Search results

This paper aims to examine the effectiveness of organizational information technology (IT)-based and non-IT-based knowledge transfer mechanisms (KTMs) for the retention of different types of knowledge from mobile experts. It differentiates among four types of knowledge loss (KL), namely, conscious knowledge (i.e. individual explicit knowledge that can be codified); codified knowledge (i.e. explicit knowledge captured at the social level); automatic knowledge (i.e. implicit individual knowledge); and collective knowledge (i.e. implicit knowledge embedded in the organization).

A research framework connecting the organizational knowledge retention (KR) cycle to KL is developed and an exploratory analysis is conducted using data from two case studies in the Canadian federal public service. Findings are confirmed using a third government agency.

Without the right processes in place for organizational knowledge retrieval and reuse, the KR cycle is not complete, leading to KL. The lack of available social KTMs for the conversion of individual to social objectified knowledge leads to KL. KTMs shortcomings increase the risk of automatic and objectified KL.

Exploratory results demonstrate that KL does not always equate to lack of KR. Implementing knowledge-specific organizational KTMs is important to encourage the retention of individual knowledge at the social level. Propositions and a framework are developed for future research.

Mobile experts hold valuable knowledge at high risk of being lost by organizations. This paper provides managers with a set of guidelines to develop a knowledge-specific strategy focused on KTMs that increase KR and mitigate KL.

This paper challenges the assumption that KL only results from poor retention and studies both retention and loss to identify additional types of unintentional loss that occur when individual knowledge is not converted to social knowledge.

Collaborative advantage and geographical embeddedness of the firm have recently been receiving a growing amount of attention in a dynamic vision of the attainment and sustainability of the competitive advantage of firms. Concepts such as the Industrial District and Regional Cluster have been used in these studies, yet in spite of this interest little effort has been devoted to establishing links between these competitive dimensions and theories of differences in firm performance. This work consists of a multisource case study of the Spanish Ceramic Tile Industry. This empirical study focused on investigating the nature and implications of interfirm relationships and social control. The paper suggests that the competitiveness of clustered firms can be accounted for by low transaction costs and strategic knowledge-based resources.

This paper aims to review the evolution of management education primarily over the last 50 years and seeks to identify the challenges and lessons learned in management education and to assess the potential for change. To gain insight into these issues the authors draw on the perspectives of around 40 key individuals from academia, professional bodies, media, business and students.

The content of the paper is based upon a qualitative analysis of around 40 two‐to‐three hour interviews of key global players in the management education field.

The key stakeholders in management education are identified as students, business and employers respectively. But in terms of relative stakeholder influence faculty, business and students are the top three influencers. Faculty represent the supply‐side whereas business and students represent the demand side of management education. There is evidence that higher tuition fees may increase the power of students and business relative to faculty. The individuals who have had the greatest influence on management education are academics such as Mintzberg and Drucker rather than business school deans or administrators. Institutions such as INSEAD, IMD and Harvard have had the greatest influence. The main issues and challenges identified in Management Education include information technology, globalisation, the role of faculty, competition and business model performance. Few game changing innovations in curricula have occurred in management education raising the question of how change will occur in the future.

There are few in‐depth, open‐ended interview studies of key participants in the field of management education. It adds insights to a range of more reflective literature studies from writers such as Khurana, Mintzberg and Pfeffer.

In this chapter, the authors make the case that preserving and curating knowledge for the future involves more than changing methods and tactics or extending our current applications and technology to support knowledge capital. It means changing the way we think about the future. It means envisioning multiple futures where various elements may be known or unknown – a four-future quadrant. First, the authors explain what it means to think strategically in multiple known and unknown futures. Next, the chapter presents ideas for strategic thinking about future knowledge preservation and curation. Finally, the authors consider using the four futures to develop a flexible and relevant knowledge preservation and curation strategy.

Knowledge transfer considers the company as a dynamic system dealing with different kinds of knowledge. As production becomes more knowledge-based, this increases the potential for capturing and taking advantage of knowledge. On the other side, these factors become more complex and difficulties increase for the effective transfer of knowledge across organizational boundaries.

Research on knowledge transfer has experienced substantial growth in the past 30 years and research on knowledge transfer is still increasing (Kumar & Ganesh, 2009). The literature argues quite unanimously that there is a positive link between knowledge sharing and competitive advantage. This is analyzed in several studies, but according to Dyer and Hatch (2006), this assumption has not been generally proven. In this chapter, we discuss the points of view from different contributions on this subject. In the empirical part of this chapter, we propose the idea that knowledge transfer is a way for organizations to be more competitive and implement changes essential to their survival. This is done by looking at five firms in the meat producing industry in different countries.

The aim of this study is to design and validate different scales for measuring enablers or the forces behind knowledge creation. Due to their breadth and integrative nature, we have based our research fundamentally on the ideas proposed by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995), later developed by Nonaka, Toyama, and Konno (2000) and Von Krogh, Ichijo, and Nonaka (2000), on the following enablers: intention or common goal, autonomy, fluctuation and creative chaos, redundancy, variety, trust, and commitment. Having generated a battery of 24 items using the definitions proposed by these and other relevant authors, the psychometric properties of reliability and validity were tested (convergent and discriminate). The sample used in this study was taken from 167 large Spanish firms.

This paper shows that uncertainty is a multidimensional theoretical concept, which has empirical implications for the relationship with vertical integration. In a survey of empirical work that tests the relation between uncertainty and vertical integration, this paper demonstrates that performance ambiguity and general measures of uncertainty are positively related with vertical integration, technological uncertainty is negatively related, while market uncertainty and complexity are not systematically related to vertical integration.

In this study we examine how resource-constrained organizations can maneuver for competitive advantage in highly institutionalized fields. Unlike studies of institutional entrepreneurship, we investigate competitive maneuvering by an organization that is unable to alter either the regulative or normative institutions that characterize its field. Using the “Moneyball” phenomenon and recent changes in Major League Baseball as the basis for an intensive case study of entrepreneurial actions taken by the Oakland A’s, we found that the A’s were able to maneuver for advantage by using bricolage and refusing to enact baseball’s cognitive institutions, and that they continued succeeding despite ongoing resource constraints and rapid copying of their actions by other teams. These results contribute to our understanding of competitive maneuvering and change in institutionalized fields. Our findings expand the positioning of bricolage beyond its prior characterization as a tool used primarily by peripheral organizations in less institutionalized fields; our study suggests that bricolage may aid resource constrained participants (including the majority of entrepreneurial firms) to survive in a wider range of circumstances than previously believed.

In this chapter, we examine the interplay between external legitimacy judgments, internal identity beliefs, and conceptions of sustainability. Based on observation at industry events and interviews with key stakeholders, we examine how organizational actors interpret the concept of sustainability in civil aviation, an industry subject to intense legitimacy threat for its environmental impact. We find that the concept of sustainability is interpreted through a process of naturalization, by which conceptual ties to past practices are forged, and the concept becomes corrupted. We describe three mechanisms (relabeling, bundling, and zooming out) through which concept naturalization occurs, and we show how this process creates resonance between sustainability and an industry ethos, which captures the aspirations, ideals and values of the industry.