Search results

The purpose of this paper is to describe project‐based companies' knowledge production and memory development with the help of autopoietic epistemology.

The discussion first defines the concept of a project‐based company. Then the discussion deals with the two epistemological assumptions, namely cognitivist and autopoietic epistemological assumptions. After that there follows an illustration of the concept of organisational memory. The main content of this article follows – namely the study on the autopoietic knowledge production and organisational memory development in the context of project‐based companies.

Knowledge production in a project‐based company means that an individual team member, a project team and a project‐based company itself produce knowledge consistent with currently shared knowledge. That is, a project‐based company's accumulation of organisational memory at various organisational levels is an expression of change in knowledge that always maintains compatibility between the autopoietic system (i.e. team member, project team or project‐based company) and its environment.

The current theories about knowledge production and organisational memory development in project‐based companies are largely based on the idea of codability and transferability of knowledge between the people and across the borders. This type of thinking is based on the traditional cognitivist epistemology that means that knowledge represents external reality. The new autopoietic approach suggests transition from these theories to the theory of knowledge production as a creational matter, which type of thinking can potentially provide a new explanation for project‐based company's organisational memory.

This paper seeks to present a comprehensive overview of the supply chain as an autopoietic system. The new autopoietic approach suggests a transition from traditional cognitivist epistemology to the theory of learning as a creational matter, and this type of thinking can potentially shed light on the role of knowledge creation as a part of supply chain management.

The paper is structured as follows: the first section describes the theoretical background of the concept of knowledge management in the supply chain. After that, the paper examines the general systems theory and the role of an autopoietic system within it. Then the paper addresses autopoietic epistemology. In particular, the notions of knowledge, learning, and knowledge flows are described so that the focus is on the context of the supply chain and supply chain management at operational level.

The supplier's, customer's, and firm's own organization and parts of the organization have autonomy system memories, which ultimately formulate how the intended development ideas are in fact realized and how they are adopted by the organization. Supply chain managers should take into account the fact that the routines and norms of the node are part of the system that are not controlled from outside. Instead, the system can modify its objectives internally as part of its autonomous operation, which should be taken into consideration in the knowledge sharing process.

The description of a supply chain as an autopoietic knowledge system is a new way to examine knowledge sharing in a supply chain.

The aim of the autopoietic model of knowledge is to act as a common foundation for KM to overcome the numerous knowledge management failures highlighted by the literature attributed to inaccurate or constantly debated definitions of knowledge. This paper seeks to evaluate such a model.

Participants for this interpretivist evaluation study were selected by convenience sampling. Experts known to the authors were asked to participate, and 12 took part. Face‐to‐face interviews were conducted and lasted between 45 to 60 minutes. Member checking was used during the interviews. The data was analysed using the recursive abstraction method.

The study highlighted the complexities of conducting an expert evaluation of a model that was deemed both too high level and too low level by the experts. The study highlighted the challenge of evaluating a model that is theoretically correct, but required acceptance in the knowledge management discipline. The study also showed that the application of autopoiesis to knowledge management has potential, but is still in its infancy.

The main limitation of this study came from the initial autopoietic model of knowledge: most experts found it too difficult to engage with in the time available. The knowledge management foundation aspired to by applying autopoiesis to the domain is hard to achieve as little value was placed on models by some experts.

The evaluation of the autopoietic model of knowledge presented in this paper represents the first expert evaluation of an autopoietic epistemology. The study is an incremental step towards providing a sound conceptual foundation for knowledge management.

According to the traditional “stable‐process” problem, the project‐based company's memory and project implementation cannot interact. They remain conceptually distinctly different entities, the differences stemming from epistemologically different theoretical projects. However, the idea of recursivity within autopoiesis theory and autopoietic epistemology might enable an approach to this problem by bridging the gap. A recursive view of the project‐based company assumes that the memory of the company and the project implementation processes within the company exist at different levels of analysis. They remain analytically distinct from each other, yet they interact in such a way that they are both modified through interaction. Therefore, this paper aims to show that, with the help of a recursive view, it can shed new light on the problem of knowledge production in project‐based companies.

Knowledge production in project‐based companies is conceptualized with the help of autopoiesis theory and autopoietic epistemology, in that the focus is on the recursivity.

