of organizational knowledge management focusing
on the role of information technology
- Discussion of relevant research issues surrounding knowledge management
processes and the role of IT supporting these processes},
timestamp = {2006-05-31}
}
@ARTICLE{AlmeidaDokkoRosenkopf_2003_StartupSizeAndTheMechanismsOfExternalLearning,
author = {Paul Almeida and Gina Dokko and Lori Rosenkopf},
title = {Startup size and the mechanisms of external learning: increasing
opportunity and decreasing ability?},
journal = {Research Policy},
year = {2003},
volume = {32},
pages = {301-315},
workingstatusmatthias = {cited in research plan},
abstract = {An important area of investigation in the field of entrepreneurship
examines how people and organizations exploit technological opportunities.
Prior research suggests that alliances, the mobility of experts,
and the informal mechanisms associated with geographic co-location
can present firms with useful opportunities to source technological
knowledge. This paper uses insights from strategic management and
organizational theory to suggest that organizational size may have
an important impact on the extent of external learning, since it
differentially affects the likelihood of learning via formal and
informal mechanisms.
Examining a cross-section of semiconductor startups, we find that
external learning increases with startup size. With regard to the
specific mechanisms of learning, we find that firms learn from alliances
regardless of their size. For the informal mechanisms of mobility
and geographic co-location, however, learning decreases with firm
size. These results suggest that as startups grow, they may have
increasing opportunities to access and exploit external knowledge,
but their motivation (and hence ability) to learn from more informal
sources may decrease.},
owner = {matthias},
pdf = {AlmeidaDokkoRosenkopf_2003_StartupSizeAndTheMechanismsOfExternalLearning.pdf},
timestamp = {2006-05-24}
}
@ARTICLE{AmbrosiniBowman_2001_TacitKnowledge,
author = {V. Ambrosini and C. Bowman},
title = {Tacit Knowledge: Some Suggestions For Operationalization},
journal = {Journal of Management Studies},
year = {2001},
volume = {38},
number = {6},
pages = {811-829},
workingstatusmatthias = {cited in vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
owner = {matthias},
timestamp = {2006-07-12}
}
@ARTICLE{ArgoteIngram_2000_KnowledgeTransfer,
author = {Linda Argote and Paul Ingram},
title = {Knowledge Transfer: A Basis for Competitive Advantage in Firms},
journal = {Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes},
year = {2000},
volume = {82},
pages = {150-169},
workingstatusmatthias = {summarized for vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
abstract = {This concluding article in the special issue of Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes on the foundations of
knowledge transfer in organizations argues that the creation and
transfer of knowledge are a basis for competitive advantage in
firms. The article builds on a framework of knowledge reservoirs
to show why knowledge transfer can be difficult and to identify
the kinds of knowledge that are most difficult to transfer to differ-
ent contexts. The article develops the proposition that interac-
tions among people, tasks, and tools are least likely to fit the
new context and hence are the most difficult to transfer. This
theoretical result illuminates how organizations can derive com-
petitive advantage by transferring knowledge internally while
preventing its external transfer to competitors. Because people
are more similar within than between organizations, interactions
involving people transfer more readily within than between
firms. By embedding knowledge in interactions involving people,
organizations can both effect knowledge transfer internally and
impede knowledge transfer externally. Thus, knowledge embed-
ded in the interactions of people, tools, and tasks provides a basis
for competitive advantage in firms.},
owner = {matthias},
pdf = {ArgoteIngram_2000_KnowledgeTransfer.pdf},
timestamp = {2006-06-29}
}
@BOOK{Aristotle_1941_BasicWorksOfAristotle,
author = {Aristotle},
title = {Basic Works Of Aristotle},
editor = {R. McKeon},
publisher = {New York: Random House},
year = {1941},
workingstatusmatthias = {cited in vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
owner = {matthias},
timestamp = {2006-07-12}
}
@ARTICLE{Arnulf_2005_WhatsMeasuredIsNotNecessarilyManaged,
author = {J.K. Arnulf},
title = {What's Measured Is Not Necessarily Managed: Cognitive Contingencies
In Organizational Measurement},
journal = {Scandinavian Journal of Psychology},
year = {2005},
volume = {46},
pages = {59-68},
workingstatusmatthias = {cited in vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
owner = {matthias},
timestamp = {2006-07-12}
}
@ARTICLE{BaldwinClark_2006_TheArchitectureOfParticipation,
author = {Carliss Y. Baldwin and Kim B. Clark},
title = {The Architecture of Participation: Does Code Architecture Mitigate
Free Riding in the Open Source Development Model?},
journal = {Management Science, Special Issue on open source software},
year = {2006},
volume = {52},
pages = {1116-1127},
workingstatusmatthias = {started reading 2006-05-11},
abstract = {This paper argues that the architecture of a codebase is a critical
factor that lies at the heart of the open source development process.
We define two observable properties of an architecture: (1) modularity
and (2) option value. Developers can often make informed judgments
about modularity and option value from early, partially implemented
code releases. We show that codebases that are more modular or have
more option value (1) increase developers’ incentives to join and
to remain involved in an open source development effort; and (2)
decrease the amount of free-riding in equilibrium. These effects
occur because modularity and option value create opportunities for
the exchange of valuable work among developers, opportunities that
do not exist in codebases that are not modular or have no option
value.},
owner = {matthias},
pdf = {BaldwinClark_2006_TheArchitectureofParticipation.pdf},
review = {Introduction
- Definition of two observable properties of an architecture: (1)
modularity and (2) option value
- "We will show that codebases that are more modular or have more
option value (1) increase developers’ incentives to join and to remain
involved in an open source development effort; and (2) decrease the
amount of free-riding in equilibrium."},
timestamp = {2006-05-11}
}
@ARTICLE{BaldwinBaldwin_1978_BehaviorismOnVerstehenAndErklaren,
author = {John D. Baldwin and Janice I. Baldwin},
title = {Behaviorism On Verstehen And Erklaren},
journal = {American Sociological Review},
year = {1978},
volume = {43},
number = {3},
pages = {335-347},
workingstatusmatthias = {cited in vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
abstract = {Modern behaviorism has made significant progress in analyzing private
behavior: cognition and emotion. The behavioral distinction between
contingency-shaped and rule-governed behavior establishes a starting
point for analyzing tacit (subjective, private) knowledge and explicit
(objective, public) knowledge. The present paper extends this analysis
to include the issues of verstehen and erklaren. One subset of tacit
knowledge is verstehen. Behavioral analysis (1) describes the special
qualities of this type of tacit knowledge and (2) delineates the
circumstances under which verstehen will occur and produce valid
understanding. Modern behaviorism makes it possible to carry out
a scientific analysis of the socialization experiences through which
people learn to attach meaning to their thoughts, actions and emotions.
Thus, modern behaviorism can generate an erklarte understanding of
the topic usually reserved for verstehen. Neither tacit nor explicit
knowledge can replace the other, nor can verstehen and erklaren.
Both are needed and natural components of human behavior. Since both
are frequently intermeshed, rarely does one encounter a pure form
of either.},
owner = {matthias},
pdf = {BaldwinBaldwin_1978_BehaviorismOnVerstehenAndErklaren.pdf},
timestamp = {2006-07-12}
}
@ARTICLE{Barry_1991_ManagingTheBosslessTeam,
author = {D. Barry},
title = {Managing The Bossless Team: Lessons In Distributed Leadership},
journal = {Organizational Dynamics},
year = {1991},
volume = {21},
number = {1},
pages = {31-47},
workingstatusmatthias = {cited in vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
owner = {matthias},
timestamp = {2006-07-12}
}
@ARTICLE{BeechMacIntoshMacLeanShepherdStokes_2002_ExploringConstraintsOnDevelopingKnowledge,
author = {N. Beech and R. MacIntosh and D. MacLean and J. Shepherd and J. Stokes},
title = {Exploring constraints on developing knowledge - On the need for conflict},
journal = {Management Learning},
year = {2002},
volume = {33},
pages = {459-475},
workingstatusmatthias = {summarized for vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
abstract = {This article explores some of the constraints on the development of
knowledge through a multi-perspective examination of a project where
there was an intention, and enacted process, to develop knowledge.
Building on prior work in the fields of knowledge and knowledge management,
the article is engaged with the generic question of what the conditions
that facilitate knowledge creation in organizations are. However,
the approach adopted here is not to focus on success stories, but
to develop an understanding of constraining factors through an examination
of an example of apparent failure and the absence of new knowledge.
A detailed multi-perspective exploration of a particular organizational
episode is provided. Data from this episode are considered from three
theoretical perspectives: psychodynamics, social construction and
complexity theory. This multi-perspective exploration highlights
the need for conflict in organizational settings where new knowledge
is at least supposed to be being developed.},
owner = {matthias},
timestamp = {2006-07-04}
}
@ARTICLE{BierlyChakrabarti_1996_GenericKnowledgeStrategiesInTheUSPharmaceuticalIndustry,
author = {Paul Bierly and Alok Chakrabarti},
title = {Generic knowledge strategies in the US pharmaceutical industry},
journal = {Strategic Management Journal, Special Issue: Knowledge and the Firm},
year = {1996},
volume = {17},
pages = {123-135},
workingstatusmatthias = {summarized for vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
abstract = {The purpose of this study is to identify groups of firms with similar
generic knowledge strategies, determine how these strategies change
over time, and compare profit margins of the groups. Knowledge strategies
of 21 U.S. pharmaceutical firms are analyzed from 1977 to 1991. Cluster
analysis is used to group firms over different time periods based
on: (a) balance between internal and external learning, (b) preference
for radical or incremental learning, (c) learning speed, and (d)
breadth of knowledge base. Our findings indicate that there are four
generic knowledge strategy groups: 'Explorers', 'Exploiters', 'Loners',
and 'Innovators'. Most firms remain in the same knowledge group over
time. The firms in the 'Innovator' and 'Explorer' groups tend to
be more profitable than the firms in the 'Exploiter' and 'Loner'
groups.},
owner = {matthias},
pdf = {BierlyChakrabarti_1996_GenericKnowledgeStrategiesInTheUSPharmaceuticalIndustry.pdf},
timestamp = {2006-06-30}
}
@ARTICLE{Birmingham_2003_PracticingTheVirtueOfReflectionInAnUnfamiliarContext,
author = {C. Birmingham},
title = {Practicing The Virtue Of Reflection In An Unfamiliar Context},
journal = {Theory into Practice},
year = {2003},
volume = {42},
number = {3},
pages = {188-194},
workingstatusmatthias = {cited in vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
owner = {matthias},
timestamp = {2006-07-12}
}
@ARTICLE{BloomfieldCoombs_1992_InformationsTechnologyControlAndPower,
author = {Brian Bloomfield and Rod Coombs},
title = {Informations Technology, Control And Power - The Centralization and
Decentralization Debate Revisited},
journal = {Journal of Management Studies},
year = {1992},
volume = {29},
pages = {459-484},
workingstatusmatthias = {referenced by Orlikowski and Barley 2001},
abstract = {This article addresses the conceptualization of power in relation
to the use of computers in organizations. Commonly held views that
the application of computer based information systems leads to either
a centralization or a decentralization of power and control, or that
computers merely reinforce the power of dominant actors, are criticized,
and an alternative view is put forward which focuses on the symbolic
and disciplinary dimensions of the development of information systems.
This perspective is then illustrated in connection with the development
of management information systems in the National Health Service.},
comment = {referenced in OrlikowskiBarley_2001_TechnologyAndInstitutions concerning
centralization vs. decentralization influence of IT -> maybe relevant
to development cooperation},
keywords = {DECENTRALIZATION in management, ELECTRONIC data processing, INFORMATION
resources management, INFORMATION technology, MANAGEMENT information
systems, ORGANIZATION},
owner = {matthias},
pdf = {BloomfieldCoombs_1992_InformationsTechnologyControlAndPower.pdf},
timestamp = {2006-05-11}
}
@BOOK{Boisot_1998_KnowledgeAssets,
author = {Max H. Boisot},
title = {Knowledge assets: Securing competitive advantage in the knowledge
economy},
publisher = {New York: Oxford University Press},
year = {1998},
workingstatusmatthias = {cited in vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
owner = {matthias},
timestamp = {2006-07-11}
}
@ARTICLE{BowonderMiyake_2000_TechnologyManagement,
author = {B. Bowonder and T. Miyake},
title = {Technology management: a knowledge ecology perspective},
journal = {International Journal of Technology Management},
year = {2000},
volume = {19},
pages = {662-684},
workingstatusmatthias = {summarized for vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
abstract = {Technology management is managing technological knowledge to sustain
competitive edge in an uncertain and competitive business context.
This paper developed a framework for analysing technology management
issues by combining the knowledge management concepts and ecosystem
theory concepts. Technology strategy can be conceptualized as a process
of aligning knowledge search, knowledge envisioning, knowledge creation
and knowledge evolution with a view to meeting changing customer
needs, competitive threats and the future technology trajectory.},
owner = {matthias},
timestamp = {2006-06-30}
}
@ARTICLE{BrownDuguid_1991_OrganizationalLearningAndCommunitiesOfPractice,
author = {John Seely Brown and Paul Duguid},
title = {Organizational Learning and Communities-of-Practice},
journal = {Organization Science},
year = {1991},
volume = {2},
pages = {40-57},
workingstatusmatthias = {summarized for vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
abstract = {Recent ethnographic studies of workplace practices indicate that the
ways people actually work usually differ fundamentally from the ways
organizations describe that work in manuals, training programs, organizational
charts, and job descriptions. Nevertheless, organizations tend to
rely on the latter in their attempts to understand and improve work
practice. We examine one such study. We then relate its conclusions
to compatible investigations of learning and of innovation to argue
that conventional descriptions of jobs mask not only the ways people
work, but also significant learning and innovation generated in the
informal communities-of-practice in which they work. By reassessing
work, learning, and innovation in the context of actual communities
and actual practices, we suggest that the connections between these
three become apparent. With a unified view of working, learning,
and innovating, it should be possible to reconceive of and redesign
organizations to improve all three.},
owner = {matthias},
pdf = {BrownDuguid_1991_OrganizationalLearningAndCommunitiesOfPractice.pdf},
review = {"Yet the actual behaviours of communities-of-practice are constantly
changing both as newcomers replace old timers and as the demand of
practice force the community to revise its relationship to it environment."
Contributions
- Analyzation of J. Orr's research about variance in formal (canonical)
versus actual (noncanonical) work practice in organizations
- Illustration of three central features of work practice: narration,
collaboration and social construction
- Reassessment of work, learning and innovation in the context of
actual communities and practices suggesting the concept of communities-of-practice},
timestamp = {2006-06-27}
}
@ARTICLE{Bryant_2005_TheImpactOfPeerMentoringOnOrganizationalKnowledgeCreationandSharing,
author = {Scott E. Bryant},
title = {The Impact of Peer Mentoring on Organizational Knowledge Creation
and Sharing: An Empirical Study in a Software Firm},
journal = {Group and Organization Management},
year = {2005},
volume = {30},
pages = {319-338},
workingstatusmatthias = {summarized for vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
abstract = {Managing organizational knowledge creation and sharing effectively
has become an important source of competitive advantage for firms.
Peer mentoring is becoming increasingly common and may be an effective
way to facilitate knowledge creation and sharing. This article provides
an empirical test of the relationship between peer mentoring and
knowledge creation and sharing in a high-tech software firm. Results
suggested that a peer mentor training course increased perceived
levels of peer mentor knowledge and skills. Results also indicated
that higher perceived levels of peer mentoring were related to higher
perceived levels of knowledge creation and sharing.},
owner = {matthias},
timestamp = {2006-07-02}
}
@BOOK{Calvino_1990_SixMemosForTheNextMillenium,
author = {Italo Calvino},
title = {Six Memos For The Next Millenium},
publisher = {London: Cage},
year = {1990},
workingstatusmatthias = {cited in vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
owner = {matthias},
timestamp = {2006-07-12}
}
@ARTICLE{ChenEdgington_2005_AssessingValueInOrganizationalKnowledgeCreation,
author = {Andrew N. K. Chen and Theresa M. Edgington},
title = {Assessing value in organizational knowledge creation: Considerations
for knowledge workers},
journal = {MIS Quarterly},
year = {2005},
volume = {29},
pages = {279-309},
workingstatusmatthias = {summarized for vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
abstract = {To maintain competitive advantage, a firm's investment decisions related
to knowledge creation are likely to be strategic in nature. However,
strategic investments usually have an element of risk linked to uncertain
and deferred investment benefits. To date, such investment decisions
relating to knowledge workers have not been extensively researched.
In this paper, we explore the following research question: How do
we strategically assess knowledge creation over time giving consideration
to complex decision criteria in order to improve organizational value?
We develop a model based on economic and organization theory for
assessing organizational value with regard to knowledge creation
investments Our model prototype provides managers with a learning
tool relating to the timing and selection of knowledge creation investments.
Our own use of the tool in simulation experiments yielded several
insights which suggest that the decisions typically made by managers
may dilute knowledge creation investments. Our results demonstrate
that the organizational benefit of knowledge creation processes should
be well aligned with near-term tasks. Under instances of high knowledge
depreciation, however, it is unlikely that individual workers can
optimize knowledge creation process decisions without organizational
involvement in matching skills to task complexities. The organizational
benefits of consistent and frequent knowledge creation process participation
increase over time as the match of skills and task complexities improve.},
keywords = {knowledge management; knowledge creation; organizational dynamics;
task characteristics; organizational theory; economic theory; simulation},
owner = {matthias},
pdf = {ChenEdgington_2005_AssessingValueInOrganizationalKnowledgeCreation.pdf},
timestamp = {2006-07-02}
}
@ARTICLE{Chesbrough_2003_TheEraOfOpenInnovation,
author = {Henry W. Chesbrough},
title = {The Era of Open Innovation},
journal = {MIT Sloan Management Review},
year = {2003},
volume = {44},
pages = {35-41},
workingstatusmatthias = {cited in research plan},
abstract = {Companies are increasingly rethinking the fundamental ways in which
they generate ideas and bring them to market -- harnessing external
ideas while leveraging their in-house R&D outside their current operations.
In the past, internal R&D was a valuable strategic asset, even a formidable
barrier to entry by competitors in many markets. Only large corporations
like DuPont, IBM and AT&T could compete by doing the most R&D in
their respective industries (and subsequently reaping most of the
profits as well). Rivals who sought to unseat those powerhouses had
to ante up considerable resources to create their own labs, if they
were to have any chance of succeeding. These days, however, the leading
industrial enterprises of the past have been encountering remarkably
strong competition from many upstarts. Surprisingly, these newcomers
conduct little or no basic research on their own, but instead get
new ideas to market through a different process.
Consider Lucent Technologies, which inherited the lion's share of
Bell Laboratories after the breakup of AT&T. In the 20th century,
Bell Labs was perhaps the premier industrial research organization
and this should have been a decisive strategic weapon for Lucent
in the telecommunications equipment market. However, things didn't
quite work out that way. Cisco Systems, which lacks anything resembling
the deep internal R&D capabilities of Bell Labs, somehow has consistently
managed to stay abreast of Lucent, even occasionally beating the
company to market. What happened?
Although Lucent and Cisco competed directly in the same industry,
the two companies were not innovating in the same manner. Lucent
devoted enormous resources to exploring the world of new materials
and state-of-the-art components and systems, seeking fundamental
discoveries that could fuel future generations of products and services.
Cisco, on the other hand, deployed a very different strategy in its
battle for innovation leadership. Whatever technology the company
needed, it acquired from the outside, usually by partnering or investing
in promising startups (some, ironically, founded by ex-Lucent veterans).
In this way, Cisco kept up with the R&D output of perhaps the world's
finest industrial R&D organization, all without conducting much research
of its own.
The story of Lucent and Cisco is hardly an isolated instance. IBM's
research prowess in computing provided little protection against
Intel and Microsoft in the personal computer hardware and software
businesses. Similarly, Motorola, Siemens and other industrial titans
watched helplessly as Nokia catapulted itself to the forefront of
wireless telephony in just 20 years, building on its industrial experience
from earlier decades in the low-tech industries of wood pulp and
rubber boots. Pharmaceutical giants like Merck and Pfizer have also
watched as a number of upstarts, including Genentech, Amgen and Genzyme,
has parlayed the research discoveries of others to become major players
in the biotechnology industry.},
owner = {matthias},
timestamp = {2006-05-24}
}
@ARTICLE{ChoiLee_2002_KnowledgeManagementStrategyAndItsLinkToKnowledgeCreationProcess,
author = {Byounggu Choi and Heeseok Lee},
title = {Knowledge management strategy and its link to knowledge creation
process},
journal = {Expert Systems with Applications},
year = {2002},
volume = {23},
pages = {173-187},
workingstatusmatthias = {summarized for vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
abstract = {Knowledge has become to be considered as valuable strategic assets
that can provide proprietary competitive advantages. It is more important
for companies to distinguish themselves through knowledge management
strategies. Without a constant creation of knowledge, a business
is condemned to poor performance. However, it is still unclear how
these strategies affect knowledge creation. Knowledge management
strategies can be categorized as being either human or system oriented.
This paper proposes a model to illustrate the link between the strategies
and its creating process. The model is derived on the basis of samples
from 58 Korean firms. The model depicts how companies should align
the strategies with four knowledge creation modes such as socialization,
externalization, combination, and internalization. It is found that
human strategy is more likely to be effective for socialization while
system strategy is more likely to be effective for combination. Furthermore,
the survey result suggests that managers should adjust knowledge
management strategies in view of the characteristics of their departments.},
owner = {matthias},
timestamp = {2006-07-02}
}
@INBOOK{ChooBontis_2002_KnowledgeIntellectualCapitalAndStrategy,
author = {Chun Wei Choo and Nick Bontis},
title = {Knowledge, Intellectual Capital, And Strategy},
booktitle = {The Strategic Management of Intellectual Capital and Organizational
Knowledge},
publisher = {Oxford University Press US},
editor = {Chun Wei Choo and Nick Bontis},
year = {2002},
workingstatusmatthias = {cited in vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
abstract = {Increasingly, the challenge of management is to create and supply
knowledge in order to sustain organizational performance. However,
few books on management strategy have been written using this concept
as a foundation. This unique volume adopts a knowledge-based approach
that will complement and perhaps supplant other perspectives. Editors
Nick Bontis and Chun Wei Choo look at the literature through the
lens of strategic management and from the vantage point of organizational
science. The thirty readings have been carefully selected and commissioned
to provide the best literature available--from articles newly written
for this book and from existing publications.},
owner = {matthias},
timestamp = {2006-07-11}
}
@ARTICLE{ChouHe_2004_KnowledgeManagement,
author = {Shih-Wei Chou and Mong-Young He},
title = {Knowledge Management: The Distinctive Roles of Knowledge Assets in
Facilitating Knowledge Creation},
journal = {Journal of Information Science},
year = {2004},
volume = {30},
pages = {146-164},
workingstatusmatthias = {summarized for vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
abstract = {A comprehensive and feasible model that delineates the interrelationships
between knowledge assets and knowledge creation processes has not
been explored in the literature. This study aims to fill this void.
Unlike previous research, this study investigates the interrelations
among four categories of knowledge assets and four knowledge creation
processes — socialization, externalization, combination, and internalization
(SECI) [9]. In our framework, we argue that different types of knowledge
assets may have differing influences on knowledge creation. In order
to test the feasibility of this framework, we conducted an empirical
research exercise. This study employed a survey instrument to collect
data from a wide variety of organizations in manufacturing, trade,
transportation and service industries, computer industries, finance,
and academic institutions. A total of 204 usable responses were analysed.
We identified four interrelationships from this study. (1) Compared
to other knowledge assets, conceptual knowledge assets have a greater
effect on externalization of knowledge creation process; (2) compared
to other knowledge assets, routine knowledge assets have a greater
effect on socialization of knowledge creation process; (3) compared
to other knowledge assets, experiential knowledge assets do not have
a greater effect on internalization of the knowledge creation process;
and (4) compared to other knowledge assets, systemic knowledge assets
do not have a greater effect on the combination of knowledge creation
process. The implications of the study are discussed, and further
research directions are proposed.},
owner = {matthias},
pdf = {ChouHe_2004_KnowledgeManagement.pdf},
timestamp = {2006-07-02}
}
@ARTICLE{ChouWang_2003_QuantifyingBa,
author = {Shih-Wei Chou and Su-Ju Wang},
title = {Quantifying 'ba': An Investigation of the Variables that are Pertinent
to Knowledge Creation},
journal = {Journal of Information Science},
year = {2003},
volume = {29},
pages = {167-180},
workingstatusmatthias = {summarized for vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
abstract = {A comprehensive and feasible model that delineates the interrelationships
among diversified learning mechanisms, information management and
knowledge creation is absent. This study aims to fill this void.
Unlike previous research, this study investigates the causality of
knowledge creation from two different perspectives: information management
strategy, i.e. distributed data application and administration (DDAA),
and organizational learning mechanisms (OLM). A term has been defined,
OIM (organizational information mechanism), to represent the composite
effect of both DDAA and OLM. In this framework, it is argued that
the composite effect of information management and organizational
learning mechanisms influence the result of knowledge creation. In
order to test the feasibility of this framework, an empirical study
was conducted. This study employed a survey instrument which contained
data collected from 500 organizations in manufacturing, trade, transportation
and service industries, and academic institutions. In all, 232 usable
responses were analysed. The study identified three causal relationships:
(1) the composite effect of DDAA is positively related to knowledge
creation; (2) the composite effect of OLM is positively related to
knowledge creation; and (3) the composite effect of OIM (organizational
information mechanism) is positively related to knowledge creation.
