| Managing Knowledge Creation in Knowledge-Based Organizations: Individual, Organizational and Global Inter-Organizational Level…Issues and Agenda Involved |
| | Assudani, Rashmi H. | McGill U. | assudanr@management.mcgill.ca | (514) 398 4072 |
| | This paper examines the issues and the agenda involved in the process of knowledge creation in knowledge-based organizations. The process of knowledge creation is examined at the individual, organizational and at the global inter-organizational level. It is argued that knowledge-based organizations have unique and distinct characteristics, and thus the factors responsible for the knowledge creation in these organizations are idiosyncratic to this category of organizations. The expertise in communicating, discourse practices, the socially embedded nature of knowledge and the phenomenon of social identities are factors pertinent in the process of knowledge creation in these organizations where the organizational advantage comes from the shared mental models within the highly tacit dimension of the knowledge systems. Also, we argue that the organizational structures supportive of ‘communities of practice’, sense-making, and interpretive abilities facilitate the process. |
| | Keywords: Knowledge creation; Knowledge-based organizations; Shared mental models |
| Effect of the Learning Context in Knowledge Sharing Through a Computer-Aided System |
| | Garbi, Esmeralda | Florida Atlantic U. | egarbi@bigfoot.com | (561) 297-3653 |
| | Computer-aided systems have promised to change organizations, making them more efficient and more profitable (Davenport & Short, 1990). It appears, however, that actual organizational improvements from the use of computer-aided systems have been slow to show, or have occurred inconsistently (DeSanctis & Poole, 1994). Research shows that individuals in organizations do not use the full potential of computer-aided systems, or do not use them in the way that they were intended to or designed for (Vandenbosch & Ginzberg, 1997; Orlikowski, 1993; Kiesler, 1986).
This paper explores the question of why some individuals and organizations are better than others at making use of the potential and at achieving benefits from computer-aided systems. It studies the effect of organizational learning contexts on how individuals use a computer-aided system, Lotus Notes, to exchange and contribute knowledge. The paper addresses the effect of organizational learning differences in the process of sharing knowledge, considered an ultimately success factor for competitive performance (Adler, 1990; Hamel & Prahalad, 1994). Data from 1163 employees of seven service and manufacturing organizations in 30 offices worldwide are examined. Organizational contexts are categorized as supportive or hostile, according to their positive or negative conditions as contexts for learning. Regression analyses show how the conditions of the learning context hinder or enhance knowledge sharing. The paper shows that knowledge sharing applications are more frequently used in learning supportive contexts than in contexts hostile to learning.
|
| | Keywords: Knowledge sharing; Learning context; Lotus Notes |
| Organizational Change Through the Transfer of Knowledge: Pitfalls in the Use of Management Consultants |
| | Armbruester, Thomas | U. of Reading | T.Armbruester@reading.ac.uk | +44-118-931-6239 |
| | Kipping, Matthias | U. of Reading | M.Kipping@reading.ac.uk | +44 (118) 987-5123 ext. 4043 |
| | The paper identifies three different kinds of management knowledge: (1) general management knowledge,
(2) specific, function-related knowledge, and (3) procedural knowledge. It is argued that all three kinds of
knowledge are necessary for a successful process of organizational change. However, the way these three
kinds of knowledge are created and transmitted are fundamentally different. The paper elaborates the life
cycles of these types of knowledge and, on this basis, critically discusses the role of management consultants
in processes of organizational change. Although management consultants act as the creator of procedural
knowledge (the third kind), they can only be the receiver and transmitter of general and function-related knowledge
(the first and second kind). Therefore, the danger emerges that consultants separate labels and metaphors from
the actual contents of concepts and management knowledge. As a result, it is argued that a successful cooperation
with management consultants in processes of organizational change can only take place if the use of labels and
metaphors is prevented and a close connection of concepts and knowledge is ensured. |
| | Keywords: organizational change; knowledge-transfer; management consultants |
| Knowledge, Structural Integration, and Technology Conversion: A Contingency Perspective |
| | Cardinal, Laura B. | U. of North Carolina, Chapel Hill | laura_cardinal@unc.edu | 919-962-4514 |
| | Turner, Scott F. | U. of North Carolina, Chapel Hill | turners@icarus.bschool.unc.edu | 919-962-4261 |
| | Lei, David | Southern Methodist U. | dlei@mail.cox.smu.edu | 214-768-3005 |
| | The purpose of this paper is to take a telescopic look at the types of knowledge present in different product development routines and to develop a contingency model of when the appropriate structural integration mechanisms should be applied to ensure effective project performance. The technological conversion process -- from inputs to outputs, from conceptualization to actual products -- is quite different across industrial sectors. In this paper we will examine three broad types of industrial sectors: science-based, scale-driven, and specialized. The knowledge requirements for these industrial sectors have unique integration requirements. The type and dominant flow of the underlying knowledge for each technological conversion process drive the integration requirements leading to project success. We will systematically examine the type of interdependency needed across the different industrial sectors and determine the role and design of structural integration in the technology conversion process. |
| | Keywords: knowledge; integration; technology |