Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know

Book•

Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know

01 Jan 1998-

TL;DR: The definitive primer on knowledge management, this book will establish the enduring vocabulary and concepts and serve as the hands-on resource of choice for fast companies that recognize knowledge as the only sustainable source of competitive advantage.

read less

Abstract: From the Publisher: The definitive primer on knowledge management, this book will establish the enduring vocabulary and concepts and serve as the hands-on resource of choice for fast companies that recognize knowledge as the only sustainable source of competitive advantage. Drawing on their work with more than 30 knowledge-rich firms, the authors-experienced consultants with a track record of success-examine how all types of companies can effectively understand, analyze, measure, and manage their intellectual assets, turning corporate knowledge into market value. They consider such questions as: What key cultural and behavioral issues must managers address to use knowledge effectively?; What are the best ways to incorporate technology into knowledge work?; What does a successful knowledge project look like-and how do you know when it has succeeded? In the end, say the authors, the human qualities of knowledge-experience, intuition, and beliefs-are the most valuable and the most difficult to manage. Applying the insights of Working Knowledge is every manager's first step on that rewarding road to long-term success. A Library Journal Best Business Book of the Year. "For an entire company...to have knowledge, that information must be coordinated and made accessible. Thomas H. Davenport...and Laurence Prusak... offer an elegantly simple overview of the 'knowledge market' aimed at fulfilling that goal.... Working Knowledge provides practical advice about implementing a knowledge-management system....A solid dose of common sense for any company looking to acquire -- or maintain -- a competitive edge."--Upside, June 1998

...read moreread less

Citations

PDF

Open Access

More filters

Journal Article•DOI•

Knowledge Management: An Organizational Capabilities Perspective

[...]

Andrew H. Gold, Arvind Malhotra, Albert H. Segars

31 May 2001-Journal of Management Information Systems

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.

...read moreread less

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.

...read moreread less

4,646 citations

Journal Article•DOI•

The Influence of Intellectual Capital on the Types of Innovative Capabilities

[...]

Mohan Subramaniam¹, Mark Youndt²•Institutions (2)

Boston College¹, Skidmore College²

01 Jun 2005-Academy of Management Journal

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.

...read moreread less

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

...read moreread less

3,008 citations

Cites background or methods from "Working Knowledge: How Organization..."

...…organizations adopt different approaches for accumulating and utilizing their knowledge and that these approaches manifest themselves as distinct aspects of intellectual capital—namely, human, organizational, and social capital (Davenport & Prusak, 1998; Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998; Schultz, 1961)....
[...]
...Likewise, organizational capital was measured with a fouritem scale assessing an organization’s ability to appropriate and store knowledge in physical organization-level repositories such as databases, manuals, and patents ( Davenport & Prusak, 1998 ) as well as in structures, processes, cultures, and ways of doing business (Walsh & Ungson, 1991)....
[...]
...…a fouritem scale assessing an organization’s ability to appropriate and store knowledge in physical organization-level repositories such as databases, manuals, and patents (Davenport & Prusak, 1998) as well as in structures, processes, cultures, and ways of doing business (Walsh & Ungson, 1991)....
[...]
...It is known, for instance, that organizations adopt different approaches for accumulating and utilizing their knowledge and that these approaches manifest themselves as distinct aspects of intellectual capital—namely, human, organizational, and social capital ( Davenport & Prusak, 1998; Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998; Schultz, 1961)....
[...]

Journal Article•DOI•

Knowing in Practice: Enacting a Collective Capability in Distributed Organizing

[...]

Wanda J. Orlikowski¹•Institutions (1)

Massachusetts Institute of Technology¹

01 May 2002-Organization Science

TL;DR: In this article, the authors outline a perspective on knowing in practice which highlights the essential role of human action in knowing how to get things done in complex organizational work and suggest that the competence to do global product development is both collective and distributed, grounded in the everyday practices of organizational members.

...read moreread less

Abstract: In this paper, I outline a perspective on knowing in practice which highlights the essential role of human action in knowing how to get things done in complex organizational work. The perspective suggests that knowing is not a static embedded capability or stable disposition of actors, but rather an ongoing social accomplishment, constituted and reconstituted as actors engage the world in practice. In interpreting the findings of an empirical study conducted in a geographically dispersed hightech organization, I suggest that the competence to do global product development is both collective and distributed, grounded in the everyday practices of organizational members. I conclude by discussing some of the research implications of a perspective on organizational knowing in practice.