The implications of the study are discussed, and further research
directions are proposed.},
owner = {matthias},
timestamp = {2006-06-29}
}
@BOOK{Christensen_1997_TheInnovatorsDilemma,
author = {Clayton M. Christensen},
title = {The Innovator's Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms
to Fail},
publisher = {Harvard Business School Press},
year = {1997},
workingstatusmatthias = {read summary in May 2006},
owner = {matthias},
review = {Method
1. Create framework:
- sustaining vs. disruptive technology
- market needs vs. technological supply
- customer and investor influence strategical decisions ->
a) new technologies are simpler and cheaper
b) emerging markets are small
c) profitable customers don't want new technology
- "Hence, most companies with a practiced discipline of listening
to their best customers and identifying new products that promise
greater profitability and growth are rarely able to build a case
for investing in disruptive technologies until it is too late." (p.
xx, Introduction)
2. Test framework
Principles of disruptive innovation
1. resource dependence (customers and investors)
2. problem of small markets for large companies
3. lack of analyzability of new markets
4. organization's disabilities (processes and values)
5. technology supply vs. market demand (but later on change in the
basis of competition)},
timestamp = {2006-05-23}
}
@ARTICLE{ChristensenOverdorf_2000_MeetingTheChallengeOfDisruptiveChange,
author = {Clayton M. Christensen and Michael Overdorf},
title = {Meeting the Challenge of Disruptive Change},
journal = {Harvard Business Review},
year = {2000},
volume = {78},
pages = {66-76},
workingstatusmatthias = {interesting for strategic management to read},
abstract = {Why didn't a single minicomputer company succeed in the personal computer
business? Why did only one department store-Dayton Hudson-become
a leader in discount retailing? Why can't large companies capitalize
on the opportunities brought about by major, disruptive changes in
their markets?
It's because organizations, independent of the people in them, have
capabilities. And those capabilities also define disabilities. As
a company grows, what it can and cannot do becomes more sharply defined
in certain predictable ways. The authors have analyzed those patterns
to create a framework managers can use to assess the abilities and
disabilities of their organization as a whole.
When a company is young, its resources - its people, equipment, technologies,
cash, brands, suppliers, and the like-define what it can and cannot
do. As it becomes more mature, its abilities stem more from its processes
- product development, manufacturing, budgeting, for example. In
the largest companies, values - particularly those that determine
what are its acceptable gross margins and how big an opportunity
has to be before it becomes interesting define what the company can
and cannot do. Because resources are more adaptable to change than
processes or values, smaller companies tend to respond to major market
shifts better than larger ones.
The authors suggest ways large companies can capitalize on opportunities
that normally would not fit in with their processes or values; it
all starts with understanding what the organizations are capable
of.},
owner = {matthias},
pdf = {ChristensenOverdorf_2000_MeetingTheChallengeOfDisruptiveChange.pdf},
timestamp = {2006-06-27}
}
@ARTICLE{CohenLevinthal_1990_AbsorptiveCapacity,
author = {Wesley M. Cohen and Daniel A. Levinthal},
title = {Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation},
journal = {Administrative Science Quarterly},
year = {1990},
volume = {35},
pages = {128-152},
workingstatusmatthias = {cited in research plan},
abstract = {In this paper, we argue that the ability of a firm to recognize the
value of new, external information, assimilate it, and apply it to
commercial ends is critical to its innovative capabilities. We label
this capability a firm's absorptive capacity and suggest that it
is largely a function of the firm's level of prior related knowledge.
The discussion focuses first on the cognitive basis for an individual's
absorptive capacity including, in particular, prior related knowledge
and diversity of background. We then characterize the factors that
influence absorptive capacity at the organizational level, how an
organization's absorptive capacity differs from that of its individual
members, and the role of diversity of expertise within an organization.
We argue that the development of absorptive capacity, and, in turn,
innovative performance are history- or path-dependent and argue how
lack of investment in an area of expertise early on may foreclose
the future development of a technical capability in that area. We
formulate a model of firm investment in research and development
(R&D), in which R&D contributes to a firm's absorptive capacity,
and test predictions relating a firm's investment in R&D to the knowledge
underlying technical change within an industry. Discussion focuses
on the implications of absorptive capacity for the analysis of other
related innovative activities, including basic research, the adoption
and diffusion of innovations, and decisions to participate in cooperative
R&D ventures.},
owner = {matthias},
pdf = {CohenLevinthal_1990_AbsorptiveCapacity.pdf},
timestamp = {2006-05-24}
}
@ARTICLE{CookBrown_1999_BridgingEpistemologies,
author = {S.D.N. Cook and J.S. Brown},
title = {Bridging epistemologies: The generative dance between Organizational
Knowledge and Organizational Learning},
journal = {Organization Science},
year = {1999},
volume = {10},
number = {4},
pages = {381-400},
workingstatusmatthias = {cited in vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
owner = {matthias},
timestamp = {2006-07-11}
}
@ARTICLE{Danneels_2002_TheDynamicsOfProductInnovationAndFirmCompetences,
author = {Erwin Danneels},
title = {The dynamics of product innovation and firm competences},
journal = {Strategic Management Journal},
year = {2002},
volume = {23},
pages = {1095 - 1121},
workingstatusmatthias = {cited in research plan},
abstract = {This study examines how product innovation contributes to the renewal
of the firm through its dynamic and reciprocal relation with the
firm's competences. Field research in five high-tech firms of varying
age, size, and level of diversification is combined with analysis
of existing theory to develop the findings of the study. Based on
the notion that new products are created by linking competences relating
to technologies and customers, a typology is derived that classifies
new product projects based on whether a new product can draw on existing
competences, or whether it requires competences the firm does not
yet have. Following organizational learning theory, these options
are conceptualized as exploitation and exploration. These organizational
learning concepts are used to gain a dynamic and path-dependent view
of product innovation and firm development, and to reveal the unique
nature and challenges of different types of product innovation.},
owner = {matthias},
pdf = {Danneels_2002_TheDynamicsOfProductInnovationAndFirmCompetences.pdf},
timestamp = {2006-05-24}
}
@ARTICLE{DeCarolisDeeds_1999_TheImpactOfStocksAndFlowsOfOrganizationalKnowledgeOnFirmPerformance,
author = {Donna Marie DeCarolis and David L. Deeds},
title = {The impact of stocks and flows of organizational knowledge on firm
performance: an empirical investigation of the biotechnology industry},
journal = {Strategic Management Journal},
year = {1999},
volume = {20},
pages = {953-968},
workingstatusmatthias = {summarized for vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
abstract = {The knowledge-based view of the firm is a recent approach to understanding
the relationship between firm capabilities and firm performance.
Specifically, this approach suggests that knowledge generation, accumulation
and application may be the source of superior performance. Other
research has conceptualized organizational knowledge in terms of
stocks of accumulated knowledge in the firm and flows of knowledge
into the firm. This paper tests the relationship between stocks and
flows of organizational knowledge and firm performance in the biotechnology
industry. We suggest that a firms geographic location, alliances
with other institutions and organizations and R&D expenditures are
representative of knowledge flows, while products in the pipeline,
firm citations and patents are indicative of knowledge stocks. Through
factor analysis, we develop an aggregated measure of location from
several variables. A regression model suggests that location is a
significant predictor of firm performance as are products in the
pipeline and firm citations. A major contribution of this investigation
is the operationalization of geographic location and its statistically
significant link to firm performance.},
owner = {matthias},
pdf = {DeCarolisDeeds_1999_TheImpactOfStocksAndFlowsOfOrganizationalKnowledgeOnFirmPerformance.pdf},
timestamp = {2006-07-02}
}
@ARTICLE{Dodgson_1993_OrganizationalLearning,
author = {Mark Dodgson},
title = {Organizational Learning: A Review of Some Literatures},
journal = {Organization Studies},
year = {1993},
volume = {14},
pages = {375-395},
workingstatusmatthias = {summarized for vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
abstract = {Organizational learning is currently the focus of considerable attention,
and it is addressed by a broad range of literatures. Organization
theory, industrial economics, economic history, and business, management
and innovation studies all approach the question of how organizations
learn. A number of branches of psychology are also revealing on the
issue. This paper assesses these various literatures by examining
the insights they allow in three main areas: first, the goals of
organizational learning; second, the learning processes in organizations;
and third, the ways in which organizational learning may be facilitated
and impeded. It contends that while the various literatures are revealing
in particular aspects of organizational learning, a more complete
understanding of its complexity requires a multi-disciplinary approach.
The contributions of the different approaches are analyzed, and some
areas are suggested where the transfer of analytical concepts may
improve understanding.},
keywords = {BUSINESS cycles; CORPORATE culture; ECONOMIC history; INDUSTRIAL organization
(Economic theory); LITERATURE; ORGANIZATIONAL learning; ORGANIZATIONAL
sociology; STRATEGIC planning},
owner = {matthias},
pdf = {Dodgson_1993_OrganizationalLearning.pdf},
timestamp = {2006-05-31}
}
@INBOOK{Dougherty_1996_OrganizingForInnovation,
author = {Deborah Dougherty},
title = {Organizing for innovation},
booktitle = {Handbook of Organization Studie},
publisher = {Beverly Hills: Sage},
editor = {S. Clegg, C. Hardy, and W. Nord},
year = {1996},
pages = {424-439},
workingstatusmatthias = {summarized for vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
owner = {matthias},
timestamp = {2006-06-29}
}
@BOOK{DreyfusDreyfus_1986_MindOverMachine,
author = {H. Dreyfus and S. Dreyfus},
title = {Mind Over Machine: The Power Of Human Intuition And Expertise In
The Era Of The Computer},
publisher = {New York: Free Press},
year = {1986},
workingstatusmatthias = {cited in vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
owner = {matthias},
timestamp = {2006-07-12}
}
@ARTICLE{DroegeHoobler_2003_EmployeeTurnoverandTacitKnowledgeDiffusion,
author = {Scott B. Droege and Jenny M. Hoobler},
title = {Employee Turnover and Tacit Knowledge Diffusion: A Network Perspective},
journal = {Journal of Managerial Issues},
year = {2003},
volume = {15},
number = {1},
pages = {50-64},
workingstatusmatthias = {summarized for vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
abstract = {Deals with a network perspective on employee turnover and tacit knowledge
diffusion. Theoretical background on tacit knowledge, knowledge-based
view of the firm, and employee turnover literature; Propositions
in the context of a firm's social structure; Methodology and results.},
owner = {matthias},
pdf = {DroegeHoobler_2003_EmployeeTurnoverandTacitKnowledgeDiffusion.pdf},
review = {Contributions
Employee turnover is costly to organizations since various costs are
related to it: employee training, new employee searches, administrative
paperwork, and less quantifiable, tacit knowledge loss
Concepts from social network analysis to describe the network makeup
of organizations and prescribe structural solutions to help ameliorate
losses},
timestamp = {2006-07-02}
}
@BOOK{Dunne_1993_TheRoughGround,
author = {J. Dunne},
title = {The rough ground: "Phronesis" and "Techne" in Modern Philosophy and
in Artistotle},
publisher = {South Bend: University of Notre Dame Press},
year = {1993},
workingstatusmatthias = {cited in vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
owner = {matthias},
timestamp = {2006-07-12}
}
@ARTICLE{DyckStarkeMischkeMauws_2005_LearningToBuildACar,
author = {Bruno Dyck and Frederick A. Starke and Gary A. Mischke and Michael
Mauws},
title = {Learning to Build a Car: An Empirical Investigation of Organizational
Learning},
journal = {Journal of Management Studies},
year = {2005},
volume = {42},
pages = {387-416},
workingstatusmatthias = {summarized for vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
abstract = {This study provides a longitudinal empirical examination of the basic
elements of Nonaka's (1994) dynamic theory of organizational knowledge
creation. First, the data illustrate the notion that knowledge creation
in organizations proceeds through an intertwined four-phase process:
(1) socialization (tacit knowledge amplification); (2) externalization
(tacit knowledge is transformed into explicit knowledge); (3) combination
(explicit knowledge amplification); and (4) internalization (explicit
knowledge is transformed into tacit knowledge). Second, the study
extends Nonaka's theory by comparing the relative amount of intra-organizational
knowledge transfer occurring during periods of product redesign with
the amount of knowledge transfer occurring during steady-state periods.
The questionnaire data suggest that the overall level of knowledge
transfer is higher during periods of product redesign than it is
during the steady state, whereas the interview data indicate that
there were more mentions of knowledge transfer during the steady
state. Third, the data suggest that there may be benefit in adding
tacit error correction as a fifth phase in the learning cycle. This
phase is characterized by a dual emphasis on externalization and
internalization. Implications of these findings are discussed.},
owner = {matthias},
pdf = {DyckStarkeMischkeMauws_2005_LearningToBuildACar.pdf},
timestamp = {2006-06-29}
}
@ARTICLE{Eraut_2000_NonFormalLearningAndTacitKnowledgeInProfessionalWork,
author = {Michael Eraut},
title = {Non-formal learning and tacit knowledge in professional work},
journal = {British Journal of Educational Psychology},
year = {2000},
volume = {70},
pages = {113-136},
workingstatusmatthias = {summarized for vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
abstract = {Background. This paper explores the conceptual and methodological
prob-
lems arising from several empirical investigations of professional
education
and learning in the workplace.
Aims. 1. To clarify the multiple meanings accorded to terms such as
‘non-
formal learning’, ‘implicit learning’ and ‘tacit knowledge’, their
theoretical
assumptions and the range of phenomena to which they refer. 2. To
discuss
their implications for professional practice.
Method. A largely theoretical analysis of issues and phenomena arising
from
empirical investigations.
Analysis.The author’s typology of non-formal learning distinguishes
between
implicit learning, reactive on-the-spot learning and deliberative
learning. The
signi cance of the last is commonly overemphasised. The problematic
nature
of tacit knowledge is discussed with respect to both detectingit and
represent-
ing it. Three types of tacit knowledge are discussed: tacit understanding
of
people and situations, routinised actions and the tacit rules that
underpin
intuitive decision-making. They come together when professional perform-
ance involves sequences of routinised action punctuated by rapid intuitive
decisions based on tacit understanding of the situation. Four types
of process
are involved – reading the situation, making decisions, overt activity
and
metacognition – and three modes of cognition – intuitive, analyticand
deliber-
ative. The balance between these modes depends on time, experience
and
complexity.Where rapid action dominates, periods of deliberation are
needed
to maintain critical control. Finally the role of both formal and
informal social
knowledge is discussed; and it is argued that situated learning often
leads not
to local conformity but to greater individual variation as people’s
careers take
them through a series of different contexts. This abstract necessarilysimplies
a more complex analysis in the paper itself.},
owner = {matthias},
timestamp = {2006-06-29}
}
@BOOK{Flyvbjerg_2001_MakingSocialScienceMatter,
author = {B. Flyvbjerg},
title = {Making Social Science Matter: Why Social Inquiry Fails And How It
Can Succeed Again},
publisher = {Cambridge: Cambridge University Press},
year = {2001},
workingstatusmatthias = {cited in vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
owner = {matthias},
timestamp = {2006-07-12}
}
@ARTICLE{Fowers_2003_ReasonAndHumanFinitute,
author = {Blaine J. Fowers},
title = {Reason And Human Finitute: In Praise Of Practical Wisdom},
journal = {American Behavioral Scientist},
year = {2003},
volume = {47},
number = {4},
pages = {415-426},
workingstatusmatthias = {cited in vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
abstract = {Phronesis, or practical wisdom, is central to virtue ethics because
choosing the best course of action cannot be reduced to an algorithm.
Phronesis is the capacity to make wise decisions regarding which
virtues are called for in particular circumstances and the best way
to enact those virtues. This article highlights three components
of practical wisdom: moral perception, deliberation, and choice.
Admirable actions are characterized by perceiving what is important,
deliberating about how to address the central aspects of our circumstances,
and choosing the most appropriate response. The article is concluded
by discussing the centrality of phronesis in ethical, clinical, and
scientific practice.},
owner = {matthias},
timestamp = {2006-07-12}
}
@BOOK{Gadamer_1975_TruthAndMethod,
author = {H.G. Gadamer},
title = {Truth And Method},
editor = {G. Barden and J. Cumming},
publisher = {New York: Seabury Press},
year = {1975},
workingstatusmatthias = {cited in vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
owner = {matthias},
timestamp = {2006-07-12}
}
@BOOK{Galbraith_1973_DesigningComplexOrganizations,
author = {Jay R. Galbraith},
title = {Designing Complex Organizations},
publisher = {Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co},
year = {1973},
workingstatusmatthias = {summarized for vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
owner = {matthias},
timestamp = {2006-05-30}
}
@BOOK{Gardner_1985_TheMindsNewScience,
author = {H. Gardner},
title = {The Mind's New Science: A History Of The Cognitive Revolution},
publisher = {New York: Basic Books},
year = {1985},
workingstatusmatthias = {cited in vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
owner = {matthias},
timestamp = {2006-07-12}
}
@ARTICLE{GhoshalMoran_1996_BadForPracticeACritiqueOfTransactionCostTheory,
author = {C. Ghoshal and P. Moran},
title = {Bad for practice: A critique of transaction cost theory},
journal = {Academy of Management Review},
year = {1996},
volume = {21},
pages = {13-47},
workingstatusmatthias = {referenced in Grant 1996},
abstract = {Transaction cost economics (TCE), and more specifically the version
of TCE that hers been developed by Oliver Williamson (1975, 1985,
1993b), has become an increasingly important anchor for the analysis
of a wide range of strategic and organizational issues of considerable
importance to firms. As argued by some of its key proponents. the
theory aims not only to explain but also to influence practice (Masten,
1993). In this article. we argue that prescriptions drawn from this
theory are likely to be not only wrong but also dangerous for corporate
managers because of the assumptions and logic on which it is grounded.
Organizations are not mere substitutes for structuring efficient
transactions when markets fail: they possess unique advantages for
governing certain kinds of economic activities through a logic that
is very different from that of a market. TCE is ''bad for practice''
because it fails to recognize this difference. We identify some of
the sources of the ''organizational advantage'' and argue for the
need to build a very different theory. more attuned to the realities
of what Simon (1991) has called our ''organizational economy.''},
comment = {referenced in Grant_1996_TowardAKnowledgeBasedTheoryOfTheFirm concerning
existence of the firm and the unique advantages of firms compared
to the logic of the market},
keywords = {ECONOMIC-ORGANIZATION; INTRINSIC MOTIVATION; VERTICAL INTEGRATION;
INCENTIVE CONTRACTS; JOINT-VENTURES; UNITED-STATES; ATTITUDES; STRATEGIES;
GOVERNANCE; BEHAVIOR},
owner = {matthias},
pdf = {GhoshalMoran_1996_BadForPracticeACritiqueOfTransactionCostTheory.pdf},
timestamp = {2006-03-20}
}
@ARTICLE{GirouxTaylor_2002_TheJustificationOfKnowledge,
author = {Helene Giroux and James R. Taylor},
title = {The Justification of Knowledge: Tracking the Translations of Quality},
journal = {Management Learning},
year = {2002},
volume = {33},
pages = {497-517},
workingstatusmatthias = {summarized for vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
abstract = {Current theories of organizational learning that emphasize knowledge
creation and transformation assume, but fail to problematize, the
justification of belief in new knowledge, although they admit it
is an essential enabling condition for the dissemination and integration
of innovative ideas and practices into organizational practice. The
present article aims to correct this imbalance by (1) developing
a theoretical framework for the study of organizational justification
of belief, and (2) reporting on an empirical study of the processes
by which quality management progressively became accepted as a solution
to the economic problems encountered by enterprise during the decade
of the 1980s. Grounded in a constructivist view of knowledge, we
demonstrate that what Nonaka and Takeuchi refer to as a managerial
intention is in fact the product of a process of learning, involving
the play of both external and internal influences, channeled through
the continuing association and disassociation of interests that reflect
the communities of practice and discourse that are typical of every
complex organization. Justification of belief is thus both a social
and a rhetorical accomplishment, whose outcome is a priori unpredictable.},
owner = {matthias},
timestamp = {2006-06-30}
}
@BOOK{Goldman_1986_EpistemologyAndCognition,
author = {AI Goldman},
title = {Epistemology and Cognition},
publisher = {Harvard University Press Cambridge, Mass},
year = {1986},
workingstatusmatthias = {cited in vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
owner = {matthias},
timestamp = {2006-05-31}
}
@ARTICLE{GoodallRoberts_2003_RepairingManagerialKnowledgeAbilityOverDistance,
author = {K Goodall and J Roberts},
title = {Repairing managerial knowledge-ability over distance},
journal = {Organization Studies},
year = {2003},
volume = {24},
pages = {1153-1175},
workingstatusmatthias = {summarized for vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
abstract = {Despite a growing acknowledgement in the literature of the 'socially
embedded' character of organizational knowledge, in this article
we argue that conceptualizations of knowledge management have remained
aloof from the agency that they seek to inform, particularly in relation
to managing within physically dispersed organizations. We seek, therefore,
to explore the essential link between knowledge and action ('knowledge-ability')
through an empirical investigation of the organizational conditions
and managerial labour needed to preserve knowledge-ability within
a transnational. In order to achieve this, we compare the experiences
and practices of three managers located in China, Columbia and Australia
as they seek both to communicate knowledge of their local context
to the remote centre in order to influence policy and gather knowledge
of what is happening remotely in order to coordinate their local
action with shifts in corporate thinking. A model of the resources
needed in order to limit and repair the damage of distance is generated
using this qualitative data. We argue that the labour of repairing
knowledge-ability should be understood as an essential aspect of
the workings of power relations within the transnational, and involves
an intensification of self-disciplinary practices within network
forms of organizing.},
owner = {matthias},
timestamp = {2006-06-30}
}
@ARTICLE{GottschalkKhandelwal_2002_InterOrganizationalKnowledgeManagement,
author = {Petter Gottschalk and Vijay K. Khandelwal},
title = {Inter-organizational knowledge management: A comparison of law firms
in Norway and Australia},
journal = {Journal of Computer Information Systems, Special Issue},
year = {2002},
volume = {42},
pages = {50-58},
workingstatusmatthias = {summarized for vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
abstract = {Law firms represent an industry that seems very well suited to knowledge
management investigation. Law firms are knowledge intensive, and
the use of advanced technology may well transform these organizations
in the future. This paper reports results from a survey of Norwegian
law firms on the use of information technology to support inter-organizational
knowledge management. Two predictors of IT support were significant:
firm cooperation and knowledge cooperation. Interorganizational trust
was not a significant predictor. An identical survey was conducted
in Australia where knowledge cooperation turned out to be the only
significant predictor of IT support. Both in Norway and Australia,
mainly software and systems such as word processing, electronic mail
and legal databases were used. Australian law firms seem to use IT
to a larger extent than Norwegian law firms, especially electronic
mail, presentations, other law firms' web pages on the Internet,
library system, law firm's own Intranet, document systems, and other
law firms' web pages on extranets.},
owner = {matthias},
pdf = {GottschalkKhandelwal_2002_InterOrganizationalKnowledgeManagement.pdf},
timestamp = {2006-07-02}
}
@ARTICLE{GrandVonKroghLeonardSwap_2004_ResourceAllocationBeyondFirmBoundaries,
author = {Simon Grand and Georg von Krogh, Dorothy Leonard and Walter Swap},
title = {Resource Allocation Beyond Firm Boundaries: A Multi-Level Model for
Open Source Innovation},
journal = {Long Range Planning},
year = {2004},
volume = {37},
pages = {591-610},
workingstatusmatthias = {referenced by von Hippel and von Krogh 2006},
abstract = {Successful technological innovation depends upon marshalling sufficient
knowledge
resources to support continuous discovery, knowledge creation and
technical de-
velopment. Current perspectives emphasize innovation occurring either
within firm
boundaries or in the public arena. Open Source [OS] software development
represents
a third mode, where privately funded efforts contribute to the creation
of a public good,
which may presage future models of innovation. The authors develop
a four-level
management model of increasing private resource allocation based on
a detailed
discussion of how and why software and IT firms engage in OS development
where,
paradoxically, increased ‘public’ investment can lead to greater ‘private’
benefits. But each
level implies greater outlay of private resources and increased dependency
upon publicly
available knowledge assets, so managers will need to select their
firm’s appropriate level of
engagement carefully. Successful development of such knowledge entails
understanding
the nature of OS innovation and the distinction between freely available
explicit
knowledge and firms’ privately retained tacit knowledge, participating
in the dynamic
cumulative process of gift exchange inherent in acceptance as a relevant
player in an OS
community, and optimising firm-specific engagement over the four levels
of investment
and involvement to establish the conditions for knowledge creation
and appropriation.},
comment = {referenced by vonHippelvonKrogh_2006_ThePromiseOfResearchOnOpenSourceSoftware
concerning "They developed a framework of increasing resource allocation
to open source software development, and showed that, paradoxically,
increased "public" investment can lead to great "private" benefits
for the open source-oriented firms."},
owner = {matthias},
pdf = {GrandVonKroghLeonardSwap_2004_ResourceAllocationBeyondFirmBoundaries.pdf},
timestamp = {2006-04-04}
}
@INBOOK{Grant_2001_KnowledgeAndOrganization,
author = {Robert M. Grant},
title = {Knowledge And Organization},
booktitle = {Managing Industrial Knowledge: Creation, transfer, and utilization},
publisher = {London: Sage},
editor = {I. Nonaka and D. Teece},
year = {2001},
pages = {145-169},
workingstatusmatthias = {cited in vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
owner = {matthias},
timestamp = {2006-07-11}
}
@ARTICLE{Grant_1996_TowardAKnowledgeBasedTheoryOfTheFirm,
author = {Robert M. Grant},
title = {Toward a Knowledge-based Theory of the Firm},
journal = {Strategic Management Journal, Special Issue: Knowledge and the Firm},
year = {1996},
volume = {17},
pages = {109-122},
workingstatusmatthias = {cited in research plan; finished reading 2006-03-20 (Magglingen)},
abstract = {Given assumptions about the characteristics of knowledge and the knowledge
requirements of production, the firm is conceptualized as an institution
for integrating knowledge. The primary contribution of the paper
is in exploring the coordination mechanisms through which firms integrate
the specialist knowledge of their members. In contrast to earlier
literature, knowledge is viewed as residing within the individual,
and the primary role of the organization is knowledge application
rather than knowledge creation. The resulting theory has implications
for the basis of organizational capability, the principles of organization
design (in particular the analysis of hierarchy and the distribution
of decision-making authority), and the determinants of the horizontal
and vertical boundaries of the firm. More generally, the knowledge-based
approach sheds new light upon current organizational innovations
and trends and has far-reaching implications for management practice.},
keywords = {knowledge; theory of the firm; coordination; INNOVATION; ROUTINES;
COSTS},
owner = {matthias},
pdf = {Grant_1996_TowardAKnowledgeBasedTheoryOfTheFirm.pdf},
review = {Introduction
- Economic vs. organizational vs. strategic management theory of the
firm
- There exist different theories of the firm (differential risk preferences,
transaction cost theory, behavioral theory of the firm, evolutionary
theory of the firm, resource based view, knowledge based view)
- Knowledge based view: related to the resource based view
Issues of the knowledge based view
- Strategic management: strategic choice and competitive advantage
- Nature of coordination within the firm
- Organizational structure
- The role of management, the allocation of decision-making rights
- Determinants of firm boundaries
- Theory of innovation
"What is knowledge?"
