Journal Article•
What's your strategy for managing knowledge?
TL;DR: The authors warn that knowledge management should not be isolated in a functional department like HR or IT, and emphasize that the benefits are greatest when a CEO and other general managers actively choose one of the approaches as a primary strategy.
Abstract: The rise of the computer and the increasing importance of intellectual assets have compelled executives to examine the knowledge underlying their businesses and how it is used. Because knowledge management as a conscious practice is so young, however, executives have lacked models to use as guides. To help fill that gap, the authors recently studied knowledge management practices at management consulting firms, health care providers, and computer manufacturers. They found two very different knowledge management strategies in place. In companies that sell relatively standardized products that fill common needs, knowledge is carefully codified and stored in databases, where it can be accessed and used--over and over again--by anyone in the organization. The authors call this the codification strategy. In companies that provide highly customized solutions to unique problems, knowledge is shared mainly through person-to-person contacts; the chief purpose of computers is to help people communicate. They call this the personalization strategy. A company's choice of knowledge management strategy is not arbitrary--it must be driven by the company's competitive strategy. Emphasizing the wrong approach or trying to pursue both can quickly undermine a business. The authors warn that knowledge management should not be isolated in a functional department like HR or IT. They emphasize that the benefits are greatest--to both the company and its customers--when a CEO and other general managers actively choose one of the approaches as a primary strategy.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: This research suggests that a knowledge infrastructure consisting of technology, structure, and culture along with a knowledge process architecture of acquisition, conversion, application, and protection are essential organizational capabilities or "preconditions" for effective knowledge management.
Abstract: A hallmark of the new economy is the ability of organizations to realize economic value from their collection of knowledge assets as well as their assets of information, production distribution, and affiliation. Despite the competitive necessity of becoming a knowledge-based organization, senior managers have found it difficult to transform their firms through programs of knowledge management. This is particularly true if their organizations have long histories of process and a tradition of business success. This research examines the issue of effective knowledge management from the perspective of organizational capabilities. This perspective suggests that a knowledge infrastructure consisting of technology, structure, and culture along with a knowledge process architecture of acquisition, conversion, application, and protection are essential organizational capabilities or preconditions for effective knowledge management. Through analysis of surveys collected from over 300 senior executives, this research empirically models and uncovers key aspects of these dimensions. The results provide a basis for understanding the competitive predisposition of a firm as it enters a program of knowledge management.
4,646 citations
Cites background from "What's your strategy for managing k..."
...[52], some consulting organizations have treated their offerings as commodities through overuse of technology to capture and disseminate knowledge....
[...]
...Although part of the protection mechanism can be built into the technology infrastructure, other forms of protection should also be established that govern the behavior and conduct of employees and align incentives [3, 20, 52, 91]....
[...]
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors examined how aspects of intellectual capital influenced various innovative capabilities in organizations and found that human, organizational, and social capital and their interrelationships selectively influenced incremental and radical innovative capabilities.
Abstract: We examined how aspects of intellectual capital influenced various innovative capabilities in organizations. In a longitudinal, multiple-informant study of 93 organizations, we found that human, organizational, and social capital and their interrelationships selectively influenced incremental and radical innovative capabilities. As anticipated, organizational capital positively influenced incremental innovative capability, while human capital interacted with social capital to positively influence radical innovative capability. Counter to our expectations, however, human capital by itself was negatively associated with radical innovative capability. Interestingly, social capital played a significant role in both types of innovation, as it positively influenced incremental and radical innovative capabilities. It is widely accepted that an organization’s capability to innovate is closely tied to its intellectual capital, or its ability to utilize its knowledge resources. Several studies have underscored how new products embody organizational knowledge (e.g., Stewart, 1997), described innovation as a
3,008 citations
Cites background from "What's your strategy for managing k..."
...The hallmarks of organizational capital include reliance on manuals, databases, patents, and licenses to codify and preserve knowledge, along with establishment of structures, processes, and routines that encourage repeated use of this knowledge ( Hansen, Nohria, & Tierney, 1999 )....
[...]
TL;DR: It can be seen that extrinsic benefits (reciprocity and organizational reward) impact EKR usage contingent on particular contextual factors whereas the effects of intrinsic benefits (knowledge self-efficacy and enjoyment in helping others) on E KR usage are not moderated by contextual factors.
Abstract: Organizations are attempting to leverage their knowledge resources by employing knowledge management (KM) systems, a key form of which are electronic knowledge repositories (EKRs). A large number of KM initiatives fail due to the reluctance of employees to share knowledge through these systems. Motivated by such concerns, this study formulates and tests a theoretical model to explain EKR usage by knowledge contributors. The model employs social exchange theory to identify cost and benefit factors affecting EKR usage, and social capital theory to account for the moderating influence of contextual factors. The model is validated through a large-scale survey of public sector organizations. The results reveal that knowledge self-efficacy and enjoyment in helping others significantly impact EKR usage by knowledge contributors. Contextual factors (generalized trust, pro-sharing norms, and identification) moderate the impact of codification effort, reciprocity, and organizational reward on EKR usage, respectively. It can be seen that extrinsic benefits (reciprocity and organizational reward) impact EKR usage contingent on particular contextual factors whereas the effects of intrinsic benefits (knowledge self-efficacy and enjoyment in helping others) on EKR usage are not moderated by contextual factors. The loss of knowledge power and image do not appear to impact EKR usage by knowledge contributors. Besides contributing to theory building in KM, the results of this study inform KM practice.
2,636 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors developed a framework for understanding knowledge sharing research and identified five areas of emphasis of knowledge sharing: organizational context, interpersonal and team characteristics, cultural characteristics, individual characteristics, and motivational factors.
2,315 citations
TL;DR: Support for the public good perspective is provided by providing results from a survey examining why people participate and share knowledge in three electronic communities of practice, which indicate that people participate primarily out of community interest, generalized reciprocity and pro-social behavior.
Abstract: Advances in information and communication technologies have fundamentally heightened organizational interest in knowledge as a critical strategic resource. However, organizations are finding that members are often reluctant to exchange knowledge with others in the organization. This paper examines why. We review current knowledge management practices and find that organizations are treating knowledge as a private good, owned either by the organization or by organization members. We propose that knowledge can also be considered a public good, owned and maintained by a community. When knowledge is considered a public good, knowledge exchange is motivated by moral obligation and community interest rather than by narrow self-interest. We provide support for the public good perspective by providing results from a survey examining why people participate and share knowledge in three electronic communities of practice. The results indicate that people participate primarily out of community interest, generalized reciprocity and pro-social behavior.
2,076 citations