The idea of recursivity seems to represent explanatory potential by bringing new light to relationships between the project‐based company's memory and project implementations.

Current theories about knowledge production in project‐based companies are largely based on the idea of transferability of knowledge between people and across borders. These theories are challenged by the implications of autopoiesis theory and autopoietic epistemology, which suggest transition from these theories to the theory of knowledge production as a creational matter. That is, autopoietic epistemology and the recursive view within it provide a lens through which individuals may advance their understanding of the dynamics of project‐based companies' knowledge production.

To develop a biological approach to the analysis of learning organisations based on complexity theory, autopoiesis, and evolutionary epistemology.

This paper synthesises ideas from disciplines ranging from physics, epistemology and philosophy of science to military affairs, to sketch a scientific framework in which the autopoietic status of any kind of complex system can be evaluated. The autopoietic framework also presents generic concepts of memory, learning and knowledge. The autopoietic status of human organisations is tested in relation to this framework, and some of the direct implications regarding organisational learning and adaptation are highlighted.

A new definition of autopoiesis adding sustainability to key requirements is developed. Theoretical ideas of Maturana and Varela, Popper, Pattee, Boyd, and Gould are synthesised and applied to large‐scale organisations to reveal their emergent, autopoietic, evolutionary (i.e. biological), and learning nature.

Many current studies and practices in knowledge management are based on only limited views of what constitutes knowledge in the organisation and have not been conducted within any visible framework for understanding the organisation's survival imperatives, or how the knowledge and processes being studied relate to the organisation's overall strategic aims. The framework presented here will lead towards the development of a sounder theoretical basis for studying knowledge and learning in organisations.

Knowledge management is seen as a metaphorical perspective on management where the managerial focus depends on the epistemological standpoint taken. An identification of three epistemological perspectives accommodates the main body of literature on knowledge management: an artifact oriented epistemology that focuses on explicit knowledge, a process oriented epistemology focusing on both tacit and explicit knowledge and the interaction of these types of knowledge and an autopoietic epistemology where knowledge basically always has a tacit dimension. Based on a study of knowledge management in the Danish company Crisplant, the paper shows how the three epistemologies bring different aspects of managerial practice forward. By comparing the characteristics of knowledge, the nature of knowledge management activities, how knowledge is created and shared it is concluded that awareness of the implications of epistemological perspectives could enhance managerial analysis and conduct with respect to the management of knowledge as well as enrich research in the area.

In the 1990s, von Krogh, Roos, and Slocum (1994) and Venzin, von Krogh, and Roos (1998) began discussions centered around epistemology and knowledge management, focusing mainly on the varied sources and backgrounds for knowledge management. Since 2000, we have seen a much wider debate on several issues that are related to the development of a knowledge economy. The main task became the establishing of a conceptual framework for further discussion of epistemological categories, using three keywords: cognitivism, connectionism, and autopoiesis. One objective of this book is to analyze the progression to a more knowledge-based economy by linking these keyword perspectives together, and the intention of this chapter is to present a fundament for these epistemological discussions.

Knowledge management aims to increase an organization's competitive advantage through the collective management of its employees' knowledge. In the past, knowledge management was very technologically oriented, with a focus on data mining, software, and artificial intelligence, but in recent years there has been a move toward incorporating social aspects. As knowledge management evolved into its second era, the focus shifted to defining knowledge, developing frameworks, and implementing content management systems. The current knowledge management era (third) appears to be more integrated with an organization's philosophy, goals, and day-to-day activities, and is also the “softest” with regards to a people-oriented approach (Metaxiotis, Ergazakis, & Psarras, 2005; Wiig, 2002). As knowledge management moves further into the third era, no theoretical foundation exists. As will be seen, knowledge is an unmanageable, nontransferable entity that cannot exist outside a person's brain (Abou-Zeid, 2007). As such it is not possible to define the concept of knowledge, nor even desirable, and this is in direct contrast to first generation knowledge management, which aimed to accurately define the concept of knowledge (Metaxiotis et al., 2005). The focus on frameworks (Holsapple & Joshi, 1997), systems (Hasan & Gould, 2003), and technology (Liao, 2003) that dominated second-generation knowledge management is also not compatible with the current understanding of knowledge (Abou-Zeid, 2007), suggesting that systems cannot directly manage knowledge.