Characteristics of knowledge with critical implications for management:
1. Transferability -> Explicit knowledge vs. tacit knowledge
2. Capacity for aggregation -> Knowledge transfer: absorptive capacity
of the recipient ->important for location of the decision-making
authority within the firm
3. Appropriability -> Knowledge is generally inappropriable by means
of market transactions; All tacit knowledge is stored within individuals
4. Specialization in knowledge acquisition -> Bounded rationality;
Individuals specialize in particular areas of knowledge
5. Knowledge requirements of production -> Critical input in production
and primary source of value is knowledge
The existence of the firm
- Reason why firms exist: Create conditions under which multiple indiduals
can integrate their specialist knowhow
- Two approaches of Grant: 1. Knowledge creation is an individual
activits, not an organizational one; 2. Firms apply knowledge, don't
produce it (vs. Spender 1992)
- Organizations learn in two ways: 1. by learning of its members;
2. by ingesting new members who posses new knowledge to the organization
- "Firms exist because they are able to avoid the costs associated
with market transactions." #QUOTE#
Coordination within the firm
- "Without benefits from specialization there is no need for organizations
comprising multiple individuals." #QUOTE#
- Efficient production is archieved when knowledge is integrated without
the transfer of knowledge: "If Grant and Spender wish to write a
joint paper together, efficiency is maximized not by Grant learning
everything that Spender knows (and vice versa), but by establishing
a mode of interaction such that Grant's knowledge of economics is
integrated with Spender's knowledge of philosophy, psychology and
technology, while minimizing the time spent transferring knowledge
between them." #QUOTE#
- Four modes of coordination depending on the type of interdependence
(rules, plans, mutual adjustment, group coordination)
- Four mechanisms for integrating specialized knowledge:
1. Rules and directives -> become explicit knowledge
2. Sequencing of production steps -> adding step by step specialist
knowhow
3. Routines -> no written procedures and rules, but complex patterns
of interaction are accomplished, high level of simultaneity and varied
sequences of interaction are possible -> tacit knowledge
4. Group problem solving and decision making -> used for personal
and communication-intensive forms of integration
- Efficiency in knowledge integration (=knowledge application) is
accomplished through minimization of communication and learning
- Conclusions: Maximize rules for standardized problems, apply group
problem solving for special tasks
The role of common knowledge
- Definition: the intersection of the individual knowledge sets of
each member of the firm
- Similar to redundancy: redundantly available knowledge loosely couples
individuals with each other and provides a self-control mechanism
- Different types of common knowledge:
1. Language -> for integration through rules and directives and group
problem solving and decision making
2. Other forms of symbolic communication -> letters, numbers, familiarity
with the same computer software
3. Commonality of specialized knowledge -> difficulty: some, but
not all specialized knowledge must be shared. #PARADOX#
4. Shared meaning -> conversion of tacit into explicit knowledge
(that is always a loss) with vehicles like metaphors and stories
5. Recognition of individual knowledge -> "... effective knowledge
integration also requires that each individual is aware of everyone
else's knowledge repetoire." #QUOTE#
Organizational capability
- Linkage between organizational capability and competitive advantage
- Efficiency of knowledge integration increases the higher the level
of common knowledge -> job rotation
- Trade-off between common knowledge and specialist skills #DILEMMA#
- Competitive advantage through inimitability of capabilites
Organizational structure: Implications for hierarchy
- Two dimensions of organizational problem: coordination and cooperation
-> solved both by hierarchy
- Limitations of hierarchy because tacit knowledge can only be exercised
by those who possess it and cannot be transferred upwards to managers
- Knowledge intergration in hierarchy is only possible by one integration
mechanism: rules and directives -> vehicles for exercise of authority
- Different role of rules and directives in knowledge-based firms:
source is specialist expertise which is distributed throughout the
organization
- Difficulty: "higher-level decisions" are dependent upon immobile
"lower-level knowledge" -> hierarchy lowers the quality of higher-level
decisions
- "If production requires many types of knowledge, if that knowledge
is resident in many individuals, and if integration mechanisms can
involve only relatively small numbers of individuals - what organizational
structures are possible?" #DILEMMA#
- Responses are
1. Team-based structures -> critical knowledge is located among specialists
so Total Quality Management accesses knowledge located at low organizational
levels
2. Cross-functional coordination -> knowledge integration requires
the direct participation of specialists, away from sequential processes,
towards high-level cross-functional integration, fluid membership
and multiple memberships in teams
Organizational structure: Distribution of decision-making authority
in the firm
- Traditional view of decision-making: management by delegation ->
agency theory
- Two issues of the knowledge-based view:
1. Ownership of knowledge vs. decision rights -> firm has only partial
access to employee knowledge assets
2. Co-location of decision making -> decentralization when tacit
knowledge is involved, centralization when statistical/quantifyable
knowledge is used (e.g. financial risk management)
- "The quality of decisions depends upon their being based upon relecant
knowledge." #QUOTE#
Boundaries of the firm
- Vertical boundaries: integration when production stages are dependent,
seperate firms when stages are independent
- Horizontal boundaries: Single-product firms because of specialization
benefits, multi-product because of economies of scope #PARADOX# ->
Answer: congruence of knowledge and product domain, creation of input-output
matrix with knowledge inputs and product outputs
Conclusion
- Knowledge-based view challenges theoretical foundations of shareholder
value approach -> primary source of the firm is knowledge, knowledge
is owned by individuals and only those can exercise it
- Knowledge transfer and its coordination is, next to the incompatibility
of individual goals, a major challenge in the organization problem.},
timestamp = {2006-03-20}
}
@ARTICLE{GuptaGovindarajan_2000_KnowledgeManagementsSocialDimension,
author = {Anil K. Gupta and Vijay Govindarajan},
title = {Knowledge management's social dimension: Lessons from Nucor Steel},
journal = {Sloan Management Review},
year = {2000},
volume = {42},
pages = {71},
workingstatusmatthias = {summarized for vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
abstract = {To sustain competitive advantage, a company must give people incentives
to transfer their knowledge. A look at the innovative steel company
Nucor and others suggests how to build a knowledge-sharing environment.},
owner = {matthias},
pdf = {GuptaGovindarajan_2000_KnowledgeManagementsSocialDimension.pdf},
timestamp = {2006-07-05}
}
@BOOK{Habermas_1991_OnTheLogicOfTheSocialSciences,
author = {J. Habermas},
title = {On The Logic Of The Social Sciences},
publisher = {Cambridge, MA: MIT Press},
year = {1991},
workingstatusmatthias = {cited in vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
owner = {matthias},
timestamp = {2006-07-12}
}
@ARTICLE{Halverson_2004_AccessingDocumentingAndCommunicatingPracticalWisdom,
author = {R. Halverson},
title = {Accessing, Documenting, And Communicating Practical Wisdom: The Phronesis
Of School Leadership Practice},
journal = {American Journal of Education},
year = {2004},
volume = {111},
pages = {90-121},
workingstatusmatthias = {cited in vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
owner = {matthias},
timestamp = {2006-07-12}
}
@PHDTHESIS{Halverson_2002_RepresentingPhronesis,
author = {R. Halverson},
title = {Representing Phronesis: Supporting Instructional Leadership Practice
In Schools},
school = {Northwestern University},
year = {2002},
workingstatusmatthias = {cited in vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
owner = {matthias},
timestamp = {2006-07-12}
}
@ARTICLE{Hedlund_1994_AModelOfKnowledgeManagementAndTheNFormCorporation,
author = {Gunnar Hedlund},
title = {A Model of Knowledge Management and the N-Form Corporation},
journal = {Strategic Management Journal, Special Issue: Strategy: Search for
New Paradigms},
year = {1994},
volume = {15},
pages = {73-90},
workingstatusmatthias = {summarized for vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
abstract = {A model of knowledge management is developed. It builds on the interplay
between articulated and tacit knowledge at four different levels:
the individual, the small group, the organization, and the interorganizational
domain. The model is applied on differences between Western and Japanese
patterns of knowledge management. These are related to organizational
characteristics, such as employment systems, career patterns, and
organization structure. Effective knowledge management is argued
to require departures from the logic of hierarchical organization
and the M-form structure. The alternative N-form is characterized
and suggested as more appropriate. It entails combination of knowledge
rather than its division, which is the basic principle in the M-form.
Other attributes of the N-form are: temporary constellations of people,
the importance of personnel at 'lower levels', lateral communication,
a catalytic and architectural role for top management, strategies
aimed at focusing and economies of depth, and heterarchical structures.},
owner = {matthias},
pdf = {Hedlund_1994_AModelOfKnowledgeManagementAndTheNFormCorporation.pdf},
review = {Contributions
- An adapted model of knowledge categories and transformation processes
illustrating different types of knowledge
- Comparison of the M-form (multidivisional) versus the N-form (novelty)
corporation
- Virtues and limitations of the N-form organizational model for effective
knowledge management},
timestamp = {2006-05-31}
}
@ARTICLE{Hedlund_1986_TheHypermodernMNC,
author = {Gunnar Hedlund},
title = {The hypermodern MNC - A heterarchy?},
journal = {Human Resources Management},
year = {1986},
volume = {25},
number = {1},
pages = {9-36},
workingstatusmatthias = {cited in vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
owner = {matthias},
pdf = {Hedlund_1986_TheHypermodernMNC.pdf},
timestamp = {2006-07-11}
}
@INBOOK{HedlundNonaka_1993_ModelsOfKnowledgeManagementInTheWestAndJapan,
author = {Gunnar Hedlund and Ikujiro Nonaka},
title = {Models of Knowledge Management in the West and Japan},
booktitle = {Implementing Strategic Processes: Change, learning, and co-operation},
publisher = {Oxford: Blackwell},
editor = {P. Lorange and B. Chakravarthy and J. Roos and Van de Ven, A.},
year = {1993},
workingstatusmatthias = {summarized for vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
abstract = {Hedlund and Nonaka present a framework for discussing knowledge management
that extends the work of Galbraith, Arrow, Simon, and others in the
field of management and organizational theory. They point out that
creating and exploiting knowledge within an organization revolves
around the interaction of tacit and explicit knowledge and the "transfer
and transformation of knowledge between individuals, organizational
units, and the surrounding environment." They provide a conceptual
framework that looks at different aspects of knowledge management
and demonstrate its use in a model that contrasts U.S. and Japanese
practices of managing knowledge. Hedlund and Nonaka argue that the
characteristics of knowledge management have serious implications
for the types of activities (including innovations and strategies)
in which a firm or organization is likely to succeed. They reinforce
the important idea that not only the success but also the very survival
of organizations will depend, in large part, on how well they create,
transfer, and exploit their knowledge resources.},
owner = {matthias},
timestamp = {2006-07-03}
}
@ARTICLE{HildrethKimble_2002_TheDualityOfKnowledge,
author = {Paul M. Hildreth and Chris Kimble},
title = {The Duality Of Knowledge},
journal = {Information Research, Vol. 8 No. 1, October},
year = {2002},
volume = {8},
number = {1},
workingstatusmatthias = {cited in vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
abstract = {Knowledge Management (KM) is a field that has attracted much attention
both in academic and practitioner circles. Most KM projects appear
to be primarily concerned with knowledge that can be quantified and
can be captured, codified and stored-an approach more deserving of
the label Information Management.
Recently there has been recognition that some knowledge cannot be
quantified and cannot be captured, codified or stored. However, the
predominant approach to the management of this knowledge remains
to try to convert it to a form that can be handled using the 'traditional'
approach.
In this paper, we argue that this approach is flawed and some knowledge
simply cannot be captured. A method is needed which recognises that
knowledge resides in people: not in machines or documents. We will
argue that KM is essentially about people and the earlier technology
driven approaches, which failed to consider this, were bound to be
limited in their success. One possible way forward is offered by
Communities of Practice, which provide an environment for people
to develop knowledge through interaction with others in an environment
where knowledge is created nurtured and sustained.},
owner = {matthias},
pdf = {HildrethKimble_2002_TheDualityOfKnowledge.pdf},
timestamp = {2006-07-12}
}
@BOOK{vonHippel_2005_DemocratizingInnovation,
author = {Eric von Hippel},
title = {Democratizing Innovation},
publisher = {MIT Press},
year = {2005},
workingstatusmatthias = {started reading 2006-06-15},
owner = {matthias},
pdf = {vonHippel_2005_DemocratizingInnovation.pdf},
review = {CITATIONS
"Nonetheless, it ins now very clear that individual users and user
firms - and sometimes manufacturers - often freely revel detailed
information about their innovation." (p. 9)
Examples of free knowledge in other industries and research projects:
"However, free revealing of product innovations has a history that
began
long before the advent of open source software. Allen, in his 1983
study of
the eighteenth-century iron industry, was probably the first to consider
the
phenomon systematically. Later, Nuvolari (2004) discussed free revealing
in
the early history of mine pumping engines. Contemporary free revealing
by
users has been documented by von Hippel and Finkelstein (1979) for
med-
ical equipment, by Lim (2000) for semiconductor process equipment,
by
Morrison, Roberts, and von Hippel (2000) for library information systems,
and by Franke and Shah (2003) for sporting equipment. Henkel (2003)
has
documented free revealing among manufacturers in the case of embedded
Linux software." (p. 10)
Why do firms open up knowledge?
"Innovators often freely reveal because it is often the best or the
only prac-
tical option available to them. Hiding an innovation as a trade secret
is
unlikely to be successful for long: too many generally know similar
things,
and some holders of the “secret” information stand to lose little
or nothing
by freely revealing what they know. Studies find that innovators in
many
fields view patents as having only limited value. Copyright protection
and
copyright licensing are applicable only to “writings,” such as books,
graphic
images, and computer software.
Active efforts by innovators to freely reveal—as opposed to sullen
accept-
ance—are explicable because free revealing can provide innovators
with sig-
nificant private benefits as well as losses or risks of loss. Users
who freely
reveal what they have done often find that others then improve or
suggest
improvements to the innovation, to mutual benefit (Raymond 1999).
Freely
revealing users also may benefit from enhancement of reputation, from
positive network effects due to increased diffusion of their innovation,
and
from other factors. Being the first to freely reveal a particular
innovation
can also enhance the benefits received, and so there can actually
be a rush
to reveal, much as scientists rush to publish in order to gain the
benefits
associated with being the first to have made a particular advancement."
(p. 10)
Definition of a public good: "freely revealed innovation" -> which
is produced in a collective action (p. 11)
Public policy making:
"They found that, relative to a world in which only manu-
facturers innovate, social welfare is very probably increased by the
presence
of innovations freely revealed by users. This finding implies that
policy
making should support user innovation, or at least should ensure that
leg-
islation and regulations do not favor manufacturers at the expense
of user-
innovators."},
timestamp = {2006-06-15}
}
@ARTICLE{vonHippelvonKrogh_2006_FreeRevealingAndThePrivateCollectiveModelForInnovationIncentives,
author = {Eric von Hippel and Georg von Krogh},
title = {Free revealing and the private-collective model for innovation incentives},
journal = {R\&D Management},
year = {2006},
volume = {36},
number = {3},
pages = {295-306},
workingstatusmatthias = {started reading 2006-06-15},
abstract = {A central tenant of open innovation is free revealing of the detailed
workings of novel products and services, so that others may use them,
learn from them, and perhaps improve them as well. We explain that
innovators frequently do freely reveal proprietary information and
knowledge regarding both information-based products and physical
products they have developed. We explain why free revealing can make
good economic sense for innovators and for society as well. The article
develops the case for free revealing in terms of a private collective
model of innovation incentives.},
owner = {matthias},
pdf = {vonHippelvonKrogh_2006_FreeRevealingAndThePrivateCollectiveModelForInnovationIncentives.pdf},
timestamp = {2006-07-10}
}
@ARTICLE{vonHippelVonKrogh_2003_OpenSourceSoftwareAndThePrivateCollectiveInnovationModelIssuesForOrganizationScience,
author = {Eric von Hippel and Georg von Krogh},
title = {Open Source Software and the" Private-Collective" Innovation Model:
Issues for Organization Science},
journal = {Organization Science},
year = {2003},
volume = {14},
pages = {209-223},
workingstatusmatthias = {finished reading},
comment = {read for licenciate about Open Source Community Building},
owner = {matthias},
pdf = {vonHippelVonKrogh_2003_OpenSourceSoftwareAndThePrivateCollectiveInnovationModelIssuesForOrganizationScience.pdf},
timestamp = {2006-04-03}
}
@ARTICLE{Hislop_2002_MissionImpossible,
author = {Donald Hislop},
title = {Mission impossible? Communicating and sharing knowledge via information
technology},
journal = {Journal of Information Technology},
year = {2002},
volume = {17},
number = {3},
pages = {165-177},
workingstatusmatthias = {cited in vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
abstract = {This paper critiques the perspective that information technology can
play a central role in knowledge-sharing processes. Fundamentally,
it suggests that the nature of knowledge itself makes it extremely
difficult and that quite specific conditions are required for information
technology-based knowledge sharing to occur successfully. The paper
proceeds by criticizing the objectivist philosophy of knowledge,
which typically underpins the literature advocating information technology-based
knowledge management. The centre point of this critique involves
questioning one of the foundational assumptions of the objectivist
perspective, namely the dichotomy made between tacit and explicit
knowledge. Instead, a 'practice'-based philosophy of knowledge is
proposed that suggests that all knowledge has both tacit and explicit
components, is to some extent embodied in human brains and bodies
and is embedded in organizational routines, practices and contexts.
These characteristics therefore suggest that the role of information
technology systems in the sharing of knowledge is likely to be somewhat
limited.},
owner = {matthias},
timestamp = {2006-07-11}
}
@ARTICLE{HoeglSchulze_2005_HowToSupportKnowledgeCreationInNewProductDevelopment,
author = {Martin Hoegl and Anja Schulze},
title = {How to support knowledge creation in new product development: An
investigation of knowledge management methods},
journal = {European Management Journal},
year = {2005},
volume = {23},
pages = {263-273},
workingstatusmatthias = {summarized for vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
abstract = {Knowledge management methods need to be selected depending on the
purpose for which knowledge is ‘being managed’. In this article,
purpose is considered in terms of encouraging knowledge creation
in new product development (NPD) projects. Given that companies have
started to deploy a number of knowledge management methods in support
of NPD efforts, the central aim of this research is to investigate
how ten such methods support knowledge creation during the development
of new products. We provide evidence from a survey of 356 responses
of members of 94 NPD projects on the utilization of (and satisfaction
with) 14 knowledge management methods. The 10 highest rated knowledge
management methods (in terms of satisfaction) are discussed in more
detail, explaining how they operate to support knowledge creation
in NPD projects, and illustrated with examples from companies such
as ABB, Siemens, BP Amoco, Volkswagen, IBM, HP, and others. Moreover,
we highlight ways to evaluate the contribution of such knowledge
management methods.},
owner = {matthias},
pdf = {HoeglSchulze_2005_HowToSupportKnowledgeCreationInNewProductDevelopment.pdf},
timestamp = {2006-06-29}
}
@ARTICLE{Howells_1996_TacitKnowledgeInnovationAndTechnologyTransfer,
author = {Jeremy Howells},
title = {Tacit Knowledge, Innovation and Technology Transfer},
journal = {Technology Analysis \& Strategic Management},
year = {1996},
volume = {8},
pages = {91-106},
workingstatusmatthias = {summarized for vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
abstract = {Until recently, the concept of tacit knowledge has been neglected
by academics and managers alike, but this has now changed as tacit
know-how has become recognized as playing a key role in firm growth
and economic competitiveness. Tacit knowledge forms an important
element in a firm's knowledge base and has a central role in organization
learning. This paper analyzes what is meant by tacit knowledge and
outlines its main parameters and traits. The analysis stresses the
need to view tacit knowledge in a dynamic setting, and that tacit
knowledge can be acquired and transferred on a variety of levels:
individual group, firm and inter-firm basis. The paper then explores
the policy implications of technology transfer initiatives which
seek to shift tacit know-how between firms and analyzes the ways
that this can be achieved.},
owner = {matthias},
pdf = {Howells_1996_TacitKnowledgeInnovationAndTechnologyTransfer.pdf},
review = {"There are some elements of tacit knowledge that are highly proprietary
and core to a firm's strategic competence that would make sharing,
particularly in a horizontal network, highly unlikely."
citing J.S. Metcalfe, & M. Boden "Evolutionary Epistemology and the
Nature of Technology Strategy" in: R. Coombs, P. Saviotti & V. Walsh
(Eds), Technological Change and Firm Strategies: Economic and Sociological
Perspectives (London, Academic Press, 1992), p. 58
Contributions
- Attributes and general framework of tacit knowledge and its acquisition
and transfer
- Differentiation of four organizational levels at which tacit know-how
flows can occur and in what distinct forms
- Accumulating tacit knowledge to build up "competitive stock of knowledge"},
timestamp = {2006-06-01}
}
@ARTICLE{JanzPrasarnphanich_2003_UnderstandingTheAntecedentsOfEffectiveKnowledgeManagement,
author = {Brian D. Janz and Pattarawan Prasarnphanich},
title = {Understanding the Antecedents of Effective Knowledge Management:
The Importance of a Knowledge-Centered Culture},
journal = {Decision Sciences},
year = {2003},
volume = {34},
pages = {351 -384},
workingstatusmatthias = {summarized for vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
abstract = {Within the context of knowledge management, little research has been
conducted that identifies the antecedents of a knowledge-centered
culture—those organizational qualities that encourage knowledge creation
and dissemination. In this study, the existing literature on organizational
climate, job characteristics, and organizational learning (in the
form of cooperative learning theory) are linked with the current
thinking and research findings related to knowledge management to
develop a theoretical model explaining the relationships among organizational
climate, the level of cooperative learning that takes place between
knowledge workers, and the resulting level of knowledge created and
disseminated as measured by team performance and individual satisfaction
levels. The study goes on to empirically test the proposed research
model by investigating the climate of organizations, and seeks to
understand the linkage between a set of organizational and individual
characteristics and knowledge-related activities found in cooperative
learning groups and the resulting work outcomes. The hypothesized
research model is tested using LISREL with data collected from 203
information systems (IS) professionals engaged in systems development
activities. The paper concludes with a discussion of the implications
the results have for future research and managerial practice.},
owner = {matthias},
pdf = {JanzPrasarnphanich_2003_UnderstandingTheAntecedentsOfEffectiveKnowledgeManagement.pdf},
timestamp = {2006-06-29}
}
@ARTICLE{JensenMeckling_1976_TheoryOfTheFirmManagerialBehaviorAgencyCostsAndOwnershipStructure,
author = {Michael C. Jensen and William H. Meckling},
title = {Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership
structure},
journal = {Journal of Financial Economics},
year = {1976},
volume = {3},
pages = {305-360},
workingstatusmatthias = {referenced by Grant 1996},
abstract = {This paper integrates elements from the theory of agency, the theory
of property rights and the theory of finance to develop a theory
of the ownership structure of the firm. We define the concept of
agency costs, show its relationship to the ‘separation and control’
issue, investigate the nature of the agency costs generated by the
existence of debt and outside equity, demonstrate who bears these
costs and why, and investigate the Pareto optimality of their existence.