...read moreread less

2,670 citations

Journal Article•DOI•

Knowing in practice: Enacting a collective capability in distributed organizing

[...]

Wanda J. Orlikowski¹•Institutions (1)

Massachusetts Institute of Technology¹

01 Feb 2009

TL;DR: It is suggested that the competence to do global product development is both collective and distributed, grounded in the everyday practices of organizational members, and not a static embedded capability or stable disposition.

...read moreread less

Abstract: Knoving in practice: Enacting a collettive capability in distributed organizing - In this paper, I outline a perspective on knowing in practice which highlights the essential role of human action In knowing how to get things done in complex organizational work. The perspective suggests that knowing is not a static embedded capability or stable disposition o\ actors, but rather an ongoing social accomplishment, constituted and reconstituted as actors engage the world in practice. In interpreting the findings of an empirical study conducted in a geographically dispersed hightech organization. I suggest that the competence to do global product development is both collective and distributed, grounded in the everyday practices of organizational members. I conclude by discussing some of the research implications of a perspective on organizational knowing in practice.

...read moreread less

2,661 citations

Cites background from "Working Knowledge: How Organization..."

...Furthermore, Tsoukas (1996, p. 14) observes that a taxonomic perspective does not recognize that “tacit and explicit knowledge are mutually constituted . . . [essentially] inseparable.” In particular, he argues that tacit knowledge “is the necessary component of all knowledge; it is not made up of discrete beans which may be ground, lost or reconstituted.” Along with others (Boland and Tenkasi 1995, Davenport and Prusak 1998, Cook and ......
[...]
...Along with others (Boland and Tenkasi 1995, Davenport and Prusak 1998, Cook and Brown 1999), he argues instead for an integrated approach that affords a view of organizational knowledge as processual, dispersed, and “inherently indeterminate” (1996, p. 22)....
[...]
...…expansion in the use of information technology, particular attention is being focused on the opportunities and difficulties associated with sharing knowledge and transferring “best practices” within and across organizations (Leonard-Barton 1995, Brown and Duguid 1998, Davenport and Prusak 1998)....
[...]
...With the intensification of globalization, acceleration in the rate of change, and expansion in the use of information technology, particular attention is being focused on the opportunities and difficulties associated with sharing knowledge and transferring “best practices” within and across organizations (Leonard-Barton 1995, Brown and Duguid 1998, Davenport and Prusak 1998 )....
[...]

Journal Article•DOI•

Contributing knowledge to electronic knowledge repositories: an empirical investigation

[...]

Atreyi Kankanhalli¹, Bernard C. Y. Tan¹, Kwok-Kee Wei²•Institutions (2)

National University of Singapore¹, City University of Hong Kong²

01 Mar 2005-Management Information Systems Quarterly

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.

...read moreread less

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.

...read moreread less

2,636 citations

Cites background or result from "Working Knowledge: How Organization..."

...Knowledge contributors may be motivated by rela tive altruism based on their desire to help others (Davenport and Prusak 1998)....
[...]
...When generalized trust is strong, the effort required for knowledge sharing may not be salient to knowledge contributors because they believe that knowledge shared is not likely to be misused by reusers (Davenport and Prusak 1998)....
[...]
...The KM literature reports the loss of power due to knowledge contribution as a barrier to knowledge sharing (Davenport and Prusak 1998; Orlikowski 1993)....
[...]
...Several consulting com panies have made knowledge sharing a basic criterion for employee performance evaluation (Davenport and Prusak 1998)....
[...]
...Again, this result is consistent with previous KM conceptual (Ba et al. 2001) and case study literature (Davenport and Prusak 1998) highlighting altruism as a motivator for knowledge sharing....
[...]

Collapse

Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know

Citations

Cites background or methods from "Working Knowledge: How Organization..."

Cites background from "Working Knowledge: How Organization..."

Cites background or result from "Working Knowledge: How Organization..."

Related Papers (5)

Trending Questions (1)