We also provide a new definition of the firm, and show how our analysis
of the factors influencing the creation and issuance of debt and
equity claims is a special case of the supply side of the completeness
of markets problem.
"The directors of such [joint-stock] companies, however, being the
managers rather of other people's money than of their own, it cannot
well be expected, that they should watch over it with the same anxious
vigilance with which the partners in a private copartnery frequently
watch over their own. Like the stewards of a rich man, they are apt
to consider attention to small matters as not for their master's
honour, and very easily give themselves a dispensation from having
it. Negligence and profusion, therefore, must always prevail, more
or less, in the management of the affairs of such a company."
Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, 1776, Cannan Edition
(Modern Library, New York, 1937) p. 700.},
comment = {referenced by Grant_1996_TowardAKnowledgeBasedTheoryOfTheFirm concerning
Agency Theory},
owner = {matthias},
pdf = {JensenMeckling_1976_TheoryOfTheFirmManagerialBehaviorAgencyCostsAndOwnershipStructure.pdf},
timestamp = {2006-03-20}
}
@ARTICLE{JohnsonJohnston_2004_OrganisationalKnowledgeCreatingProcesses,
author = {William H.A. Johnson and David A. Johnston},
title = {Organisational knowledge creating processes and the performance of
university-industry collaborative R\&D projects},
journal = {International Journal of Technology Management},
year = {2004},
volume = {27},
pages = {93-114},
workingstatusmatthias = {summarized for vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
abstract = {This paper describes one of the first empirical explorations into
organisational knowledge creation theory as first elucidated by Nonaka
and Takeuchi [1]. We extend the theory and examine it in the inter-organisational
context of University-Industry (U-I) collaborative R&D Projects.
More specifically, the relationship between enabling conditions and
knowledge conversion processes as well as the effects of these processes
on the achievement of technological objectives are studied using
a sample of 25 U-I collaborative R&D projects into advanced technology.
Quantitative and qualitative evidence supports the theory that some
enabling conditions are significant for knowledge conversion processes.
Furthermore, the presence of the aggregate knowledge processes is
positively associated with the achievement of Successful technological
objectives. The theoretical and practical implications of these findings
are discussed.},
owner = {matthias},
timestamp = {2006-07-03}
}
@ARTICLE{Kilduff_1993_DeconstructingOrganizations,
author = {Martin Kilduff},
title = {Deconstructing Organizations},
journal = {The Academy of Management Review},
year = {1993},
volume = {18},
pages = {13-31},
workingstatusmatthias = {summarized for vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
abstract = {This reading of March and Simon's (1958) Organizations illustrates
the deconstructive approach to foundational texts. The article deconstructs
the positivist agenda formulated in Organizations to show that the
text (a) replicates the moves of predecessors it condemns and (b)
asserts an ideology of programming that justifies the inevitability
of fractionated work. Deconstruction is used not to prevent science,
but to open debate to complexities and issues that have been ignored
or suppressed.},
owner = {matthias},
pdf = {Kilduff_1993_DeconstructingOrganizations.pdf},
timestamp = {2006-05-31}
}
@ARTICLE{KogutZander_1992_KnowledgeOfTheFirmCombinativeCapabilitiesAndTheReplicationOfTechnology,
author = {Bruce Kogut and Udo Zander},
title = {Knowledge of the Firm, Combinative Capabilities, and the Replication
of Technology},
journal = {Organization Science},
year = {1992},
volume = {3},
pages = {383-397},
workingstatusmatthias = {summarized for vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience;
cited in research plan},
abstract = {Focuses on a study that argued on the importance of sharing and transfer
of the knowledge of individuals and groups within an organization.
Discussion on the concept of information and know-how; Role of the
inertness of knowledge on the effectiveness of organizations; Transformation
of personal to social knowledge; Analysis on the paradox of replication.
How should we understand why firms exist? A prevailing view has been
that they serve to
keep in check the transaction costs arising from the self-interested
motivations of individuals.
We develop in this article the argument that what firms do better
than markets is the sharing
and transfer of the knowledge of individuals and groups within an
organization. This
knowledge consists of information (e,g.. who knows what) and of know-how
(e.g,, how to
organize a research team). What is central to our argument is that
knowledge is held by
individuals, but is also expressed in regularities by which members
cooperate in a social
community (i.e.. group, organization, or network). If knowledge is
only held at the individual
level, then firms could change simply by employee turnover. Because
we know that hiring
new workers is not equivalent to changing the skills of a firm, an
analysis of what firms can do
must understand knowledge as embedded in the organizing principles
by which people
cooperate within organizations.
Based on this discussion, a paradox is identified: efforts by a firm
to grow by the replication
of its technology enhances the potential for imitation. By considering
how firms can deter
imitation by innovation, we develop a more dynamic view of how firms
create new knowledge.
We build up this dynamic perspective by suggesting that firms learn
new skills by recombining
their current capabilities. Because new ways of cooperating cannot
be easily acquired, growth
occurs by building on the social relationships that currently exist
in a firm. What a firm has
done before tends to predict what it ean do in the future. In this
sense, the cumulative
knowledge of the firm provides options to expand in new but uncertain
markets in the future.
We discuss at length the example of the make/buy decision and propose
several testable
hypotheses regarding the boundaries of the firm, without appealing
to the notion of
"opportunism."},
owner = {matthias},
pdf = {KogutZander_1992_KnowledgeOfTheFirmCombinativeCapabilitiesAndTheReplicationOfTechnology.pdf},
review = {Contributions
- Concept of combinative capability: recombination of knowledge by
internal and external learning
- Elaborate demarcation of information and know-how as distinct forms
of knowledge
- The paradox of replicating knowledge while ensuring competitive
advantage through inimitability
- Implications on the make-or-buy question, providing advice for the
decision},
timestamp = {2006-05-24}
}
@ARTICLE{vonKrogh_2002_TheCommunalResourceAndInformationSystems,
author = {Georg von Krogh},
title = {The Communal Resource And Information Systems},
journal = {The Journal Of Strategic Information Systems},
year = {2002},
volume = {11},
pages = {85 -107},
workingstatusmatthias = {cited in vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience;
cited in research plan},
abstract = {This paper discusses the problem of knowledge sharing in organizations
and proposes a concept ‘communal resource’ to overcome this problem.
Communal resources rely on opportunities for knowledge sharing and
social norms. Implications for information systems are discussed.},
keywords = {Knowledge management; Knowledge sharing; Community; Social norms;
Information systems},
owner = {matthias},
pdf = {vonKrogh_2002_TheCommunalResourceAndInformationSystems.pdf},
timestamp = {2006-05-24}
}
@ARTICLE{vonKrogh_1998_CareInKnowledgeCreation,
author = {Georg von Krogh},
title = {Care in Knowledge Creation},
journal = {California Management Review},
year = {1998},
volume = {40},
pages = {133-154},
workingstatusmatthias = {summarized for vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
abstract = {Knowledge creation is the key source of innovation in any company.
However, it is a fragile process fraught with uncertainty and conflict
of interest. The effective creation of new knowledge (especially
tacit social knowledge) hinges on strong caring among organization
members. Managers have several means to facilitate taring relations,
including new incentive systems, mentoring programs, care as an articulated
value, project debriefings, and training programs in care-based behavior.
The rapid creation and diffusion of knowledge within and between companies
has become a top priority issue on managers' agenda. There are currently
two major views on the nature of knowledge: the 'cognitivist perspective'
and the 'constructionist perspective.' Effective knowledge creation
puts particular demands on the way people relate to each other in
a company. The case of Unilever serves to illustrate the role of
care in knowledge creation and the ways managers can cultivate care.
The key challenge for researchers will be for managers to find further
enabling conditions for fragile processes of knowledge creation.
Another challenge will be to develop a research design for testing
the impact of care on knowledge creation.},
owner = {matthias},
pdf = {vonKrogh_1998_CareInKnowledgeCreation.pdf},
timestamp = {2006-06-29}
}
@ARTICLE{vonKroghVonHippel_2006_ThePromiseOfResearchOnOpenSourceSoftware,
author = {Georg von Krogh and Eric von Hippel},
title = {The Promise of Research on Open Source SoftwareThe Promise of Research
on Open Source Software},
journal = {Management Science, Special Issue on open source software},
year = {2006},
volume = {52},
pages = {975-983},
workingstatusmatthias = {finished reading},
abstract = {Breaking with many established assumptions about how innovation ought
to work, open source software projects offer eye-opening examples
of novel innovation practices for students and practitioners in many
fields. In this article we briefly review existing research on the
open source phenomenon and discuss the utility of open source software
research findings for many other fields. We categorize the research
into three areas; Motivations of open source software contributors;
Governance, organization, and the process of innovation in open source
software projects; and competitive dynamics enforced by open source
software. We introduce the articles in the special issue of Management
Science on Open Source Software, and show how each contributes insights
to one or more of these areas.},
comment = {I had to check the reference list and format the table},
owner = {matthias},
pdf = {vonKroghVonHippel_2006_ThePromiseOfResearchOnOpenSourceSoftware.pdf},
timestamp = {2006-04-19}
}
@BOOK{vonKroghIchijoNonaka_2000_EnablingKnowledgeCreation,
author = {Georg von Krogh and Kazou Ichijo and Ikujiro Nonaka},
title = {Enabling Knowledge Creation: How to Unlock the Mystery of Tacit Knowledge
and Release the Power of Innovation},
publisher = {Oxford University Press US},
year = {2000},
workingstatusmatthias = {summarized for vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
abstract = {When The Knowledge-Creating Company (OUP; nearly 40,000 copies sold)
appeared, it was hailed as a landmark work in the field of knowledge
management. Now, Enabling Knowledge Creation ventures even further
into this all-important territory, showing how firms can generate
and nurture ideas by
using the concepts introduced in the first book.
Weaving together lessons from such international leaders as Siemens,
Unilever, Skandia, and Sony, along with their own first-hand consulting
experiences, the authors introduce knowledge enabling--the overall
set of organizational activities that promote knowledge creation--and
demonstrate its
power to transform an organization's knowledge into value-creating
actions. They describe the five key "knowledge enablers" and outline
what it takes to instill a knowledge vision, manage conversations,
mobilize knowledge activists, create the right context for knowledge
creation, and globalize
local knowledge.
The authors stress that knowledge creation must be more than the exclusive
purview of one individual--or designated "knowledge" officer. Indeed,
it demands new roles and responsibilities for everyone in the organization--from
the elite in the executive suite to the frontline workers on the
shop floor. Whether an activist, a caring expert, or a corporate epistemologist
who focuses on the theory of knowledge itself, everyone in an organization
has a vital role to play in making "care" an integral part of the
everyday experience; in supporting, nurturing, and encouraging microcommunities
of innovation and fun; and in creating a shared space where knowledge
is created, exchanged, and used for sustained, competitive advantage.
Thismuch-anticipated sequel puts practical tools into the hands of
managers and executives who are struggling to unleash the power of
knowledge in their organization.},
owner = {matthias},
timestamp = {2006-05-31}
}
@ARTICLE{vonKroghNonakaAben_2001_MakingTheMostOfYourCompanysKnowledge,
author = {Georg von Krogh and Ikujiro Nonaka and Manfred Aben},
title = {Making the most of your company's knowledge: A strategic framework},
journal = {Long Range Planning},
year = {2001},
volume = {34},
pages = {421-440},
workingstatusmatthias = {summarized for vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
abstract = {This paper develops a framework of four strategies for managing knowledge.
Companies can leverage their knowledge throughout the organisation,
expand their knowledge further based on existing expertise, appropriate
knowledge from partners and other organisations, and develop completely
new expertise by probing new technologies or markets. The two core
processes of knowledge creation and transfer are central to the execution
of these strategies, as is the company's domains of knowledge. The
framework is based on conceptualisation about knowledge management
practices at Unilever, a multinational fast-moving consumer goods
company.},
owner = {matthias},
pdf = {vonKroghNonakaAben_2001_MakingTheMostOfYourCompanysKnowledge.pdf},
timestamp = {2006-07-03}
}
@ARTICLE{vonKroghNonakaIchijo_1997_DevelopKnowledgeActivists,
author = {Georg von Krogh and Ikujiro Nonaka and Kazuo Ichijo},
title = {Develop knowledge activists!},
journal = {European Management Journal},
year = {1997},
volume = {15},
pages = {475-483},
workingstatusmatthias = {summarized for vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
abstract = {Ikujiro Nonaka, Georg von Krogh and Kazuo Ichijo introduce the knowledge
activist as a knowledge enabler. A knowledge activist is someone,
some group or department that takes on particular responsibility
for energizing and coordinating knowledge creation efforts throughout
the corporation. Therefore, he acts in three roles: as a catalyst
of knowledge creation, as a connector of knowledge creation initiatives
and as a merchant of foresight.
To catalyze social processes of knowledge creation, a knowledge activist
formulates ‘process triggers’ and creates space or context for knowledge
creation. The concepts of microcommunities of knowledge, imagined
communities and shared maps of cooperation help the knowledge activist
to connect knowledge creation initiatives: since there are limits
to the number of participants in microcommunities, the knowledge
activist establishes imagined communities, whereby shared maps of
cooperation are important. As a merchant of foresight, the knowledge
activist finally provides overall direction to the knowledge creation
taking place in various microcommunities.
The authors warn of three possible misconceptions and pitfalls of
knowledge activism. First, the task of a knowledge activist is to
enable, not control knowledge creation. Second, knowledge activism
is not only about connecting others, but also about ensuring self-connections.
Finally, lack of knowledge creation should not be covered up by establishing
a knowledge activist.
Knowledge activism finds different sources in different companies.
As possible options, the corporate R&D center, strategists, knowledge
and technology transfer units are discussed as well as individuals
or departments as knowledge activists. The ‘TORIDAS’ project at Maekawa
serves as an illustration of the knowledge activist concept.},
owner = {matthias},
pdf = {vonKroghNonakaIchijo_1997_DevelopKnowledgeActivists.pdf},
timestamp = {2006-06-30}
}
@BOOK{vonKroghRoos_1995_OrganizationalEpistemology,
author = {Georg von Krogh and Johan Roos},
title = {Organizational Epistemology},
publisher = {London: MacMillan and New York: St. Martins Press},
year = {1995},
workingstatusmatthias = {cited in vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
owner = {matthias},
timestamp = {2006-07-11}
}
@ARTICLE{vonKroghRoosSlocum_1994_AnEssayOnCorporateEpistemology,
author = {Georg von Krogh and Johan Roos and Ken Slocum},
title = {An Essay on Corporate Epistemology},
journal = {Strategic Management Journal},
year = {1994},
volume = {15},
pages = {53-71},
workingstatusmatthias = {summarized for vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
abstract = {The objective of this essay is to contribute to a new perspective
of strategic management by developing a new theory of organizational
knowledge. The article focuses on how managers can understand and
guide knowledge development processes in organizations. Our epistemology
broadens strategic management to also include the advancement activities
of the organization. In addition to discussing development of organizational
knowledge, the essay also emphasises fundamental consequences for
research methodology.},
owner = {matthias},
pdf = {vonKroghRoosSlocum_1994_AnEssayOnCorporateEpistemology.pdf},
timestamp = {2006-05-31}
}
@ARTICLE{LakhaniVonHippel_2003_HowOpenSourceSoftwareWorks,
author = {Karim R. Lakhani and Eric von Hippel},
title = {How open source software works: "free" user-to-user assistance},
journal = {Research Policy},
year = {2003},
volume = {32},
pages = {923-943},
workingstatusmatthias = {suggested by Georg von Krogh},
abstract = {Research into free and open source software development projects has
so far largely focused on how the major tasks of
software development are organized and motivated. But a complete project
requires the execution of “mundane but necessary”
tasks as well. In this paper, we explore how the mundane but necessary
task of field support is organized in the case of Apache
web server software, and why some project participants are motivated
to provide this service gratis to others. We find that the
Apache field support system functions effectively. We also find that,
when we partition the help system into its component
tasks, 98% of the effort expended by information providers in fact
returns direct learning benefits to those providers. This
finding considerably reduces the puzzle of why information providers
are willing to perform this task “for free.” Implications
are discussed.},
owner = {matthias},
pdf = {LakhaniVonHippel_2003_HowOpenSourceSoftwareWorks.pdf},
review = {[2006-04-18]
Overview
- Mundane but necessary task: field support to users of open source
software
- Information providers receive a direct reward when they support
users of their software: feedback and improvement ideas on the software
- Reference to Csikszentmihalyi (1975, 1990, 1996) concerning intrinsic
motivation
Motivations
Kollock (1999) discusses four possible motivations to contribute public
goods online:
- Enhancement of one's reputation
- Expectation of reciprocity
- Sense of "efficacy", a sense they have some effect on the environment
- Attachment to a particular project or group of people
3 Tasks of Information Transaction
1. Question must be posed (Information seeker)
2. The Information sought must be matched to an appropriate and willing
provider of information (Information provider)
3. An answer must be provided (Information provider)
Conclusions
- 98% of time information providers used for task 2, reading questions
and answers on the Usenet site
-> Learning effect on how to better manage the own installation
- Only 2% of time (1-5min each) information provider used for task
3, answering a question.
-> Answering only questions, that they knew the answer off the shelf
- Implications for other open source projects
-> Depending on the amount to learn from questions
-> Depending on the question load
-> Depending on the availability of knowledge about problems and
also on the understandability of problem descriptions
- General implications
-> "We think that it is important to analyze the micro-level functioning
of successful open source projects to really understand how and why
they work."},
timestamp = {2006-04-18}
}
@ARTICLE{LarssonBengtssonHenrikssonSparks_1998_TheInterorganizationalLearningDilemma,
author = {Rikard Larsson and Lars Bengtsson, Kristina Henriksson and Judith
Sparks},
title = {The interorganizational learning dilemma: Collective knowledge development
in strategic alliances},
journal = {Organization Science},
year = {1998},
volume = {9 Special Issue: Managing Partnerships and Strategic Alliances},
pages = {285-305},
workingstatusmatthias = {cited in research plan},
abstract = {Alliances are volatile key components of many corporations' competitive
strategies. They offer fast and flexible means of achieving market
access, scale economies, and competence development. However, strategic
alliances can encounter difficulties that often lead to disappointing
performance. The authors suggest that the way partners manage the
collective learning process plays a central role in the success and
failure of strategic alliances. Present understanding of interorganizational
learning primarily focuses on how the individual organization can
be a "good partner" or try to win the internal "race to learn" among
the partners. The interorganizational learning dilemma is that (1)
being a good partner invites exploitation by partners attempting
to maximize their individual appropriation of the joint learning,
and (2) such opportunistic learning strategies undercut the collective
knowledge development in the strategic alliance. The authors develop
a framework for understanding the dilemma through consideration of
trade-offs between how collective learning is developed in alliances
and how the joint learning outcomes are divided among the partners.
They create a typology of five different learning strategies based
on how receptive as well as how transparent an organization is in
relation to its partners. The strategies are: collaboration (highly
receptive and highly transparent); competition (highly receptive
and nontransparent); compromise (moderately receptive and transparent);
accommodation (nonreceptive and highly transparent); and avoidance
(neither receptive nor transparent). Interorganizational learning
outcomes are proposed to be the interactive results of the respective
partners' type of adopted learning strategy. By synthesizing strategic
alliance, organizational learning, collective action, and game theories,
the framework contributes to understanding the variety in alliance
development, performance, and longevity. Interorganizational learning
is likely to be hindered by lack of either motivation or ability
to absorb and communicate knowledge between the partner organizations.
The dynamics of power, opportunism, suspicion, and asymmetric learning
strategies can constitute processual barriers to collective knowledge
development. In contrast, prior related interaction between the partners,
high learning stakes, trust, and long-term orientation are likely
to empower the collective learning process. Comparison of previous
case studies and surveys of interorganizational learning provides
partial empirical support for the proposed framework. The comparison
also indicates several omissions in previous research, such as failure
to consider either how receptive or how transparent the partners
are, the interaction between their learning strategies, and their
dynamic processes over time. Because these omissions are due partly
to the methodological limitations of traditional case studies and
cross-sectional surveys, the authors suggest a bridging case survey
design for a more comprehensive test of their interactive, dynamic,
and situational framework.},
owner = {matthias},
pdf = {LarssonBengtssonHenrikssonSparks_1998_TheInterorganizationalLearningDilemma.pdf},
timestamp = {2006-05-24}
}
@ARTICLE{LeeCole_2003_FromAFirmBasedToACommunityBasedModelOfKnowledgeCreation,
author = {Gwendolyn K. Lee and Robert E. Cole},
title = {From a Firm-Based to a Community-Based Model of Knowledge Creation:
The Case of the Linux Kernel Development},
journal = {Organization Science},
year = {2003},
volume = {14},
pages = {633-649},
workingstatusmatthias = {referenced},
abstract = {We propose a new model of knowledge creation in purposeful,
loosely coordinated, distributed systems, as an alternative to a
firm-based one.Specifically , using the case of the Linux kernel
development project, we build a model of community-based,
evolutionary knowledge creation to study how thousands of
talented volunteers, dispersed across organizational and geographical
boundaries, collaborate via the Internet to produce
a knowledge-intensive, innovative product of high quality.By
comparing and contrasting the Linux model with the traditional/
commercial model of software development and firmbased
knowledge creation efforts, we show how the proposed
model of knowledge creation expands beyond the boundary
of the firm.Our model suggests that the product development
process can be effectively organized as an evolutionary
process of learning driven by criticism and error correction.
We conclude by offering some theoretical implications of our
community-based model of knowledge creation for the literature
of organizational learning, community life, and the uses
of knowledge in society.},
owner = {matthias},
pdf = {LeeCole_2003_FromAFirmBasedToACommunityBasedModelOfKnowledgeCreation.pdf},
timestamp = {2006-04-04}
}
@ARTICLE{LeeChaeSuh_2004_KnowledgeConversionAndPracticalUseWithInformationTechnologyInKoreanCompanies,
author = {Hyun-Soo Lee and Young-Il Chae and Yung-Ho Suh},
title = {Knowledge Conversion And Practical Use With Information Technology
In Korean Companies},
journal = {Total Quality Management \& Business Excellence},
year = {2004},
volume = {15},
number = {3},
pages = {279-294},
workingstatusmatthias = {cited in vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
abstract = {The purpose of this research is to review how Korean companies are
applying information technology to their operations from the four
perspectives of knowledge conversion (KC) and to suggest ideas for
introducing appropriate knowledge management implementation methodology
through the case studies of Korean companies that have adopted a
knowledge management strategy using information technology Overall,
Korean companies recognize the importance of the utilization of information
technology in implementing knowledge management. This research is
aimed at exploring information technology Korean that companies utilize
for knowledge management and knowledge conversion and at providing
some suggestions for the best use of information technology by figuring
out how Korean companies' knowledge conversion is related to the
use of information technology.},
owner = {matthias},
pdf = {LeeChaeSuh_2004_KnowledgeConversionAndPracticalUseWithInformationTechnologyInKoreanCompanies.pdf},
timestamp = {2006-07-11}
}
@ARTICLE{LeonardSensiper_1998_TheRoleOfTacitKnowledgeInGroupInnovation,
author = {Dorothy Leonard and Sylvia Sensiper},
title = {The Role of Tacit Knowledge in Group Innovation},
journal = {California Management Review},
year = {1998},
volume = {40},
pages = {112},
workingstatusmatthias = {summarized for vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
abstract = {Tacit knowledge underlies many competitive capabilities, but its management
is relatively unexplored. In this article, the author's build on
Michael Polanyi's assumption that all knowledge has tacit assumptions.
They observe that tacit knowledge is a tremendous resource for all
activities, especially innovation. The most common application of
tacit knowledge is to problem solving. A second application is problem
finding. A third is prediction and anticipation. Interplay among
individuals appears essential to the innovation process. The process
of innovation entails search and selection, exploration and synthesis,
cycles of divergent thinking and convergence. Multiple barriers exist
to the elicitation and flow of tacit knowledge. Managing tacit knowledge
is a significant challenge in the business world. In order to understand
the potential and complexity of tacit knowledge, the authors believe
we need to interact through metaphor as well as analysis and through
mutual apprenticeship as well as structured intellectual exchanges.},
owner = {matthias},
pdf = {LeonardSensiper_1998_TheRoleOfTacitKnowledgeInGroupInnovation.pdf},
review = {What is Tacit Knowledge?
- Contrasting different definitions of knowledge and especially tacit
knowledge -> their definition: "we define knowledge as information
that is relevant, actionable, and based at least partially on experience."
- Incentives needed to free tacit knowledge: "Unless an incentive
is created, there is little reason for an individual or group possessing
tacit knowledge that provides an important competitive advantage
to explicate 'away' that advantage."
- What means tacit knowledge and creativity for the individual and
how it relates to conscious and unsconcious actions
- In business, innovation is usually a group process so the aspects
particulary for group members are of interest
Creativity and Social Interaction
- Social interaction is necessary in innovative processes
The Nature of Innovation
- Innovation process/creative synthesis: individual or group creates
options (diverge) and chooses on which to focus (converge)
- "Inaccessible from written documents or explicit exposition, tacit
knowledge is protected from competitors unless key individuals leave
or are hired away."
- Creation of intellectual ferment: in a group of diverse individuals,
each person has different skills, problem solving approaches etc.
- Heterogemeous groups are more innovative than homogeneous ones
- Brainstorming as popular technique for capitalizing on the insights
and intuitions of a group of individuals
- Convergence: Manage three different types of tacit knowledge (hierarchy
from low to high abstraction):
1. Overlapping Specific Knowledge
2. Collective: System Knowledge
- "... tacit knowledge that is a prerequisite to exploiting the technology
can constitute a competitive advantage."
- Tacit knowledge as the source of competitive advantage: "This is
why companies such as Chaparral Steel or Oticon invite competitors
to visit and observe, convinced that no one could imitate their success
from absorbing explicit knowledge."
- "Perhaps the purest form of collective tacit knowledge is that
possessed by a team or group whose process is the produrt"
3. Guiding Tacit Knowledge
Barriers to Generating and Sharing Tacit Knowledge
- "sharing tacit knowledge requires time devoted to personal contact."
- Factors that inhibit sharing of tacit knowledge:
1. Low appreciation of mentoring and assisting others
2. Inequality in status among participants
3. Distance, both as physical separation and in time -> certain level
of intimacy is necessary to communicate tacit knowledge
4. Absence of data or arguments why one option is better than the
other (e.g. in design questions)
5. The fear of trying to express the inexpressible -> penalties for
failure that discourage experimentation
Managerial Implications
- Keep abrasion creative by depersonalizing conflict
- Creation of collective tacit knowledge with convergent thinking
in "communities of practice"
- "Managers thus can encourage the full exploitation of tacit knowledge
by paying attention to the environment they are creating, by encouraging
respect for different thinking styles, by understanding the distinction
between intelligent failures and stupid mistakes, and by allowing
their employees to "fail forward" where appropriate."
Conclusions
- Tacit dimensions of
1. individual knowledge: embodied in people to be hired
2. collective knowledge: the very fabric of an organization, not
easily imitated
- "Therefore, tacit knowledge is a source of competitive advantage."},
timestamp = {2006-06-01}
}
@ARTICLE{Liebeskind_1996_KnowledgeStrategyAndTheTheoryOfTheFirm,
author = {Julia Porter Liebeskind},
title = {Knowledge, strategy, and the theory of the firm},
journal = {Strategic Management Journal, Special Issue: Knowledge and the Firm},
year = {1996},
volume = {17},
pages = {93-107},
workingstatusmatthias = {cited in research plan},
abstract = {This paper argues that firms have particular institutional capabilities
that allow them to protect knowledge from expropriation and imitation
more effectively than market contracting. I argue that it is these
generalized institutional capabilities that allow firms to generate
and protect the unique resources and capabilities that are central
to the strategic theory of the firm.},
owner = {matthias},
pdf = {Liebeskind_1996_KnowledgeStrategyAndTheTheoryOfTheFirm.pdf},
timestamp = {2006-05-24}
}
@ARTICLE{MacKenzieSpinardi_1995_TacitKnowledgeWeaponsDesignAndTheUninventionOfNuclearWeapons,
author = {Donald MacKenzie and Graham Spinardi},
title = {Tacit Knowledge, Weapons Design, and the Uninvention of Nuclear Weapons},
journal = {The American Journal of Sociology},
year = {1995},
volume = {101},
pages = {44-99},
workingstatusmatthias = {summarized for vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
abstract = {Tacit Knowledge, embodied in people rather than words, equations,
or diagrams, plays a vital role in science. The historical record
of the development and spread of nuclear weapons and the recollections
of their designers suggest that tacit knowledge is also crucial to
nuclear weapons development. Therefore, if design ceases, and if
there is no new generation of designers to whom that tacit knowledge
can be passed, then in an important (though qualified) sense nuclear
weapons will have been uninvented. Their renewed development would
thus have some of the characteristics of reinvention rather than
simply copying. In addition, knowledge may be lost not only as a
result of complete disarmament, but also as a consequence of likely
measures such as a nuclear test ban.},
owner = {matthias},
pdf = {MacKenzieSpinardi_1995_TacitKnowledgeWeaponsDesignAndTheUninventionOfNuclearWeapons.pdf},
timestamp = {2006-06-29}
}
@BOOK{MarchOlsen_1976_AmbiguityandChoiceinOrganizations,
author = {James G. March and Johan P. Olsen},
title = {Ambiguity and Choice in Organizations},
publisher = {Universitetsforlaget Bergen},
year = {1976},
workingstatusmatthias = {summarized for vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
owner = {matthias},
timestamp = {2006-05-30}
}
@BOOK{MarchSimon_1958_Organizations,
author = {James G. March and Herbert A. Simon},
title = {Organizations},
publisher = {Wiley New York},
year = {1958},
workingstatusmatthias = {summarized for vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
abstract = {This book provides the original and definitive treatments of such
fundamental concepts as bounded rationality, attention focus, and
problem solving.},
owner = {matthias},
timestamp = {2006-05-30}
}
@ARTICLE{Mascitelli_2000_FromExperienceHarnessingTacitKnowledgeToAchieveBreakthroughInnovation,
author = {R. Mascitelli},
title = {From Experience: Harnessing Tacit Knowledge to Achieve Breakthrough
Innovation},
journal = {Journal of Product Innovation Management},
year = {2000},
volume = {17},
pages = {179-193},
workingstatusmatthias = {summarized for vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
abstract = {The ability to create a stream of revolutionary new products can represent
a sustainable competitive advantage for firms in almost any industry.
Whereas evolutionary product improvements often follow predictable
trajectories, breakthrough innovations involve unexpected leaps of
creativity and insight. Despite its strategic importance, however,
little is known about the process by which innovators achieve these
valuable breakthroughs. This article proposes that breakthrough innovations
result from the harnessing of tacit knowledge possessed by individuals
and project teams. Tacit knowledge lies below the surface of conscious
thought and is accumulated through a lifetime of experience, experimentation,
perception, and learning by doing. Managers who can tap into this
vast pool of creative energy can elevate the innovative capabilities
of their teams well beyond the incremental and mundane.
The article begins by establishing the vital importance of breakthrough
innovations to the competitiveness of firms. This strategic mandate
is followed by a brief discussion of the nature and implications
of tacit knowledge in the context of innovation. The remainder of
the article describes three mutually reinforcing methods for encouraging
the explication and sharing of tacit knowledge among design team
members. The ultimate goal is to establish a generative atmosphere
for breakthrough innovation, in which divergent thinking, improvisation,
and artistic creativity merge with the practical demands of the product
development process.
The first step toward harnessing the creative power of tacit knowledge
is to foster the emotional commitment and deep personal involvement
of design team members. Managers can accomplish this goal through
the development of inspiring “innovation stories,” encouragement
of reasonable risk-taking and experimentation, building of unique
team identities, and displaying unbridled confidence in a team's
creative abilities. Once the emotional commitment of team members
has been assured, two techniques are proposed as catalysts for breakthroughs
derived from tacit knowledge. These methods are based on evidence
that intimate physical interaction during the creative process, both
person to object and person to person, may be a catalyst for tacit
insights. The first technique highlights the use of early and frequent
prototyping as a powerful focal point for the explication of tacit
knowledge from both the design team and potential customers. The
second technique involves the encouragement of face-to-face interaction
between innovators during product development, thereby enabling creative
improvisation and real-time knowledge sharing.
Several implications for managers are highlighted, including the need
for a greater emphasis on employee retention, the importance of developing
a nurturing environment for innovation, and the value of intimate
physical interaction, including early prototyping, indwelling with
customers, and co-location of teams wherever possible.},
owner = {matthias},
timestamp = {2006-06-01}
}
@ARTICLE{MasseyWeiss_2006_UnravelingTheTemporalFabricOfKnowledgeConversion,
author = {Anne P. Massey and Mitzi M. Montoya-Weiss},
title = {Unraveling the Temporal Fabric of Knowledge Conversion: A Model of
Media Selection and Use},
journal = {MIS Quarterly},
year = {2006},
volume = {30},
pages = {99-114},
workingstatusmatthias = {summarized for vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
abstract = {We draw from and extend Nonaka’s (1994) theory of knowledge creation
to develop a model of media selection and use in the knowledge conversion
(KC) process. KC is a process wherein an individual is affected by
the experiences of another. The outcomes of KC—transferred and transformed
knowledge—hinge on the development of understanding. The KC process
is enabled via various communicative and non-communicative media.
Because the KC process occurs over time, it possesses a temporal
fabric or structure. We explore the practical realities of KC as
a dynamic, time- and experience-dependent process. We consider how
the temporal fabric of KC creates an evolving reciprocal relationship
among perceived media utility, selection, and use of media, as well
as switching and/or combining media. We propose and discuss two key
factors as determinants of perceived media utility use in the KC
process: (1) the temporal behavior of individuals engaged in the
KC process and (2) individual and joint experience-based factors.
We also discuss the role of contextual factors as antecedents. Finally,
we offer and illustrate two primary temporal structures for KC media
selection and use: (1) monophasic, wherein KC participants use a
single medium at a time, and (2) polyphasic, wherein KC participants
deploy multiple media simultaneously. We conclude with a discussion
of the implications for the design of KC-enabling systems and directions
for future research.},
owner = {matthias},
timestamp = {2006-07-03}
}
@BOOK{MaturanaVarela_1987_TheTreeOfKnowledge,
author = {HR Maturana and FJ Varela},
title = {The tree of knowledge: the biological roots of human understanding},
publisher = {New Science Library},
year = {1987},
workingstatusmatthias = {summarized for vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
owner = {matthias},
timestamp = {2006-05-31}
}
@BOOK{Morgan_1986_ImagesOfOrganizations,
author = {G. Morgan},
title = {Images of Organizations},
publisher = {Sage, Beverly Hills, CA},
year = {1986},
workingstatusmatthias = {summarized for vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
owner = {matthias},
timestamp = {2006-05-31}
}
@BOOK{NewellSimon_1972_HumanProblemSolving,
author = {A Newell and H Simon},
title = {Human problem solving},
publisher = {Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall},
year = {1972},
workingstatusmatthias = {summarized for vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
owner = {matthias},
timestamp = {2006-05-31}
}
@BOOK{Nishida_1990_AnInquiryIntoTheGood,
author = {Kitaro Nishida},
title = {An Inquiry Into The Good},
publisher = {New Haven CT: Yale University Press},
year = {1990},
workingstatusmatthias = {cited in vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
owner = {matthias},
timestamp = {2006-07-11}
}
@BOOK{Nishida_1970_FundamentalProblemsOfPhilosophy,
author = {Kitaro Nishida},
title = {Fundamental Problems Of Philosophy: The World Of Action And The Dialectical
World},
publisher = {Tokyo: Sophia University},
year = {1970},
workingstatusmatthias = {cited in vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
owner = {matthias},
timestamp = {2006-07-11}
}
@ARTICLE{Nonaka_1994_ADynamicTheoryofOrganizationalKnowledgeCreation,
author = {Ikujiro Nonaka},
title = {A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation},
journal = {Organization Science},
year = {1994},
volume = {5},
pages = {14-37},
workingstatusmatthias = {summarized for vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
abstract = {This paper proposes a paradigm for managing the dynamic aspects of
organizational knowledge creating processes. Its central theme is
that organizational knowledge is created through a continuous dialogue
between tacit and explicit knowledge. The nature of this dialogue
is examined and four patterns of interaction involving tacit and
explicit knowledge are identified. It is argued that while new knowledge
is developed by individuals, organizations play a critical role in
articulating and amplifying that knowledge. A theoretical framework
is developed which provides an analytical perspective on the constituent
dimensions of knowledge creation. This framework is then applied
in two operational models for facilitating the dynamic creation of
appropriate organizational knowledge.},
owner = {matthias},
pdf = {Nonaka_1994_ADynamicTheoryofOrganizationalKnowledgeCreation.pdf},
timestamp = {2006-05-30}
}
@ARTICLE{Nonaka_1991_TheKnowledgeCreatingCompany,
author = {Ikujiro Nonaka},
title = {The knowledge-creating company},
journal = {Harvard Business Review, 0017-8012, November 1, 1991, Vol. 69, Issue
6},
year = {1991},
volume = {69},
pages = {96-104},
workingstatusmatthias = {summarized for vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
abstract = {The best Japanese companies offer a guide to the organizational roles,
structures, and practices that produce continuous innovation.},
owner = {matthias},
pdf = {Nonaka_1991_TheKnowledgeCreatingCompany.pdf},
review = {Contributions
- Source of success of Japanese technology firms
- Application of the knowledge-creation model through conversion of
tacit and explicit knowledge
- Illustration of management mentalities that foster knowledge creation},
timestamp = {2006-05-31}
}
@ARTICLE{Nonaka_1988_TowardMiddleUpDownManagement,
author = {Ikujiro Nonaka},
title = {Toward Middle-Up-Down Management: Accelerating Information Creation},
journal = {MIT Sloan Management Review},
year = {1988},
volume = {29},
pages = {9-18},
workingstatusmatthias = {summarized for vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
abstract = {The author is one of a group of Japanese management scholars developing
a frame of reference strikingly different from that of American scholars
writing about business administration. Here Professor Nonaka introduces
the concept of compressive management, which recognizes a key role
for middle managers in information development. "The essential logic
of compressive management is that top management creates a vision
or dream, and middle management creates and implements concrete concepts
to solve and transcend the contradictions arising from gaps between
what exists at the moment and what management hopes to create." The
development of the Honda "City" is used to illustrate "middle-up-down"
management. In their wish to develop an entirely new car, Honda's
top managers gave a group of young designers that task — with virtually
no direction. The designers first attempted to modify an existing
model but were eventually forced into questioning and transcending
universal assumptions about automobile design.},
owner = {matthias},
timestamp = {2006-07-03}
}
@UNPUBLISHED{Nonaka_1987_ManagingTheFirmAsInformationCreationProcess,
author = {Ikujiro Nonaka},
title = {Managing The Firm As Information Creation Process},
institution = {Institute of Business Research, Hitotsubashi University},
year = {1987},
workingstatusmatthias = {cited in vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
abstract = {Corresponds To
Title: Managing The Firm As An Information Creation Process
Author(S): Nonaka I
Source: Advances In Information Processing In Organizations, Vol 4
4: 239-275, 1991
Book Series: Advances In Information Processing In Organizations :
A Research Annual
Editor(S): Meindl Jr, Cardy Rl, Puffer Sm
Document Type: Proceedings Paper},
owner = {matthias},
timestamp = {2006-07-11}
}
@ARTICLE{NonakaByosiereBoruckiKonno_1994_OrganizationalKnowledgeCreationTheory,
author = {Ikujiro Nonaka and Philippe Byosiere and Chester C. Borucki and Noboru
Konno},
title = {Organizational knowledge creation theory: A first comprehensive test},
journal = {International Business Review},
year = {1994},
volume = {3},
pages = {337-351},
workingstatusmatthias = {summarized for vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
abstract = {Confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to test Nonaka's ((1994)
Organization Science, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 14–37) a priori model of
organizational knowledge creation with data collected from 105 Japanese
middle managers. The results provide strong support for viewing organizational
knowledge creation as a higher-order construct comprised of four
knowledge conversion processes: socialization, externalization, combination,
and internalization.},
owner = {matthias},
pdf = {NonakaByosiereBoruckiKonno_1994_OrganizationalKnowledgeCreationTheory.pdf},
timestamp = {2006-06-29}
}
@ARTICLE{NonakaKonno_1998_TheConceptOfBa,
author = {Ikujiro Nonaka and Noboru Konno},
title = {The Concept of 'Ba': Building a Foundation for Knowledge Creation},
journal = {California Management Review},
year = {1998},
volume = {40},
pages = {40-55},
workingstatusmatthias = {summarized for vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
abstract = {This article introduces the Japanese concept of "Ba" to organizational
theory. Ba (equivalent to "place" in English) is a shared space for
emerging relationships. It can be a physical, virtual, or mental
space. Knowledge, in contrast to information, cannot be separated
from the context-it is embedded in ba. To support the process of
knowledge creation, a foundation in ba is required. This article
develops and explains four specific platforms and their relationships
to knowledge creation. Each of the knowledge conversion modes is
promoted by a specific ba. A self-transcending process of knowledge
creation can be supported by providing ba on different organizational
levels. This article presents case studies of three companies that
employ ba on the team, division, and corporate level to enhance knowledge
creation.},
keywords = {BUSINESS enterprises; BUSINESS planning; CORPORATE culture; INFORMATION
science; MANAGEMENT; ORGANIZATIONAL behavior; STRATEGIC planning;
KNOWLEDGE management},
owner = {matthias},
pdf = {NonakaKonno_1998_TheConceptOfBa.pdf},
timestamp = {2006-06-29}
}
@ARTICLE{NonakaPeltokorpiTomae_2005_StrategicKnowledgeCreation,
author = {Ikujiro Nonaka and Vesa Peltokorpi and Hisao Tomae},
title = {Strategic knowledge creation: the case of Hamamatsu Photonics},
journal = {International Journal of Technology Management},
year = {2005},
volume = {30},
pages = {248-264},
workingstatusmatthias = {summarized for vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
abstract = {Strategic management can be viewed as a mechanistic or an organic
process. In the former, strategic formulation is based on environmental
analysis. In the latter, managers are advised to frame strategies
on the unique inimitable internal resources. While both heuristics
are feasible, the ontological and epistemological foundations of
strategic management can be elaborated. A knowledge-based view posits
that both indigenous and exogenous factors need to be considered
in strategy formulation because companies are in a dialectic environmental
interaction. The integral components of the knowledge-based strategy
are knowledge vision, driving objectives, dialogues, creative routines,
and shared context of interaction (Ba). The space-time specific interaction
of these components is illustrated in the example of Hamamatsu Photonics,
Ltd., a Japanese company that has recently received attention for
its production of the large photoelectron cell. Professor Koshiba
was awarded the 2002 Nobel Prize in Physics for his research aided
by the photoelectron cell.},
keywords = {knowledge-based strategy, Japan, Hamamatsu Photonics, photoelectron
cells, knowledge vision, driving objectives, dialogues, creative
routines, Ba, strategic management, knowledge creation},
owner = {matthias},
timestamp = {2006-06-30}
}
@INBOOK{NonakaReinmoeller_2002_KnowledgeCreationAndUtilization,
author = {I. Nonaka and P. Reinmoeller},
title = {Knowledge Creation And Utilization: Promoting Dynamic Systems Of
Creative Routines},
booktitle = {Creating value: winners in the new business environment},
publisher = {Malden, MA: Blackwell},
editor = {Michael A. Hitt},
year = {2002},
pages = {104-127},
workingstatusmatthias = {summarized for vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
owner = {matthias},
pdf = {NonakaReinmoeller_2002_KnowledgeCreationAndUtilization.pdf},
timestamp = {2006-07-11}
}
@BOOK{NonakaTakeuchi_1995_TheKnowledgeCreatingCompany,
author = {Ikujiro Nonaka and Hirotaka Takeuchi},
title = {The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the
Dynamics of Innovation},
publisher = {Oxford University Press},
year = {1995},
workingstatusmatthias = {cited in vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience;
cited in research plan},
abstract = {This book addresses the generation-old question of why the Japanese
are so successful in business. The authors, professors of management
at Hitosubashi University, contend that Japanese firms are successful
because they are innovative, that is, because they create new knowledge
and use it to produce successful products and technologies. They
identify two types of organizational knowledge: explicit knowledge,
contained in procedures and manuals, and tacit knowledge, learned
only by experience. U.S. managers tend to focus on explicit knowledge
and stress approaches such as benchmarking, while the Japanese focus
on tacit knowledge. Using corporate examples such as Honda, NEC,
Nissan, 3M, and GE, the authors provide insights that reveal how
to blend the best of both worlds. This scholarly volume is highly
recommended not only for academics (especially in organizational
theory) but also for readers doing business in and with Japan.
German summary: http://www.capurro.de/nonaka.html (incl. summary of
the book "The Tacit Dimension" 1966 by Polanyi)
English presentation: http://www.viktoria.se/results/result_files/169.pdf},
owner = {matthias},
timestamp = {2006-05-24}
}
@ARTICLE{NonakaTakeuchiUmemoto_1996_ATheoryOfOrganizationalKnowledgeCreation,
author = {Ikujiro Nonaka and Hirotaka Takeuchi and Katsuhiro Umemoto},
title = {A theory of organizational knowledge creation},
journal = {International journal of technology management},
year = {1996},
volume = {11},
pages = {833-845},
workingstatusmatthias = {summarized for vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
abstract = {This paper proposes a theory of organizational knowledge creation,
which is defined as the process that organizationally amplifies the
knowledge created by individuals and crystallizes it as part of the
knowledge system of an organization. The process is a never-ending
spiral of tacit and explicit knowledge through four modes of knowledge
conversion: i.e., socialization (from tacit to tacit), externalization
(from tacit to explicit), combination (from explicit to explicit),
and internalization (from explicit to tacit). Each of the four modes
of knowledge conversion is explained, using actual vignettes. Finally,
a few implications are argued.},
owner = {matthias},
timestamp = {2006-07-03}
}
@ARTICLE{NonakaToyama_2005_TheTheoryOfTheKnowledgeCreatingFirm,
author = {Ikujiro Nonaka and Ryoko Toyama},
title = {The theory of the knowledge-creating firm: subjectivity, objectivity
and synthesis},
journal = {Industrial and Corporate Change},
year = {2005},
volume = {14},
pages = {419-436},
workingstatusmatthias = {summarized for vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
abstract = {The theory of the knowledge-creating firm explains the differences
among firms not as a result of market failure, but as a result of
the firm’s visions of the future and strategy. This paper proposes
a framework to capture the dynamic process of knowledge creation
in which knowledge is created through the dynamic interaction between
subjectivity and objectivity. Knowledge is created through the synthesis
of thinking and actions of individuals, who interact with each other
within and beyond the organizational boundaries.},
owner = {matthias},
timestamp = {2006-07-03}
}
@ARTICLE{NonakaToyama_2003_TheKnowledgeCreatingTheoryRevisited,
author = {Ikujiro Nonaka and Ryoko Toyama},
title = {The knowledge creating theory revisited: knowledge creation as a
synthesizing process},
journal = {Knowledge Management Research \& Practice},
year = {2003},
volume = {1},
pages = {2-10},
workingstatusmatthias = {references NonakaToyama_2002_AFirmAsADialecticalBeing},
abstract = {This paper is a part of our attempt to build a new knowledge-based
theory of the firm and organization to explain the dynamic process
of knowledge creation and utilization. For this, we revisit the theory
of knowledge creation through the SECI process and ba, and try to
advance them further by incorporating the dialectic thinking. In
this paper, knowledge creation is conceptualized as a dialectical
process, in which various contradictions are synthesized through
dynamic interactions among individuals, the organization, and the
environment. With the view of a firm as a dialectic being, and strategy
and organization should be re-examined as the synthesizing and self-transcending
process instead of a logical analysis of structure or action. An
organization is not an information-processing machine that is composed
of small tasks to carry out a given task, but an organic configuration
of ba. Ba, which is conceptualized as a shared context in motion,
can transcend time, space, and organization boundaries to create
knowledge.},
owner = {matthias},
pdf = {NonakaToyama_2003_TheKnowledgeCreatingTheoryRevisited.pdf},
timestamp = {2006-07-03}
}
@ARTICLE{NonakaToyama_2002_AFirmAsADialecticalBeing,
author = {Ikujiro Nonaka and Ryoko Toyama},
title = {A firm as a dialectical being: towards a dynamic theory of a firm},
journal = {Industrial and Corporate Change},
year = {2002},
volume = {11},
pages = {995-1009},
workingstatusmatthias = {summarized for vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
abstract = {Today, firms are facing many contradictions: efficiency versus creativity;
exploitation versus exploration; speed versus time-consuming resource
building. This paper argues that a firm's capability to synthesize
such contradictions is the key to understanding why a firm can be
more efficient at producing knowledge than market. A firm can create
new knowledge and capability that go beyond the balancing point in
the existing frontier with its synthesizing capability, which is
embedded in its knowledge vision, its ba, its creative routines,
its incentive systems and its distributed leadership.},
owner = {matthias},
timestamp = {2006-07-03}
}
@ARTICLE{NonakaToyamaKonno_2000_SECIBaAndLeadership,
author = {Ikujiro Nonaka and Ryoko Toyama and Noboru Konno},
title = {SECI, Ba and Leadership: a Unified Model of Dynamic Knowledge Creation},
journal = {Long Range Planning},
year = {2000},
volume = {33},
pages = {5-34},
workingstatusmatthias = {not cited in vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience
;)},
abstract = {Despite the widely recognised importance of knowledge as a vital source
of competitive advantage, there is little understanding of how organisations
actually create and manage knowledge dynamically. Nonaka, Toyama
and Konno start from the view of an organisation as an entity that
creates knowledge continuously, and their goal in this article is
to understand the dynamic process in which an organisation creates,
maintains and exploits knowledge. They propose a model of knowledge
creation consisting of three elements: (i) the SECI process, knowledge
creation through the conversion of tacit and explicit knowledge;
(ii) 'ba', the shared context for knowledge creation; and (iii) knowledge
assets, the inputs, outputs and moderators of the knowledge-creating
process. The knowledge creation process is a spiral that grows out
of these three elements; the key to leading it is dialectical thinking.
The role of top management in articulating the organisation's knowledge
vision is emphasised, as is the important role of middle management
('knowledge producers') in energising ba. In summary, using existing
knowledge assets, an organisation creates new knowledge through the
SECI process that takes place in ba, where new knowledge, once created,
becomes in turn the basis for a new spiral of knowledge creation.
Contributions:
Illustration of the dynamic process in which an organization creates,
maintains and exploits knowledge
Proposition of a three-fold model of knowledge creation including
knowledge conversion, shared context and knowledge assets},
owner = {matthias},
pdf = {NonakaToyamaKonno_2000_SECIBaAndLeadership.pdf},
review = {Contributions
- Illustration of the dynamic process in which an organisation creates,
maintains and exploits knowledge
- Proposition of a three-fold model of knowledge creation including
knowledge conversion, shared context and knowledge assets},
timestamp = {2006-06-01}
}
@ARTICLE{NonakaToyamaNagata_2000_AFirmAsAKnowledgeCreatingEntity,
author = {Ikujiro Nonaka and Ryoko Toyama and Akiya Nagata},
title = {A Firm As A Knowledge Creating Entity: A New Perspective On The Theory
Of The Firm},
journal = {Industrial and Corporate Change},
year = {2000},
volume = {9},
number = {1},
pages = {1-20},
workingstatusmatthias = {cited in vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
abstract = {The knowledge-based view of the firm views a firm as a knowledge-creating
entity, and
argues that knowledge and the capability to create and utilize such
knowledge are the
most important source of a firm’s sustainable competitive advantage.
Knowledge and
skills give a firm a competitive advantage because it is through this
set of knowledge
and skills that a firm is able to innovate new products/processes/services,
or improve
existing ones more efficiently and/or effectively. The raison d’être
of a firm is to con-
tinuously create knowledge.},
owner = {matthias},
pdf = {NonakaToyamaNagata_2000_AFirmAsAKnowledgeCreatingEntity.pdf},
timestamp = {2006-07-11}
}
@ARTICLE{NonakaUmemotoSenoo_1996_FromInformationProcessingToKnowledgeCreation,
author = {Ikujiro Nonaka and Katsuhiro Umemoto and Dai Senoo},
title = {From information processing to knowledge creation: A Paradigm shift
in business management},
journal = {Technology in Society},
year = {1996},
volume = {18},
pages = {203-218},
workingstatusmatthias = {summarized for vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
abstract = {This paper examines how information technology (IT) can help implement
the concept of "the knowledge-creating company," which we propose
as the management paradigm for the emerging "knowledge society."
We present our theory of organizational knowledge creation, along
with actual examples of IT that are being used now or can be used
in the near future by business organizations. Also, several differences
between the Japanese- vs. Western-style organizational knowledge
creation and their implications in relation to IT are discussed.},
owner = {matthias},
pdf = {NonakaUmemotoSenoo_1996_FromInformationProcessingToKnowledgeCreation.pdf},
review = {Contributions
- Proposition of "the knowledge-creating company" as management paradigm
for the emerging knowledge society
- Theory of organizational knowledge creation including actual examples
of IT cases
- Discussion of differences between Japanese- vs. Western-stlye of
organizational knowledge creation},
timestamp = {2006-05-31}
}
@ARTICLE{O'DonnellHenriksen_2002_PhilosophicalFoundationsForACriticalEvaluationOfTheSocialImpactOfICT,
author = {D. O'Donnell and L.B. Henriksen},
title = {Philosophical Foundations For A Critical Evaluation Of The Social
Impact Of ICT},
journal = {Journal of Information Technology},
year = {2002},
volume = {17},
number = {2},
pages = {89-99},
workingstatusmatthias = {cited in vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
owner = {matthias},
timestamp = {2006-07-12}
}
@ARTICLE{OrlikowskiBarley_2001_TechnologyAndInstitutions,
author = {Wanda J. Orlikowski and Stephen R. Barley},
title = {Technology and Institutions: What Can Research on Information Technology
and Research on Organizations Learn from Each Other?},
journal = {MIS Quarterly},
year = {2001},
volume = {25},
pages = {145-165},
workingstatusmatthias = {started reading 2006-05-08},
abstract = {We argue that because of important epistemological differences between
the fields of information technology and organization studies, much
can be gained from greater interaction between them. In particular,
we argue that information technology research can benefit from incorporating
institutional analysis from organization studies, while organization
studies can benefit even more by following the lead of information
technology research in taking the material properties of technologies
into account. We further suggest that the transformations currently
occurring in the nature of work and organizing cannot be understood
without considering both the technological changes and the institutional
contexts that are reshaping economic and organizational activity.
Thus, greater interaction between the fields of information technology
and organization studies should be viewed as more than a matter of
enrichment. In the intellectual engagement of these two fields lies
the potential for an important fusion of perspectives, a fusion more
carefully attuned to explaining the nature and consequences of the
techno-social phenomena that increasingly pervade our lives.},
keywords = {Epistemology, institutional analysis, information technology, organization
studies, research agenda, technological change},
owner = {matthias},
pdf = {OrlikowskiBarley_2001_TechnologyAndInstitutions.pdf},
review = {Recommended by Stefan Häfliger on how Information Systems can learn
from Organizational studies when talking about theory part of our
paper about Design for Reuse
Introduction
- "Organization studies has undoubtedly had more influence on the
filed of information technology than the reverse."
- Epistemology of information technology (IT) vs. the one of organization
studies (OS):
1. IT centers on practical questions "What works?" -> emphasizing
the particular
2. OS seeks for general principles and identifications of causal
relationships and tries to answer "Why?" -> emphasizing the general
- Similar to the relationship of physics and engineering
- Goal must be to bridge the two fields and look what each of the
research area can learn from each other
What organization studies can learn from IT research
- Materialism vs. Agency
- Contingency theory
- "Technologies are simultaneously social and physical artifacts.
Consequently, neither a strictly constructionist nor a strictly materialist
stance are adequate for studying technologies in the workplace."
- Comparison to studies about numerically controlled machines (NC)
and Computer Numerically Controlled machine tools (CNC)
- "Research literature on NC technology unintentionally illustrates
why adequate accounts of technological change require hybrid explanations
that weave together human action and choice, the funtions and features
of specific technologies, and the contects of a technology's use
in a way that attends to the micro-dynamics of situated practice."
- Computer-Supported Coorperative Work (CSCW): Studies illustrate
how understanding the ways in which people use technologies could
stimulate new theories or organizing.
- "Studies of situated coordination explicitly examine how organization
emerges out of ongoing and mundane interactions between individuals
and their tools."
- "High reliability organizations" (defined by Weick and Roberts,
1993): air traffic control, airport ground operation, subway control,
bridges of naval vessels
What IT research can learn from organization studies
- Genres of IT research:
1. Studies of the impacts of informations technology -> is
the least relying on technology's material constraints
2. Studies of the development, deployment and use of information
technology
3. Studies of the organization and management of information technology
resources -> material aspects of the technology are very important
- Impacts: deskilling vs. reskilling, decentralization vs. centralization
(BloomfieldCoombs_1992_InformationsTechnologyControlAndPower), change
in communication pattern or organizational structures, influence
on the performance of the individuals, groups or firms
- Development, deployment and use: design of better technological
systems, acceptance of technology, technological diffusion
- Organizing and managing IT services: strategic topics so organizational
strategy, governance and resource control are important (sourcing
IT services, recruitment of IT professionals
- Institutional Theory: How social and historical forces (explicit
laws, implicit cultural understandings) affect and are affected by
the actions of organizations
- "Institutional influences both enable and constrain action."},
timestamp = {2006-05-03}
}
@ARTICLE{OsterlohFrey_2000_MotivationKnowledgeTransferAndOrganizationalForms,
author = {Margrit Osterloh and Bruno S. Frey},
title = {Motivation, knowledge transfer, and organizational forms},
journal = {Organization Science},
year = {2000},
volume = {2000},
pages = {538-551},
workingstatusmatthias = {summarized for vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
abstract = {The importance of knowledge for gaining competitive advantage is widely
accepted. The authors distinguish between explicit and tacit forms
of knowledge and argue that different kinds of motivation (extrinsic
and intrinsic) are crucial for generating and transferring the two
forms of knowledge. They analyze various organizational and motivational
devices with respect to their suitability for making use of explicit
and tacit knowledge. In so doing they particularly emphasize that
some organizational forms can crowd out intrinsic motivation and
thus have detrimental effects on the transfer of knowledge.
Axel von Werder
Abstract:
Employees are motivated intrinsically as well as extrinsically. Intrinsic
motivation is crucial when tacit knowledge in and between teams must
be transferred. Organizational forms enable different kinds of motivation
and have different capacities to generate and transfer tacit knowledge.
Since knowledge generation and transfer are essential for a firm's
sustainable competitive advantage, we ask specifically what kinds
of motivation are needed to generate and transfer tacit knowledge,
as opposed to explicit knowledge.},
owner = {matthias},
pdf = {OsterlohFrey_2000_MotivationKnowledgeTransferAndOrganizationalForms.pdf},
timestamp = {2006-06-30}
}
@ARTICLE{PanzarWillig_1981_EconomiesOfScope,
author = {J. C. Panzar and R. D. Willig},
title = {Economies of scope},
journal = {American Economic Review},
year = {1981},
volume = {71},
pages = {268-272},
workingstatusmatthias = {referenced in Wernerfelt 1984},
comment = {referenced by Wernerfelt_1984_AResourceBasedViewOfTheFirm concerning
the concept of economies of scope},
owner = {matthias},
timestamp = {2006-03-21}
}
@ARTICLE{LarsenPedersen_2001_DistributedKnowledgeManagementInHealthCareAdministration,
author = {Mogens K. Pedersen and Michael H. Larsen},
title = {Distributed knowledge management in health-care administration},
journal = {Decision Support Systems},
year = {2001},
volume = {31},
pages = {139-158},
workingstatusmatthias = {cited in vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
abstract = {Knowledge management has inspired a shift from a transaction to a
distributed knowledge management (DKM)
perspective on inter-organizational information processing. The DKM
concept structures the knowledge creation, knowledge
sharing, and knowledge exploitation in organizations according to
a product state model (PSM) required for management of
technological diversity. Each player in the network acquires specific
knowledge from other players for decision support. This
article shows the relevance of the DKM model in a case study of a
distributed decision support system (DDSS) in health
care administration in the US.},
owner = {matthias},
pdf = {LarsenPedersen_2001_DistributedKnowledgeManagementInHealthCareAdministration.pdf},
timestamp = {2006-07-11}
}
@ARTICLE{Peterson_1998_EmbeddedOrganizationalEvents,
author = {Mark F. Peterson},
title = {Embedded Organizational Events: The Units of Process in Organization
Science},
journal = {Organization Science},
year = {1998},
volume = {9},
number = {1},
pages = {16-33},
workingstatusmatthias = {cited in vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
abstract = {Analyses of the events that occur in the context of organization process
are rapidly advancing. Scholars holding otherwise disparate views
share the sense that social actors, including organizations, attend
to, interpret, and act upon events. Analyses of events are converging
from two theoretical and methodological starting points. Analyses
that emphasize human subjectivity and contextual specificity are
seeking increased cross-situational learning. Nomothetic analyses
are building on their strength in cross-situational learning by striving
to represent the way subjects themselves construct events in relation
to context. Rather than continuing to analyze classic organizational
and environmental dimensions like formalization, general uncertainty,
munificence, and stability, scholars are increasingly analyzing the
qualities of events and the meanings they are given. They are treating
events as elements that social actors abstract from social processes,
and social actors as parties who interact to give events meaning.
The present paper defines event analyzes its origins and current
uses, and indicates how using and going beyond lessons from physics
can promote organization studies. These lessons come from the analysis
of physical events as particles in relation to waves, fields, and
perspectives. The uniquely social element of potential takes us beyond
the experience of physical science.
Arie Y. Lewin:
This paper contributes to the methodological discourse in organization
studies. Its focus is the analysis of events as they are used in
the discussions of situations or processes in organization theory.
The paper seeks to clarify the concept of "event" in analyzing organization
processes; classify different contexts within which events can be
embedded; and contribute to a taxonomy of events. The paper will
serve to inform the discussions involving interpretation of the social
construction of events and the classification of events to explain
configurational or contingency outcomes.},
owner = {matthias},
pdf = {Peterson_1998_EmbeddedOrganizationalEvents.pdf},
timestamp = {2006-07-10}
}
@INBOOK{Plaskoff_2003_IntersubjectivityAndCommunityBuilding,
author = {Josh Plaskoff},
title = {Intersubjectivity and community building: Learning to learn organizationally},
booktitle = {Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management},
publisher = {Blackwell Publishing Ltd.},
editor = {M. Easterby-Smith and M. Lyles},
year = {2003},
pages = {161-184},
workingstatusmatthias = {summarized for vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
owner = {matthias},
pdf = {Plaskoff_2003_IntersubjectivityAndCommunityBuilding.pdf},
timestamp = {2006-07-10}
}
@BOOK{Polanyi_1969_KnowingAndBeing,
author = {Michael Polanyi},
title = {Knowing and Being: Essays by M. Polanyi},
editor = {Marjorie Greene},
publisher = {Chicago: University of Chicago Press},
year = {1969},
owner = {matthias},
timestamp = {2006-07-12}
}
@ARTICLE{Polanyi_1969_OnBodyAndMind,
author = {Michael Polanyi},
title = {On Body and Mind},
journal = {The New Scholasticism},
year = {1969},
volume = {43},
number = {2},
pages = {195-204},
workingstatusmatthias = {cited in vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience;
cited in research plan},
owner = {matthias},
timestamp = {2006-07-12}
}
@BOOK{Polanyi_1967_TheTacitDimension,
author = {Michael Polanyi},
title = {The Tacit Dimension},
publisher = {London: Routledge},
year = {1967},
workingstatusmatthias = {summarized for vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience;
cited in research plan},
owner = {matthias},
timestamp = {2006-05-24}
}
@BOOK{Polanyi_1964_ScienceFaithAndSociety,
author = {Michael Polanyi},
title = {Science, Faith and Society},
publisher = {University of Chicago Press},
year = {1964},
workingstatusmatthias = {cited in vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
abstract = {Synopsis
In its concern with science as an essentially human enterprise, "Science,
Faith and Society makes an original and challenging contribution
to the philosophy of science. On its appearance in 1946 the book
quickly became the focus of controversy.
Polanyi aims to show that science must be understood as a community
of inquirers held together by a common faith; science, he argues,
is not the use of "scientific method" but rather consists in a discipline
imposed by scientists on themselves in the interests of discovering
an objective, impersonal truth. That such truth exists and can be
found is part of the scientists' faith. Polanyi maintains that both
authoritarianism and scepticism, attacking this faith, are attacking
science itself.
Back Cover
Polanyi aims to show that science must be understood as a community
of inquirers held together by a common faith; science, he argues,
is not the use of 'scientific methods' but rather consists in a discipline
imposed by scientists on themselves in the interest of discovering
an objective, impersonal truth.},
owner = {matthias},
timestamp = {2006-07-12}
}
@BOOK{Polanyi_1962_PersonalKnowledge,
author = {Michael Polanyi},
title = {Personal Knowledge},
publisher = {Chicago: University of Chicago Press},
year = {1962},
workingstatusmatthias = {cited in vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
owner = {matthias},
timestamp = {2006-07-12}
}
@ARTICLE{PonziKoenig_2002_KnowledgeManagement,
author = {Leonard J. Ponzi and Michael Koenig},
title = {Knowledge management: another management fad?},
journal = {Information Research},
year = {2002},
volume = {8},
workingstatusmatthias = {summarized for vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
abstract = {Knowledge management is a subject of a growth body of literature.
While capturing the interest of practitioners and scholars in the
mid-1990's, knowledge management remains a broadly defined concept
with faddish characteristics. Based on annual counts of article retrieved
from Science Citation Index, Social Science Citation Index, and ABI
Inform referring to three previous recognized management fad, this
paper introduces empirical evidence that proposes that a typical
management movement generally reveals itself as a fad in approximately
five years. In applying this approach and assumption to the case
of knowledge management, the findings suggest that knowledge management
is at least living longer than typical fads and perhaps is in the
process of establishing itself as a new aspect of management. To
further the understanding of knowledge management's development,
its interdisciplinary activity and breadth are reported and briefly
discussed.
Note: This working paper is preliminary data associated with the first
author's dissertation research on the emergence of knowledge management.
Summary
This paper provides empirical evidence that management movements generally
reveal themselves as fads or fashions within approximately five years
after having gained some type of momentum. When applying this general
rule of thumb to the popular concept of knowledge management, it
appears that knowledge management has initially survived.
It is certainly plausible to hypothesize that if knowledge management
does indeed mature into a permanent new component of managerial attention,
it will continue to grow and in the process undergo a tweaking phenomenon
-- that is, morphing or transforming into clearer, easier understood
concept. The 2000 dip in popularity does suggest such a phenomenon.
To examine whether knowledge management indeed has survived and is
on its way to becoming a significant and permanent part of management's
tool box, will require not only the passage of time, but will also
require a somewhat more sophisticated analysis. It is quite plausible
that this phenomenon could obscure the continued growth of a movement.
In other words, focusing on the appearance of a new title term can
distinguish between typical fads and more long-lasting phenomena,
but a more detailed analysis, which the authors look forward to conducting,
needs to be undertaken to determine whether knowledge management
is more than an unusually broad shouldered-fad.},
owner = {matthias},
timestamp = {2006-07-06}
}
@ARTICLE{PoppoZenger_1998_TestingAlternativeTheoriesOfTheFirm,
author = {Laura Poppo and Todd Zenger},
title = {Testing alternative theories of the firm: transaction cost, knowledge-based,
and measurement explanations for make-or-buy decisions in information
services},
journal = {Strategic Management Journal},
year = {1998},
volume = {19},
pages = {853-877},
workingstatusmatthias = {summarized for vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
abstract = {Firm's boundary choices have undergone careful examination in recent
years, particularly in information services. While transaction cost
economics provides a widely tested explanation for boundary choice,
more recent theoretical work advances competing knowledge-based and
measurement cost explanations. Similar to transaction cost economics,
these theories examine the impact of exchange attributes on the performance
of markets and hierarchies as institutions of governance. These theories,
however, offer alternative attributes to those suggested by transaction
cost economics or offer alternative mechanisms through which similar
attributes influence make-buy choices. Traditional empirical specifications
of make-buy models are unable to comparatively test among these alternative
theories. By developing and testing a model of comparative institutional
performance rather than institutional choice, we examine the degree
of support for these competing explanations of boundary choice. Hypotheses
are tested using data on the governance of nine information services
at 152 companies. Our results suggest that a theory of the firm and
a theory of boundary choice is likely to be complex, requiring integration
of transaction cost, knowledge-based, and measurement reasoning.},
owner = {matthias},
pdf = {PoppoZenger_1998_TestingAlternativeTheoriesOfTheFirm.pdf},
timestamp = {2006-07-03}
}
@ARTICLE{Porter_1980_CompetitiveStrategy,
author = {M. E. Porter},
title = {Competitive Strategy},
journal = {Free Press},
year = {1980},
workingstatusmatthias = {referenced by Wernerfelt 1984},
comment = {referenced by Wernerfelt_1984_AResourceBasedViewOfTheFirm concerning
Porter's five competitive forces (tools for analysis of products)},
owner = {matthias},
timestamp = {2006-03-21}
}
@ARTICLE{RanftLord_2000_AcquiringNewKnowledge,
author = {Annette L. Ranft and Michael D. Lord},
title = {Acquiring New Knowledge: The role of retaining human capital in acquisitions
of high-tech firms},
journal = {Journal of High Technology Management Research},
year = {2000},
volume = {11},
number = {2},
pages = {295-319},
workingstatusmatthias = {cited in vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
abstract = {Many acquisitions of high-tech firms are motivated by the acquirers'
desire to enhance their strategic technological capabilities. However,
these capabilities are likely to be embedded to a large degree in
the tacit and socially complex knowledge of the acquired firms' individual
and collective human capital. This presents a dilemma for acquirers
because, unlike tangible or financial assets, the acquired firms'
valuable human assets cannot be purchased or owned outright and they
can leave the firm at any time. Retention therefore is likely to
be of central importance during acquisition implementation in knowledge-intensive
firms. Using data from a sample of acquisitions in high-technology
industries, the results of this study confirm that retention of specific
types of human capital is critical for determining the success of
the acquirers' efforts to gain valuable new technological capabilities.
Applying the theory of relative standing to predict post-acquisition
retention, we find that autonomy, status, and commitment significantly
affect retention, but economic incentives do not. We discuss and
integrate these results in the context of knowledge-based views of
the firm and the existing literature on acquisition implementation.},
owner = {matthias},
pdf = {RanftLord_2000_AcquiringNewKnowledge.pdf},
timestamp = {2006-07-10}
}
@ARTICLE{RobertsHannSlaughter_2004_UnderstandingTheMotivationsParticipationAndPerformanceOfOpenSourceSoftwareDevelopers,
author = {Jeff Roberts and Horn Hann and Sandra Slaughter},
title = {Understanding the motivations, participation, and performance of
open source software developers: A longitudinal study of the Apache
projects},
journal = {Working Paper},
year = {2004},
workingstatusmatthias = {referenced by von Hippe and von Krogh 2006},
abstract = {Understanding what motivates individuals to participate is a central
theme in the research on open source
software development. Our study contributes to this research by revealing
how the different motivations
of open source developers are interrelated, how these motivations
influence their participation and
performance, and how past performance influences their subsequent
motivations. We draw upon the
literature on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation to develop a theoretical
model of the relationships between
the motivations, participation, and performance of open source software
developers. We evaluate our
theoretical model using survey and archival data collected from a
longitudinal field study of software
developers in the Apache web server projects. Our results reveal a
number of important findings. First, we
find that developers' motivations are not independent but rather are
related in complex ways. Being paid
to contribute to Apache projects is positively related to developers'
status/opportunity motivations and
negatively related to their use value motivations. Perhaps surprisingly,
we find no evidence of diminished
pure intrinsic motivation in the presence of extrinsic motivations;
however, one internalized extrinsic
motivation, status/opportunity, even complements intrinsic motivations.
Second, we find that different
motivations differentially impact participation. Developers' extrinsic
motivation is positively related to
their level of contributions; however, we find no significant relationship
between pure intrinsic motivation
and the level of contributions. Of the two internalized extrinsic
motivations that we identify,
status/opportunity motivations are positively related, while use value
motivations are negatively
associated to the level of contributions. Third, we find a significant
and positive relationship between
developers' level of contributions and their performance ranking.
Finally, our results suggest that past
performance positively influences developers' subsequent status/opportunity
motivations. We reconcile
our findings with existing theories of motivation and studies of open
source software development and
conclude with suggestions for increasing, managing, and sustaining
the motivations and performance of
open source developers.},
comment = {referenced by vonHippelvonKrogh_2006_ThePromiseOfResearchOnOpenSourceSoftware
concerning complex motivations of developers that vary during participation
in a project},
owner = {matthias},
pdf = {RobertsHannSlaughter_2004_UnderstandingTheMotivationsParticipationAndPerformanceOfOpenSourceSoftwareDevelopers.pdf},
timestamp = {2006-04-04}
}
@ARTICLE{RosenkopfNerkar_2001_BeyondLocalSearch,
author = {Lori Rosenkopf and Atul Nerkar},
title = {Beyond local search: boundary-spanning, exploration, and impact in
the optical disk industry},
journal = {Strategic Management Journal},
year = {2001},
volume = {22},
pages = {287-306},
workingstatusmatthias = {cited in research plan},
abstract = {Recognition of the firm's tendency toward local search has given rise
to concepts celebrating exploration that overcomes this tendency.
To move beyond local search requires that exploration span some boundary,
be it organizational or technological. While several studies have
encouraged boundary-spanning exploration, few have considered both
types of boundaries systematically. In doing so, we create a typology
of exploration behaviors: local exploration spans neither boundary,
external boundary-spanning exploration spans the firm boundary only,
internal boundary-spanning exploration spans the technological boundary
only, and radical exploration spans both boundaries. Using this typology,
we analyze the impact of knowledge generated by these different types
of exploration on subsequent technological evolution.
In our study of patenting activity in optical disk technology, we
find that exploration that does not span organizational boundaries
consistently generates lower impact on subsequent technological evolution.
In addition, we find that the impact of exploration on subsequent
technological evolution within the optical disk domain is highest
when the exploration spans organizational boundaries but not technological
boundaries. At the same time, we find that the impact of exploration
on subsequent technological development beyond the optical disk domain
is greatest when exploration spans both organizational and technological
boundaries.},
owner = {matthias},
pdf = {RosenkopfNerkar_2001_BeyondLocalSearch.pdf},
timestamp = {2006-05-24}
}
@ARTICLE{Ruderman_1997_AristotleAndTheRecoveryOfPoliticalJudgment,
author = {R.S. Ruderman},
title = {Aristotle And The Recovery Of Political Judgment},
journal = {American Political Science Review},
year = {1997},
volume = {91},
number = {2},
pages = {409-420},
workingstatusmatthias = {cited in vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
owner = {matthias},
timestamp = {2006-07-12}
}
@ARTICLE{SabherwalFernandez_2003_AnEmpiricalStudyOfTheEffectOfKnowledgeManagementProcesses,
author = {Rajiv Sabherwal and Irma Becerra-Fernandez},
title = {An empirical study of the effect of knowledge management processes
at individual, group, and organizational levels},
journal = {Decision Sciences},
year = {2003},
volume = {34},
pages = {225-261},
workingstatusmatthias = {summarized for vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
abstract = {To enhance our understanding of knowledge management, this paper focuses
on a specific question: How do knowledge management processes influence
perceived knowledge management effectiveness? Prior literature is
used to develop the research model, including hypotheses about the
effects of four knowledge management processes (internalization,
externalization, socialization, and combination) on perceived individual-level,
group-level, and organizational-level knowledge management effectiveness.
The study was conducted at the John F. Kennedy Space Center of the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration using a survey of 159
individuals and two rounds of personal interviews. Structural equation
modeling was performed to test measurement and structural models
using the survey data. The emergent model suggests that internalization
and externalization impact perceived effectiveness of individual-level
knowledge management. Socialization and combination influence perceived
effectiveness of knowledge management at group and organizational
levels, respectively. The results also support the expected upward
impact in perceived effectiveness of knowledge management, from individual
to group level, as well as from group level to organizational level.
The study's limitations and implications for practice and future
research are described.},
owner = {matthias},
pdf = {SabherwalFernandez_2003_AnEmpiricalStudyOfTheEffectOfKnowledgeManagementProcesses.pdf},
timestamp = {2006-07-03}
}
@ARTICLE{SabherwalSabherwal_2005_KnowledgeManagementUsingInformationTechnology,
author = {Rajiv Sabherwal and Sanjiv Sabherwal},
title = {Knowledge Management Using Information Technology: Determinants of
Short-Term Impact on Firm Value},
journal = {Decision Sciences},
year = {2005},
volume = {36},
pages = {531-567},
workingstatusmatthias = {summarized for vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
abstract = {The importance of knowledge management (KM) processes for organizational
performance is now well recognized. Seeking to better understand
the short-term impact of KM on firm value, this article focuses on
public announcements of information technology (IT)-based KM efforts,
and uses cumulative abnormal return (CAR) associated with an announcement
as the dependent variable. This article employs a contingency approach,
arguing that the KM announcement would have a positive short-term
impact on firm value in some conditions but not in others. Thus,
it pursues the following research question: What are the effects
of contextual factors on the CAR associated with the announcement
of an IT-based KM effort ? Specific hypotheses are proposed based
on information-processing theory, organizational learning theory,
the knowledge-based theory of the firm, and the theory of knowledge
creation. These hypotheses link CARs to alignment between industry
innovativeness and the KM process, alignment between firm efficiency
and the KM process, firm-specific instability, and firm diversification.
The empirical study utilizes secondary data on 89 KM announcements
from 1995 to 2002. The results largely support the hypotheses. Overall,
this article provides empirical support for the theory-based arguments,
and helps develop a contingency framework of the effectiveness of
KM efforts.},
owner = {matthias},
pdf = {SabherwalSabherwal_2005_KnowledgeManagementUsingInformationTechnology.pdf},
timestamp = {2006-07-03}
}
@ARTICLE{SchulzeHoegl_2006_KnowledgeCreationInNewProductDevelopmentProjects,
author = {Anja Schulze and Martin Hoegl},
title = {Knowledge creation in new product development projects},
journal = {Journal of Management},
year = {2006},
volume = {32},
pages = {210-236},
workingstatusmatthias = {summarized for vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
abstract = {In this article, the authors develop and test hypotheses relating
the four knowledge creation modes of socialization, externalization,
combination, and internalization as performed during the concept
and the development phases of new product development projects to
new product success. Using data from 94 new,product development projects,
they find that socialization during the concept phase and combination
during the development phase are positively related to new product
success but that externalization during the concept phase as well
as socialization and internalization during the development phase
are negatively related to new product success. Implications for theory
and practice are discussed.},
owner = {matthias},
timestamp = {2006-06-29}
}
@ARTICLE{Scott_1998_OrganizationalKnowledgeAndTheIntranet,
author = {Judy E. Scott},
title = {Organizational knowledge and the Intranet},
journal = {Decision Support Systems},
year = {1998},
volume = {23},
number = {1},
pages = {3-17},
workingstatusmatthias = {cited in vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
abstract = {The Intranet phenomenon has been driven by the push of technology
standards and the pull of organizational need to (1) communicate
across geographic, organizational and functional barriers, and (2)
collaborate among sites and with suppliers and customers. The objective
of this study is to generate a theoretical framework for the interaction
between organizational knowledge and the Intranet. The contribution
of this paper is 4-fold. First, we generate a theoretical framework
using the paradigm model of grounded theory. We show interactions
between the Intranet and three organizational knowledge strategies
taking into account drivers, the context, and intervening conditions.
Second, previous research on organizational knowledge creation theory
is incorporated into the framework. Third, the framework forms the
basis for future empirical research on the business value of the
Intranet. Finally, the study raises implications for IS developers,
IS departments, management and researchers.},
owner = {matthias},
timestamp = {2006-07-11}
}
@ARTICLE{Senker_1995_TacitKnowledgeAndModelsOfInnovation,
author = {Jacqueline Senker},
title = {Tacit Knowledge and Models of Innovation},
journal = {Industrial and Corporate Change},
year = {1995},
volume = {4},
pages = {425-447},
workingstatusmatthias = {summarized for vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
abstract = {This paper reviews literature which clarifies the role of tacit knowledge
in innovation. It then discusses the reasons for the continuing importance
of tacit knowledge, despite rapid advances in codification. Models
of innovation, however, appear to overlook the significance of the
tacit dimension of knowledge, especially that associated with external
advances in scientific knowledge. This is demonstrated by the results
of a study of university/industry links in biotechnology, advanced
engineering ceramics and parallel processing.},
owner = {matthias},
timestamp = {2006-07-03}
}
@ARTICLE{Shimizu_1995_BaPrinciple,
author = {H. Shimizu},
title = {Ba-Principle: New Logic for the Real-Time Emergence of Information},
journal = {Holonics},
year = {1995},
volume = {5},
number = {1},
pages = {67-79},
workingstatusmatthias = {cited in vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
owner = {matthias},
timestamp = {2006-07-11}
}
@BOOK{Simon_1991_ReasonInHumanAffairs,
author = {Herbert Alexander Simon},
title = {Reason in Human Affairs},
publisher = {Stanford University Press},
year = {1991},
workingstatusmatthias = {summarized for vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
owner = {matthias},
timestamp = {2006-05-30}
}
@ARTICLE{Simon_1981_TheSciencesOfTheArtificial,
author = {Herbert A. Simon},
title = {The Sciences of the Artificial},
journal = {MIT Press},
year = {1981},
workingstatusmatthias = {referenced by Grant 1996},
comment = {referenced by Grant_1996_TowardAKnowledgeBasedTheoryOfTheFirm concerning
cybernetics and systems theory},
owner = {matthias},
timestamp = {2006-03-20}
}
@ARTICLE{Simon_1956_DynamicProgrammingUnderUncertaintyWithAQuadraticCriterionFunction,
author = {Herbert A. Simon},
title = {Dynamic Programming Under Uncertainty with a Quadratic Criterion
Function},
journal = {Econometrica},
year = {1956},
volume = {24},
pages = {74-81},
workingstatusmatthias = {summarized for vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
owner = {matthias},
pdf = {Simon_1956_DynamicProgrammingUnderUncertaintyWithAQuadraticCriterionFunction.pdf},
timestamp = {2006-05-30}
}
@ARTICLE{Simon_1955_ABehavioralModelofRationalChoice,
author = {Herbert A. Simon},
title = {A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice},
journal = {The Quarterly Journal of Economics},
year = {1955},
volume = {69},
pages = {99-118},
workingstatusmatthias = {summarized for vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
owner = {matthias},
pdf = {Simon_1955_ABehavioralModelofRationalChoice.pdf},
review = {Contributions
- Critique on the rational economic man and introduction of the concept
of bounded rationality
- Definitions of “rational choice” modeled closely to the actual decision
process
- Model for static decision processes and an extension into dynamics},
timestamp = {2006-05-30}
}
@ARTICLE{Simonin_1999_AmbiguityAndTheProcessOfKnowledgeTransferInStrategicAlliances,
author = {Bernard L. Simonin},
title = {Ambiguity and the process of knowledge transfer in strategic alliances},
journal = {Strategic Management Journal},
year = {1999},
volume = {20},
pages = {595-623},
workingstatusmatthias = {cited in research plan},
abstract = {This research examines the role played by the causally ambiguous nature
of knowledge in the process of knowledge transfer between strategic
alliance partners. Based on a cross-sectional sample of 147 multinationals
and a structural equation methodology, this study empirically investigates
the simultaneous effects of knowledge ambiguity and its antecedents
- tacitness, asset specificity, prior experience, complexity, partner
protectiveness, cultural distance, and organizational distance -
on technological knowledge transfer. In contrast to past research
that generally assumed a direct relation between these explanatory
variables and transfer outcomes, this studys findings highlight the
critical role played by knowledge ambiguity as a full mediator of
tacitness, prior experience, complexity, cultural distance, and organizational
distance on knowledge transfer. These significant effects are further
found to be moderated by the firms level of collaborative know-how,
its learning capacity, and the duration of the alliance.},
owner = {matthias},
pdf = {Simonin_1999_AmbiguityAndTheProcessOfKnowledgeTransferInStrategicAlliances.pdf},
timestamp = {2006-05-24}
}
@ARTICLE{Spender_1996_MakingKnowledgeTheBasisForADynamicTheoryOfTheFirm,
author = {J.-C. Spender},
title = {Making Knowledge the Basis of a Dynamic Theory of the Firm},
journal = {Strategic Management Journal, Special Issue: Knowledge and the Firm},
year = {1996},
volume = {17},
pages = {45-62},
workingstatusmatthias = {summarized for vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
owner = {matthias},
pdf = {Spender_1996_MakingKnowledgeTheBasisForADynamicTheoryOfTheFirm.pdf},
review = {Contributions
- Multitype epistemology framing the pre- and subconcious modes of
human knowing and the collective knowledge of social groups
- Identification of four heuristics for managers to let them define
their firm as a knowledge-based activity system},
timestamp = {2006-05-31}
}
@ARTICLE{SpenderGrant_1996_KnowledgeAndTheFirm,
author = {J.-C. Spender and Robert M. Grant},
title = {Knowledge and the Firm: Overview},
journal = {Strategic Management Journal, Special Issue: Knowledge and the Firm},
year = {1996},
volume = {17},
pages = {5-9},
workingstatusmatthias = {summarized for vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
abstract = {The explosion of interest in knowledge and its management reflects
the trend towards `knowledge work' and the Information Age, and recognition
of knowledge as the principal source of economic rent. The papers
in this Special Issue represent an attempt by strategy scholars (and
some outside our traditional field) to come to terms with the implications
of knowledge for the theory of the firm and its management. They
are the product of a convergence of several streams of research which
have addressed management implications of knowledge, including the
management of technology, the economics of innovation and information,
resource-based theory, and organizational learning. At the theoretical
level, knowledge-centered approaches of Penrose, Arrow, Hayek and
others have been enriched by contributions from evolutionary economists
(notably Nelson and Winter) and epistemologists (notably M. Polanyi).
At the empirical level, research into innovation and its diffusion
originated by Mansfield, Griliches and others has been extended through
studies which investigate tacit as well as explicit knowledge, and
explore knowledge transfer within as well as across firms.},
owner = {matthias},
pdf = {SpenderGrant_1996_KnowledgeAndTheFirm.pdf},
timestamp = {2006-07-03}
}
@UNPUBLISHED{StatlerRoosVictor_2006_DearPrudence,
author = {M. Statler and J. Roos and B. Victor},
title = {Dear Prudence: An Essay On Practical Wisdom In Strategy Making},
institution = {Imagination Lab},
year = {2006},
workingstatusmatthias = {cited in vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
owner = {matthias},
timestamp = {2006-07-12}
}
@BOOK{Stehr_1994_KnowledgeSocieties,
author = {N Stehr},
title = {Knowledge Societies},
publisher = {Sage Thousand Oaks, Calif},
year = {1994},
workingstatusmatthias = {cited in vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
owner = {matthias},
timestamp = {2006-05-31}
}
@BOOK{Stehr_1992_PracticalKnowledge,
author = {N Stehr},
title = {Practical Knowledge: Applying the Social Sciences},
publisher = {Sage Publications},
year = {1992},
workingstatusmatthias = {cited in vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
owner = {matthias},
timestamp = {2006-05-31}
}
@ARTICLE{SternbergWagnerWilliamsHovart_1995_TestingCommonSense,
author = {R.J. Sternberg and R.K. Wagner and W.M. Williams and J.A. Hovart},
title = {Testing Common Sense},
journal = {American Psychologist},
year = {1995},
volume = {50},
pages = {912-927},
workingstatusmatthias = {cited in vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
owner = {matthias},
timestamp = {2006-07-12}
}
@ARTICLE{Stuart_1998_NetworkPositionsAndPropensitiesToCollaborate,
author = {Toby E. Stuart},
title = {Network positions and propensities to collaborate: An investigation
of strategic alliance formation in a high-technology industry},
journal = {Administrative science quarterly},
year = {1998},
volume = {43},
pages = {668-698},
workingstatusmatthias = {cited in research plan},
owner = {matthias},
pdf = {Stuart_1998_NetworkPositionsAndPropensitiesToCollaborate.pdf},
timestamp = {2006-05-24}
}
@ARTICLE{SwanNewellScarbroughHislop_1999_KnowledgeManagementAndInnovation,
author = {Jacky Swan and Sue Newell and Harry Scarbrough and Donald Hislop},
title = {Knowledge management and innovation: networks and networking},
journal = {Journal of Knowledge Management},
year = {1999},
volume = {3},
pages = {262-275},
workingstatusmatthias = {summarized for vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
abstract = {Begins with a critical review of the literature on knowledge management,
arguing that its focus on IT to create a network structure may limit
its potential for encouraging knowledge sharing across social communities.
Two cases of interactive innovation are contrasted. One focused almost
entirely on using IT (intranet) for knowledge sharing, resulting
in a plethora of independent intranets which reinforced existing
organizational and social boundaries with electronic “fences”. In
the other, while IT was used to provide a network to encourage sharing,
there was also recognition of the importance of face-to-face interaction
for sharing tacit knowledge. The emphasis was on encouraging active
networking among dispersed communities, rather than relying on IT
networks. Argues for a community-based model of knowledge management
for interactive innovation and contrasts this with the cognitive-based
view that underpins many IT-led knowledge management initiatives.},
owner = {matthias},
timestamp = {2006-06-30}
}
@ARTICLE{Szulanski_1996_ExploringInternalStickiness,
author = {Gabriel Szulanski},
title = {Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best
practice within the firm},
journal = {Strategic Management Journal, Special Issue: Knowledge and the Firm},
year = {1996},
volume = {17},
number = {2},
pages = {27-43},
workingstatusmatthias = {summarized for vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
abstract = {The ability to transfer best practices internally is critical to a
firm's ability to build competitive advantage through the appropriation
of rents from scarce internal knowledge. Just as a firm's distinctive
competencies might be difficult for other firms to imitate, its best
practices could be difficult to imitate internally. Yet, little systematic
attention has been paid to such internal stickiness. The author analyzes
internal stickiness of knowledge transfer and tests the resulting
model using canonical correlation analysis of a data set consisting
of 271 observations of 122 best-practice transfers in eight companies.
Contrary to conventional wisdom that blames primarily motivational
factors, the study findings show the major barriers to internal knowledge
transfer to be knowledge-related factors such as the recipient's
lack of absorptive capacity, causal ambiguity, and an arduous relationship
between the source and the recipient.},
keywords = {internal stickiness; best practice transfer; knowledge transfer; knowledgement
management; rent appropriation},
owner = {matthias},
pdf = {Szulanski_1996_ExploringInternalStickiness.pdf},
timestamp = {2006-05-24}
}
@BOOK{Teece_2000_ManagingIntellectualCapital,
author = {David J. Teece},
title = {Managing intellectual capital: Organizational, Strategic, and Policy
Dimensions},
publisher = {New York: Oxford University Press},
year = {2000},
workingstatusmatthias = {cited in vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience;
cited in research plan},
owner = {matthias},
timestamp = {2006-07-11}
}
@ARTICLE{Teece_1998_CapturingValueFromKnowledgeAssets,
author = {David J. Teece},
title = {Capturing value from knowledge assets: The new economy, markets for
know-how, and intangible assets},
journal = {California Management Review},
year = {1998},
volume = {40},
pages = {55-79},
workingstatusmatthias = {summarized for vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
abstract = {Knowledge, competence and related intangibles have emerged as the
key drivers of competitive advantage in developed nations. The importance
of knowledge and the rapid expansion of goods and factor markets
has left intangible assets as the main basis of competitive differentiation
in many sectors. The value-enhancing challenges facing management
are moving away from the administrative and toward the entrepreneurial.
The key sources of wealth creation in the beginning of the 21st century
will lie with new enterprise formation, the renewal of incumbents,
the exploitation of technological know-how, intellectual property,
and brands, and the successful development and commercialization
of new products and services . The implications for management are
profound. Managers must recognize that in open unregulated markets,
the domains in which value can be built are likely to be more and
more confined.
Abstract by Web of Science:
The increasing liberalization of markets coupled with the creation
of new markets for intermediate products is stripping firm-level
competitive advantage back to its fundamental core: difficult to
create and difficult to imitate intangible assets. This article explores
these developments and elucidates implications for the management
of intellectual capital inside firms.},
owner = {matthias},
pdf = {Teece_1998_CapturingValueFromKnowledgeAssets.pdf},
timestamp = {2006-07-03}
}
@INBOOK{Tsoukas_2003_DoWeReallyUnderstandTacitKnowledge,
author = {H. Tsoukas},
title = {Do We Really Understand Tacit Knowledge?},
booktitle = {The Blackwell handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management},
publisher = {Oxford: Blackwell},
editor = {M. Easterby-Smith and M. Lyles},
year = {2003},
pages = {410-427},
workingstatusmatthias = {cited in vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
owner = {matthias},
timestamp = {2006-07-12}
}
@ARTICLE{Tsoukas_1996_TheFirmAsADistributedKnowledgeSystem,
author = {Haridimos Tsoukas},
title = {The firm as a distributed knowledge system: A constructionist approach},
journal = {Strategic Management Journal, Special Issue: Knowledge and the Firm},
year = {1996},
volume = {17},
pages = {11-25},
workingstatusmatthias = {summarized for vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
abstract = {The organizational problem firms face is the utilization of knowledge
which is not, and cannot be, known by a single agent. Even more importantly,
no single agent can fully specify in advance what kind of practical
knowledge is going to be relevant, when and where. Firms, therefore,
are distributed knowledge systems in a strong sense: they are decentered
systems, lacking an overseeing `mind'. The knowledge they need to
draw upon is inherently indeterminate and continually emerging, it
is not self-contained Individuals' stock of knowledge consists of
(a) role-related normative expectations; (b) dispositions, which
have been formed in the course of past socializations; and (c) local
knowledge of particular circumstances of time and place. A firm has
greater-or-lesser control over normative expectations, but very limited
control over the other two At any point in time, a firm's knowledge
is the indeterminate outcome of individuals attempting to manage
the inevitable tensions between normative expectations, dispositions,
and local contexts},
owner = {matthias},
pdf = {Tsoukas_1996_TheFirmAsADistributedKnowledgeSystem.pdf},
timestamp = {2006-07-03}
}
@ARTICLE{Ulhoi_2004_OpenSourceDevelopmentAHybridInInnovationAndManagementTheory,
author = {John P. Ulhoi},
title = {Open source development: a hybrid in innovation and management theory},
journal = {Management Decision},
year = {2004},
volume = {42},
pages = {1095-1114},
workingstatusmatthias = {referenced by von Hippel and von Krogh},
abstract = {This paper addresses innovations based on open source or non-proprietary
knowledge. Viewed through the lens of private property theory, such
agency appears to be a true anomaly. However, by a further turn of
the theoretical kaleidoscope, we will show that there may be perfectly
justifiable reasons for not regarding open source innovations as
anomalies. The paper is based on three sectorial and generic cases
of open source innovation, which is an offspring of contemporary
theory made possible by combining elements of the model of private
agency with those of the model of collective agency. In closing,
the paper addresses implications for further research, practitioners
and other policy-makers.},
comment = {referenced by vonHippelvonKrogh_2006_ThePromiseOfResearchOnOpenSourceSoftware
concerning "Open source software projects have created an institutional
alternative to firm-based innovation"},
owner = {matthias},
pdf = {Ulhoi_2004_OpenSourceDevelopmentAHybridInInnovationAndManagementTheory.pdf},
timestamp = {2006-04-03}
}
@BOOK{VarelaThompsonRosch_1991_TheEmbodiedMind,
author = {F.J. Varela and E. Thompson and E. Rosch},
title = {The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience},
publisher = {MIT Press, Cambridge, MA},
year = {1991},
workingstatusmatthias = {summarized for vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
owner = {matthias},
timestamp = {2006-05-31}
}
@INBOOK{VenzinVonKroghRoos_1998_FutureResearchIntoKnowledgeManagement,
author = {M. Venzin and G. von Krogh and J. Roos},
title = {Future Research Into Knowledge Management},
booktitle = {Knowing in Firms},
publisher = {Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA},
editor = {G. von Krogh and J. Roos and D.Kleine},
year = {1998},
pages = {26-66},
workingstatusmatthias = {cited in vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
owner = {matthias},
timestamp = {2006-07-11}
}
@BOOK{VeraCrossan_2003_OrganizationalLearningAndKnowledgeManagement,
author = {D. Vera and M. Crossan},
title = {Organizational learning and knowledge management},
editor = {M. Easterby-Smith \& M. Lyles},
publisher = {Handbook of organizational learning and knowledge management, 122-141,
Oxford, Blackwell},
year = {2003},
workingstatusmatthias = {summarized for vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
owner = {matthias},
timestamp = {2006-05-31}
}
@BOOK{Weick_1979_TheSocialPsychologyOfOrganizing,
author = {Kar Weick},
title = {The Social Psychology Of Organizing},
publisher = {New York: MacGraw-Hill},
year = {1979},
workingstatusmatthias = {cited in vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
owner = {matthias},
timestamp = {2006-07-11}
}
@ARTICLE{RobertsWeick_1993_CollectiveMindInOrganizations,
author = {Karl E. Weick and Karlene H. Roberts},
title = {Collective Mind In Organizations: Heedful Interrelating On Flight
Decks},
journal = {Administrative Science Quarterly},
year = {1993},
volume = {38},
owner = {matthias},
timestamp = {2006-07-12}
}
@BOOK{WeickWestley_1996_OrganizationalLearning,
author = {Karl E. Weick and Frances Westley},
title = {Organizational learning: Affirming an oxymoron},
editor = {S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy and W. Nord},
publisher = {in Handbook of Organization Studies, 440-458, London, Sage},
year = {1996},
workingstatusmatthias = {summarized for vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
owner = {matthias},
timestamp = {2006-05-31}
}
@BOOK{Wenger_1998_CommunitiesOfPractice,
author = {Etienne Wenger},
title = {Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity},
publisher = {Cambridge: Cambridge University Press},
year = {1998},
workingstatusmatthias = {cited in vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
owner = {matthias},
timestamp = {2006-07-12}
}
@ARTICLE{Wernerfelt_1984_AResourceBasedViewOfTheFirm,
author = {Birger Wernerfelt},
title = {A Resource-Based View of the Firm},
journal = {Strategic Management Journal},
year = {1984},
volume = {5},
pages = {171-180},
workingstatusmatthias = {started reading 2006-03-20 (Magglingen)},
abstract = {The paper explores the usefulness of analysing firms from the resource
side rather than from the product side. In analogy to entry barriers
and growth-share matrices, the concepts of resource position barrier
and resource-product matrices are suggested. These tools are then
used to highlight the new strategic options which naturally emerge
from the resource perspective.},
owner = {matthias},
pdf = {Wernerfelt_1984_AResourceBasedViewOfTheFirm.pdf},
review = {Introduction
- "For the firm, resources and products are two sides of the same
coin." #QUOTE#
- Products and resources of a firm determine the optimal product-market
activities and vice versa
- Traditional view: resources of a firm are labour, capital and land
-> new view: defining firms as a broader set of resources
- Multi-product firms benefit from joint costs -> economies of scope
- Resource perspective provides key issues of strategy for diversified
firms: usage of resources, development of resources, choice of market
expansion, acquisition criteria
- Propositions of the paper:
1. New perspective, especially for diversified firms
2. Identification of high profit resources -> resource position barriers
3. Balance between exploitation of existing resources and development
of new resources #DILEMMA#
4. Acquisitions of firms based on a rare resource to maximize market
imperfection
Resources and profitability
- Definition of a firm's resource: all tangible and intangible assets
semipermanently tied to the firm (brands, technology knowledge, employment
of skilled personnel, trade contracts, machinery, efficient procedures,
capital etc.)},
timestamp = {2006-03-16}
}
@BOOK{Zey_1992_DecisionMaking,
author = {Mary Zey},
title = {Decision Making: Alternatives to Rational Choice Models},
publisher = {SAGE Publication},
year = {1992},
workingstatusmatthias = {summarized for vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
abstract = {Prevailing, highly conservative rational choice theories are challenged
in this illuminating volume. Mary Zey and other outstanding contributors
expand our understanding of decision-making theory by presenting
evidence that points to the wide range and complexity of human decision
making. Labeled deviations from formal rationality, other models
of decision making--habit, emotion, and moral and ethical values--are
shown to be alternative and dominant, not deviating motives behind
decision making. Written at an accessible level, this volume examines
criticisms of rational choice models (rational choice, public choice,
neoclassical economic theories) from a wide range of perspectives
within and external to the rational choice model. In Parts II and
III, the chapters concentrate on micro and macro alternatives to
rational choice models, including a balance of theoretical and empirical
pieces. This is the first volume to assemble and further legitimize
the alternative models of decision making. Decision Making is essential
reading for scholars and students of organization studies, socio-economics,
management, sociology, economics, psychology, political science,
business ethics, and policy studies.},
owner = {matthias},
timestamp = {2006-05-30}
}
@ARTICLE{ZarragaBonache_2005_TheImpactOfTeamAtmosphereOnKnowledgeOutcomesInSelfManagedTeams,
author = {Celia Zárraga and Jaime Bonache},
title = {The Impact of Team Atmosphere on Knowledge Outcomes in Self-managed
Teams},
journal = {Organization Studies},
year = {2005},
volume = {26},
pages = {661-681},
workingstatusmatthias = {summarized for vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
abstract = {This study defines the construct of team atmosphere and provides a
framework within which causes and consequences of team atmosphere
in knowledge transfer and creation can be empirically investigated.
Data were collected using a survey of 363 individuals of 12 companies
who worked in self-managed teams. As predicted, results indicated
that a 'high care' atmosphere among team members favours both the
transfer and the creation of knowledge. Findings also showed that
certain management initiatives foster this type of atmosphere. The
study concludes with some recommendations for future research in
this area.},
keywords = {knowledge management; self-managed teams; climate; team atmosphere},
owner = {matthias},
timestamp = {2006-06-29}
}
@ARTICLE{ZarragaBonache_2003_AssessingTheTeamEnvironmentForKnowledgeSharing,
author = {Celia Zárraga and Jaime Bonache},
title = {Assessing The Team Environment For Knowledge Sharing: An Empirical
Analysis},
journal = {International Journal of Human Resource Management},
year = {2003},
volume = {14},
number = {7},
pages = {1227 - 1245},
workingstatusmatthias = {cited in vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledgeInOrganizationScience},
abstract = {The self-managed work team is an organizational structure that is
much used by companies today. It is put forward as the most appropriate
setting for the creation and transfer of knowledge, while protecting
the source of competitive advantage. However, achieving efficiency
in a work team is not without its difficulties. The literature indicates
that a suitable climate minimizes these. In this study, we analyse,
both theoretically and empirically, the components of that climate
as well as some organizational initiatives that favour its presence.
The empirical study was carried out on a sample of 363 individuals
working in self-managed teams within companies, mostly multinationals,
located in Spain.},
owner = {matthias},
timestamp = {2006-07-11}
}
@comment{jabref-meta: groupsversion:3;}
@comment{jabref-meta: groupstree:
0 AllEntriesGroup:;
1 ExplicitGroup:BUSINESS ADMIN TOPICS\;0\;;
2 ExplicitGroup:Organization studies\;0\;;
3 ExplicitGroup:Hierarchy\;0\;BloomfieldCoombs_1992_InformationsTechno
logyControlAndPower\;Grant_1996_TowardAKnowledgeBasedTheoryOfTheFirm\;
;
3 ExplicitGroup:Decision-making, rational choice\;0\;BloomfieldCoombs_
1992_InformationsTechnologyControlAndPower\;Grant_1996_TowardAKnowledg
eBasedTheoryOfTheFirm\;Simon_1955_ABehavioralModelofRationalChoice\;Ze
y_1992_DecisionMaking\;;
3 ExplicitGroup:Boundaries of the firm\;0\;GrandVonKroghLeonardSwap_20
04_ResourceAllocationBeyondFirmBoundaries\;Grant_1996_TowardAKnowledge
BasedTheoryOfTheFirm\;;
3 ExplicitGroup:Coordination\;0\;BloomfieldCoombs_1992_InformationsTec
hnologyControlAndPower\;Grant_1996_TowardAKnowledgeBasedTheoryOfTheFir
m\;;
3 ExplicitGroup:System theory\;0\;Simon_1981_TheSciencesOfTheArtificia
l\;;
3 ExplicitGroup:Motivation\;0\;RobertsHannSlaughter_2004_Understanding
TheMotivationsParticipationAndPerformanceOfOpenSourceSoftwareDeveloper
s\;;
3 ExplicitGroup:Bounded Rationality\;0\;Galbraith_1973_DesigningComple
xOrganizations\;MarchOlsen_1976_AmbiguityandChoiceinOrganizations\;Mar
chSimon_1958_Organizations\;;
2 ExplicitGroup:Theory of the firm\;0\;;
3 ExplicitGroup:Knowledge based view\;0\;Grant_1996_TowardAKnowledgeBa
sedTheoryOfTheFirm\;;
3 ExplicitGroup:Resource based view\;0\;Wernerfelt_1984_AResourceBased
ViewOfTheFirm\;;
3 ExplicitGroup:Explanation of the existance of the firm\;0\;GhoshalMo
ran_1996_BadForPracticeACritiqueOfTransactionCostTheory\;Grant_1996_To
wardAKnowledgeBasedTheoryOfTheFirm\;;
3 ExplicitGroup:Agency theory\;0\;JensenMeckling_1976_TheoryOfTheFirmM
anagerialBehaviorAgencyCostsAndOwnershipStructure\;;
2 ExplicitGroup:Knowledge management\;0\;JensenMeckling_1976_TheoryOfT
heFirmManagerialBehaviorAgencyCostsAndOwnershipStructure\;;
3 ExplicitGroup:Knowledge integration\;0\;Grant_1996_TowardAKnowledgeB
asedTheoryOfTheFirm\;;
3 ExplicitGroup:Organizational learning\;0\;ChristensenOverdorf_2000_M
eetingTheChallengeOfDisruptiveChange\;Dodgson_1993_OrganizationalLearn
ing\;Grant_1996_TowardAKnowledgeBasedTheoryOfTheFirm\;;
3 ExplicitGroup:Absorptive capacity\;0\;CohenLevinthal_1990_Absorptive
Capacity\;Grant_1996_TowardAKnowledgeBasedTheoryOfTheFirm\;;
3 ExplicitGroup:Common knowledge\;0\;Grant_1996_TowardAKnowledgeBasedT
heoryOfTheFirm\;;
3 ExplicitGroup:Knowledge Sharing\;0\;Nonaka_1994_ADynamicTheoryofOrga
nizationalKnowledgeCreation\;;
4 ExplicitGroup:Internal\;0\;KogutZander_1992_KnowledgeOfTheFirmCombin
ativeCapabilitiesAndTheReplicationOfTechnology\;vonKrogh_2002_TheCommu
nalResourceAndInformationSystems\;;
4 ExplicitGroup:External\;0\;AlmeidaDokkoRosenkopf_2003_StartupSizeAnd
TheMechanismsOfExternalLearning\;CohenLevinthal_1990_AbsorptiveCapacit
y\;Danneels_2002_TheDynamicsOfProductInnovationAndFirmCompetences\;Gra
ndVonKroghLeonardSwap_2004_ResourceAllocationBeyondFirmBoundaries\;Lee
Cole_2003_FromAFirmBasedToACommunityBasedModelOfKnowledgeCreation\;Lie
beskind_1996_KnowledgeStrategyAndTheTheoryOfTheFirm\;RosenkopfNerkar_2
001_BeyondLocalSearch\;;
3 ExplicitGroup:Tacit Knowledge\;0\;AlaviLeidner_2001_ReviewKnowledgeM
anagementAndKnowledgeManagementSystems\;BrownDuguid_1991_Organizationa
lLearningAndCommunitiesOfPractice\;Dodgson_1993_OrganizationalLearning
\;Galbraith_1973_DesigningComplexOrganizations\;Goldman_1986_Epistemol
ogyAndCognition\;Hedlund_1994_AModelOfKnowledgeManagementAndTheNFormCo
rporation\;Howells_1996_TacitKnowledgeInnovationAndTechnologyTransfer\
;Kilduff_1993_DeconstructingOrganizations\;KogutZander_1992_KnowledgeO
fTheFirmCombinativeCapabilitiesAndTheReplicationOfTechnology\;LeonardS
ensiper_1998_TheRoleOfTacitKnowledgeInGroupInnovation\;MarchOlsen_1976
_AmbiguityandChoiceinOrganizations\;MarchSimon_1958_Organizations\;Mas
citelli_2000_FromExperienceHarnessingTacitKnowledgeToAchieveBreakthrou
ghInnovation\;MaturanaVarela_1987_TheTreeOfKnowledge\;Morgan_1986_Imag
esOfOrganizations\;NewellSimon_1972_HumanProblemSolving\;NonakaTakeuch
i_1995_TheKnowledgeCreatingCompany\;NonakaToyamaKonno_2000_SECIBaAndLe
adership\;NonakaUmemotoSenoo_1996_FromInformationProcessingToKnowledge
Creation\;Nonaka_1991_TheKnowledgeCreatingCompany\;Nonaka_1994_ADynami
cTheoryofOrganizationalKnowledgeCreation\;Polanyi_1967_TheTacitDimensi
on\;Simon_1955_ABehavioralModelofRationalChoice\;Simon_1956_DynamicPro
grammingUnderUncertaintyWithAQuadraticCriterionFunction\;Simon_1991_Re
asonInHumanAffairs\;Spender_1996_MakingKnowledgeTheBasisForADynamicThe
oryOfTheFirm\;Stehr_1992_PracticalKnowledge\;Stehr_1994_KnowledgeSocie
ties\;VarelaThompsonRosch_1991_TheEmbodiedMind\;VeraCrossan_2003_Organ
izationalLearningAndKnowledgeManagement\;WeickWestley_1996_Organizatio
nalLearning\;Zey_1992_DecisionMaking\;vonKroghIchijoNonaka_2000_Enabli
ngKnowledgeCreation\;vonKroghRoosSlocum_1994_AnEssayOnCorporateEpistem
ology\;;
2 ExplicitGroup:Strategic Management\;0\;;
3 ExplicitGroup:Competitive advantage\;0\;ChristensenOverdorf_2000_Mee
tingTheChallengeOfDisruptiveChange\;Grant_1996_TowardAKnowledgeBasedTh
eoryOfTheFirm\;LeonardSensiper_1998_TheRoleOfTacitKnowledgeInGroupInno
vation\;Porter_1980_CompetitiveStrategy\;Wernerfelt_1984_AResourceBase
dViewOfTheFirm\;;
3 ExplicitGroup:Economies of scope\;0\;Grant_1996_TowardAKnowledgeBase
dTheoryOfTheFirm\;PanzarWillig_1981_EconomiesOfScope\;Wernerfelt_1984_
AResourceBasedViewOfTheFirm\;;
3 ExplicitGroup:Alliances\;0\;AlmeidaDokkoRosenkopf_2003_StartupSizeAn
dTheMechanismsOfExternalLearning\;Stuart_1998_NetworkPositionsAndPrope
nsitiesToCollaborate\;;
2 ExplicitGroup:Innovation Management\;0\;ChristensenOverdorf_2000_Mee
tingTheChallengeOfDisruptiveChange\;Danneels_2002_TheDynamicsOfProduct
InnovationAndFirmCompetences\;GrandVonKroghLeonardSwap_2004_ResourceAl
locationBeyondFirmBoundaries\;Ulhoi_2004_OpenSourceDevelopmentAHybridI
nInnovationAndManagementTheory\;vonHippelVonKrogh_2003_OpenSourceSoftw
areAndThePrivateCollectiveInnovationModelIssuesForOrganizationScience\
;vonHippel_2005_DemocratizingInnovation\;;
3 ExplicitGroup:Open Innovation\;0\;Chesbrough_2003_TheEraOfOpenInnova
tion\;ChristensenOverdorf_2000_MeetingTheChallengeOfDisruptiveChange\;
LeeCole_2003_FromAFirmBasedToACommunityBasedModelOfKnowledgeCreation\;
;
3 ExplicitGroup:Public Good\;0\;vonHippel_2005_DemocratizingInnovation
\;;
3 ExplicitGroup:Private-Collective Model\;0\;vonHippel_2005_Democratiz
ingInnovation\;;
1 ExplicitGroup:MISC\;0\;;
2 ExplicitGroup:Great citations\;0\;Grant_1996_TowardAKnowledgeBasedTh
eoryOfTheFirm\;OrlikowskiBarley_2001_TechnologyAndInstitutions\;vonHip
pel_2005_DemocratizingInnovation\;;
2 ExplicitGroup:Dissertation Matthias Stuermer\;0\;vonHippel_2005_Demo
cratizingInnovation\;;
3 ExplicitGroup:Taxonomy of knowledge\;0\;Teece_1998_CapturingValueFro
mKnowledgeAssets\;;
2 ExplicitGroup:Exemplary Quantitative Study\;0\;JanzPrasarnphanich_20
03_UnderstandingTheAntecedentsOfEffectiveKnowledgeManagement\;;
1 ExplicitGroup:INFORMATION SYSTEMS\;0\;;
2 ExplicitGroup:Technology\;0\;BloomfieldCoombs_1992_InformationsTechn
ologyControlAndPower\;OrlikowskiBarley_2001_TechnologyAndInstitutions\
;;
2 ExplicitGroup:Open Source Software Research\;0\;BaldwinClark_2006_Th
eArchitectureOfParticipation\;GrandVonKroghLeonardSwap_2004_ResourceAl
locationBeyondFirmBoundaries\;LakhaniVonHippel_2003_HowOpenSourceSoftw
areWorks\;LeeCole_2003_FromAFirmBasedToACommunityBasedModelOfKnowledge
Creation\;RobertsHannSlaughter_2004_UnderstandingTheMotivationsPartici
pationAndPerformanceOfOpenSourceSoftwareDevelopers\;Ulhoi_2004_OpenSou
rceDevelopmentAHybridInInnovationAndManagementTheory\;vonHippelVonKrog
h_2003_OpenSourceSoftwareAndThePrivateCollectiveInnovationModelIssuesF
orOrganizationScience\;vonKroghVonHippel_2006_ThePromiseOfResearchOnOp
enSourceSoftware\;;
1 ExplicitGroup:CITED IN PAPER\;0\;;
2 ExplicitGroup:vonKroghNonaka_2006_TacitKnowledge\;0\;AlaviLeidner_20
01_ReviewKnowledgeManagementAndKnowledgeManagementSystems\;AmbrosiniBo
wman_2001_TacitKnowledge\;ArgoteIngram_2000_KnowledgeTransfer\;Aristot
le_1941_BasicWorksOfAristotle\;Arnulf_2005_WhatsMeasuredIsNotNecessari
lyManaged\;BaldwinBaldwin_1978_BehaviorismOnVerstehenAndErklaren\;Barr
y_1991_ManagingTheBosslessTeam\;BeechMacIntoshMacLeanShepherdStokes_20
02_ExploringConstraintsOnDevelopingKnowledge\;BierlyChakrabarti_1996_G
enericKnowledgeStrategiesInTheUSPharmaceuticalIndustry\;Birmingham_200
3_PracticingTheVirtueOfReflectionInAnUnfamiliarContext\;Boisot_1998_Kn
owledgeAssets\;BowonderMiyake_2000_TechnologyManagement\;BrownDuguid_1
991_OrganizationalLearningAndCommunitiesOfPractice\;Bryant_2005_TheImp
actOfPeerMentoringOnOrganizationalKnowledgeCreationandSharing\;Calvino
_1990_SixMemosForTheNextMillenium\;ChenEdgington_2005_AssessingValueIn
OrganizationalKnowledgeCreation\;ChoiLee_2002_KnowledgeManagementStrat
egyAndItsLinkToKnowledgeCreationProcess\;ChooBontis_2002_KnowledgeInte
llectualCapitalAndStrategy\;ChouHe_2004_KnowledgeManagement\;ChouWang_
2003_QuantifyingBa\;CookBrown_1999_BridgingEpistemologies\;DeCarolisDe
eds_1999_TheImpactOfStocksAndFlowsOfOrganizationalKnowledgeOnFirmPerfo
rmance\;Dodgson_1993_OrganizationalLearning\;Dougherty_1996_Organizing
ForInnovation\;DreyfusDreyfus_1986_MindOverMachine\;DroegeHoobler_2003
_EmployeeTurnoverandTacitKnowledgeDiffusion\;Dunne_1993_TheRoughGround
\;DyckStarkeMischkeMauws_2005_LearningToBuildACar\;Eraut_2000_NonForma
lLearningAndTacitKnowledgeInProfessionalWork\;Flyvbjerg_2001_MakingSoc
ialScienceMatter\;Fowers_2003_ReasonAndHumanFinitute\;Gadamer_1975_Tru
thAndMethod\;Galbraith_1973_DesigningComplexOrganizations\;Gardner_198
5_TheMindsNewScience\;GirouxTaylor_2002_TheJustificationOfKnowledge\;G
oldman_1986_EpistemologyAndCognition\;GoodallRoberts_2003_RepairingMan
agerialKnowledgeAbilityOverDistance\;GottschalkKhandelwal_2002_InterOr
ganizationalKnowledgeManagement\;Grant_2001_KnowledgeAndOrganization\;
GuptaGovindarajan_2000_KnowledgeManagementsSocialDimension\;Habermas_1
991_OnTheLogicOfTheSocialSciences\;Halverson_2002_RepresentingPhronesi
s\;Halverson_2004_AccessingDocumentingAndCommunicatingPracticalWisdom\
;HedlundNonaka_1993_ModelsOfKnowledgeManagementInTheWestAndJapan\;Hedl
und_1986_TheHypermodernMNC\;Hedlund_1994_AModelOfKnowledgeManagementAn
dTheNFormCorporation\;HildrethKimble_2002_TheDualityOfKnowledge\;Hislo
p_2002_MissionImpossible\;HoeglSchulze_2005_HowToSupportKnowledgeCreat
ionInNewProductDevelopment\;Howells_1996_TacitKnowledgeInnovationAndTe
chnologyTransfer\;JanzPrasarnphanich_2003_UnderstandingTheAntecedentsO
fEffectiveKnowledgeManagement\;JohnsonJohnston_2004_OrganisationalKnow
ledgeCreatingProcesses\;Kilduff_1993_DeconstructingOrganizations\;Kogu
tZander_1992_KnowledgeOfTheFirmCombinativeCapabilitiesAndTheReplicatio
nOfTechnology\;LarsenPedersen_2001_DistributedKnowledgeManagementInHea
lthCareAdministration\;LeeChaeSuh_2004_KnowledgeConversionAndPractical
UseWithInformationTechnologyInKoreanCompanies\;LeonardSensiper_1998_Th
eRoleOfTacitKnowledgeInGroupInnovation\;MacKenzieSpinardi_1995_TacitKn
owledgeWeaponsDesignAndTheUninventionOfNuclearWeapons\;MarchOlsen_1976
_AmbiguityandChoiceinOrganizations\;MarchSimon_1958_Organizations\;Mas
citelli_2000_FromExperienceHarnessingTacitKnowledgeToAchieveBreakthrou
ghInnovation\;MasseyWeiss_2006_UnravelingTheTemporalFabricOfKnowledgeC
onversion\;MaturanaVarela_1987_TheTreeOfKnowledge\;Morgan_1986_ImagesO
fOrganizations\;NewellSimon_1972_HumanProblemSolving\;Nishida_1970_Fun
damentalProblemsOfPhilosophy\;Nishida_1990_AnInquiryIntoTheGood\;Nonak
aByosiereBoruckiKonno_1994_OrganizationalKnowledgeCreationTheory\;Nona
kaKonno_1998_TheConceptOfBa\;NonakaPeltokorpiTomae_2005_StrategicKnowl
edgeCreation\;NonakaReinmoeller_2002_KnowledgeCreationAndUtilization\;
NonakaTakeuchiUmemoto_1996_ATheoryOfOrganizationalKnowledgeCreation\;N
onakaTakeuchi_1995_TheKnowledgeCreatingCompany\;NonakaToyamaKonno_2000
_SECIBaAndLeadership\;NonakaToyamaNagata_2000_AFirmAsAKnowledgeCreatin
gEntity\;NonakaToyama_2002_AFirmAsADialecticalBeing\;NonakaToyama_2005
_TheTheoryOfTheKnowledgeCreatingFirm\;NonakaUmemotoSenoo_1996_FromInfo
rmationProcessingToKnowledgeCreation\;Nonaka_1987_ManagingTheFirmAsInf
ormationCreationProcess\;Nonaka_1988_TowardMiddleUpDownManagement\;Non
aka_1991_TheKnowledgeCreatingCompany\;Nonaka_1994_ADynamicTheoryofOrga
nizationalKnowledgeCreation\;O'DonnellHenriksen_2002_PhilosophicalFoun
dationsForACriticalEvaluationOfTheSocialImpactOfICT\;OsterlohFrey_2000
_MotivationKnowledgeTransferAndOrganizationalForms\;Peterson_1998_Embe
ddedOrganizationalEvents\;Plaskoff_2003_IntersubjectivityAndCommunityB
uilding\;Polanyi_1962_PersonalKnowledge\;Polanyi_1964_ScienceFaithAndS
ociety\;Polanyi_1967_TheTacitDimension\;Polanyi_1969_KnowingAndBeing\;
Polanyi_1969_OnBodyAndMind\;PonziKoenig_2002_KnowledgeManagement\;Popp
oZenger_1998_TestingAlternativeTheoriesOfTheFirm\;RanftLord_2000_Acqui
ringNewKnowledge\;Ruderman_1997_AristotleAndTheRecoveryOfPoliticalJudg
ment\;SabherwalFernandez_2003_AnEmpiricalStudyOfTheEffectOfKnowledgeMa
nagementProcesses\;SabherwalSabherwal_2005_KnowledgeManagementUsingInf
ormationTechnology\;SchulzeHoegl_2006_KnowledgeCreationInNewProductDev
elopmentProjects\;Scott_1998_OrganizationalKnowledgeAndTheIntranet\;Se
nker_1995_TacitKnowledgeAndModelsOfInnovation\;Shimizu_1995_BaPrincipl
e\;Simon_1955_ABehavioralModelofRationalChoice\;Simon_1956_DynamicProg
rammingUnderUncertaintyWithAQuadraticCriterionFunction\;Simon_1991_Rea
sonInHumanAffairs\;SpenderGrant_1996_KnowledgeAndTheFirm\;Spender_1996
_MakingKnowledgeTheBasisForADynamicTheoryOfTheFirm\;StatlerRoosVictor_
2006_DearPrudence\;Stehr_1992_PracticalKnowledge\;Stehr_1994_Knowledge
Societies\;SternbergWagnerWilliamsHovart_1995_TestingCommonSense\;Swan
NewellScarbroughHislop_1999_KnowledgeManagementAndInnovation\;Szulansk
i_1996_ExploringInternalStickiness\;Teece_1998_CapturingValueFromKnowl
edgeAssets\;Teece_2000_ManagingIntellectualCapital\;Tsoukas_1996_TheFi
rmAsADistributedKnowledgeSystem\;Tsoukas_2003_DoWeReallyUnderstandTaci
tKnowledge\;VarelaThompsonRosch_1991_TheEmbodiedMind\;VenzinVonKroghRo
os_1998_FutureResearchIntoKnowledgeManagement\;VeraCrossan_2003_Organi
zationalLearningAndKnowledgeManagement\;WeickWestley_1996_Organization
alLearning\;Weick_1979_TheSocialPsychologyOfOrganizing\;Wenger_1998_Co
mmunitiesOfPractice\;ZarragaBonache_2003_AssessingTheTeamEnvironmentFo
rKnowledgeSharing\;ZarragaBonache_2005_TheImpactOfTeamAtmosphereOnKnow
ledgeOutcomesInSelfManagedTeams\;Zey_1992_DecisionMaking\;vonKroghIchi
joNonaka_2000_EnablingKnowledgeCreation\;vonKroghNonakaAben_2001_Makin
gTheMostOfYourCompanysKnowledge\;vonKroghNonakaIchijo_1997_DevelopKnow
ledgeActivists\;vonKroghRoosSlocum_1994_AnEssayOnCorporateEpistemology
\;vonKroghRoos_1995_OrganizationalEpistemology\;vonKrogh_1998_CareInKn
owledgeCreation\;vonKrogh_2002_TheCommunalResourceAndInformationSystem
s\;;
}