Search results

This chapter discusses the theoretical framework of the strategic knowledge creation process for realizing business innovation. It presents an explanation of the relationship between the concept of the business community that originates with the formation of “Ba” (which is required in the formulation and execution of the strategic knowledge creation process) and the strategic knowledge creation process. The chapter also analyzes and examines the theoretical framework where the holistic leadership of practitioners achieves new business innovation through the formation of a business community, which is the organizational platform for practicing strategic knowledge creation, that is, the sharing, inspiration, creation, and stockpiling of knowledge.

In particular, the chapter presents a dynamic, theoretical framework where all practitioners at every level of management demonstrate holistic leadership across a three-layered structure (three practice layers) including the formal organization layer, the informal organization layer, and the psychological boundary layer to connect elements for formulating and executing macro and micro strategies and the business community, which has its origins in the formation of “Ba,” to drive the strategic knowledge creation processes.

Bearing in mind reviews of the existing corporate management leadership theory, this chapter presents a theoretical framework of holistic leadership for top and middle management as well as the staff for strategically promoting knowledge creation activities in companies in industries with rapidly changing competitive environments. “Holistic leadership” here refers to leadership with characteristics that allow for the coexistence of centralized leadership, distributed leadership, and dialectical leadership and their dynamic application according to circumstances by practitioners at each management level (top management, middle management, and staff) of the three practice layers, that is, the formal organizational layer, the psychological boundary layer, and the informal organizational layer. This new theoretical concept of leadership has been derived a posteriori from existing theory and cumulative fieldwork by the author to date.

Co-creation of knowledge offers significant opportunities for innovation. This chapter seeks to gain understanding of the process of co-creation of knowledge for innovation and public relations in multi-stakeholder projects by exploring current insights in academic literature. The research questions look at how co-creation of knowledge for innovation has been investigated in the scholarly literature; the roles of end-users; and the modes and challenges of end-user participation and in collaboration relating to communication.

The method of this chapter is a structured literature review, following a series of rigorous steps: a search of databases, analysis of 33 articles found, summarising relevant content using a data extraction table and a data extraction continuum as analysis tools to show the range of projects discussed in the literature to create a comprehensive overview.

The findings indicate that multi-stakeholder networks can be structured for different aims. In the articles found different types of projects were investigated. Four categories of projects were found: (1) co-creation projects benefiting one company; (2) co-creation projects benefiting business-to-business value chain networks; (3) co-creation projects benefiting public entities; and (4) co-creation projects benefiting innovation network stakeholders.

Complexity is highest for multiple stakeholder co-creation projects benefiting innovation network stakeholders, where the roles between stakeholders are fluid and changing constantly. Solving common issues motivates the stakeholders to collaborate and build trust. Open innovation environments may facilitate communication and interaction.

Co-creation of knowledge requires intensive collaboration. Knowing the main challenges to address will help the functioning of co-creation collaboration networks and their public relations.

This chapter provides an overview of a literature study on knowledge creation in client–consultant interaction. Clients and consultants can interact with each other to create knowledge (Kang et al., 2007), and knowledge creation can take place through dialogues (Hautala, 2011; Hennessy et al., 2016; Lorino & Mourey, 2013; MacIntosh et al., 2012; Majchrzak et al., 2012; Nursey-Bray et al., 2010; Quinlan, 2009; Rutten, 2017; Rutten & Boekema, 2012; Sapir et al., 2016; Tsoukas, 2009). But how do these dialogues “work?” In knowledge creation dialogues the following process (Majchrzak et al., 2012) is used: “(1) voicing fragments, (2) co-creating the scaffold, (3) dialoguing around the scaffold, (4) moving the scaffold aside, and (5) sustaining engagement” (p. 958). Interaction and dialogues are impacted by social elements, of which the use of power resources (Heizmann & Olsson, 2015) seems to be an interesting dimension in client–consultant interaction. We suggest doing further exploration to increase our understanding of how knowledge is created in client–consultant interaction.

This chapter discusses the importance of strategic knowledge creation where new business innovation across different technologies and industries forms dynamic business ecosystems through “co-creation and co-evolution.” To accelerate strategic knowledge creation through high-quality global strategic collaboration that intersects departments and industrial sectors internally and externally, the formation of business communities that originate with the formation of “Ba” and the holistic leadership of practitioners at every management level, which also promotes the ongoing growth of business communities are particularly important management elements.

The chapter reflects on the coopetition concept and its role in combining cooperation and competition with a paradoxical situation between them. Likewise, it illustrates how coopetition gains a mutual advantage for the collaborative relationship of value creation, new product development (NPD), knowledge acquisition, and organizational performance in inter-organizations. However, it is necessary to build a friendly approach and proper management to ensure effective coopetition. The rationale, though, is the following: coopetition defines innovation performance; coopetition represents knowledge recombination in both inter-organizational and intra-organizational conditions; the coopetition outcomes state knowledge creation and firm’s innovation that lead to new ideas and new variations improving organizational relationships. At the same time, it is highlighted how the customer relationships are aligned in the enterprises and how knowledge transfer in different alliances influence dynamic and complex character exploring tacit and explicit knowledge. As far as knowledge is concerned in an organization, it illustrates the contribution of two essential elements in coopetition value creation, i.e., knowledge management and intellectual capital. By critically evaluating the following, we encourage coopetition and innovation to recognize knowledge and increase the performance of inter-organizational units. Moreover, the primary way for knowledge assessment in organizations is by collaboration with the competitors. Concluding, our theoretical approach acknowledges that knowledge sharing enables more efficient innovation by linking R&D efforts.

Although the cottage industry of neoinstitutional research gained its momentum through a conceptual architecture that was centred on a bifurcation of technological/material forces and cultural dynamics, current research in this genre has begun to re-examine the utility of such distinctions. One of the downsides of such a conceptual distinction is that the institutional approach to technology is anachronistic, treating it as an exogenous force. Even though early work by Woodward and others usefully contributed to our understanding of organizations by highlighting how different technologies correlate with various organizational forms, recent scholarship has enhanced our more functional understanding of technology by highlighting processes of coevolution and structuration. In this chapter, we draw on such social constructionist developments in the study of technology to reanimate institutional analysis. More specifically, drawing on the case of the development of nanotube intellectual property, we focus on how technological knowledge production is embedded in community cultures. Our arguments and evidence suggest that there are distinctive community cultures around intensive versus extensive knowledge-generating patents, highlighting how an approach that appreciates the interactive dynamics of technology and culture can yield important insights into the institutional dynamics of technology development.

We blend knowledge creation and complexity perspectives in a model of strategy-making that explains how top managers in organizations that are reinventing their industries in high-velocity environments conceptualize the strategy-formation process. The model is grounded in four in-depth case studies of Internet banks that are part of different established financial groups in Spain. The main findings suggest that strategy-making seems to emerge out of the interplay of the following interrelated constructs: action, reflection-on-action, imagination, and simple guiding principles. The study of such constructs from the perspectives of knowledge creation and complexity theory suggests interesting implications. Action and reflection-on-action seem to form a first SECI (Socialization–Externalization–Combination–Internalization) spiral of knowledge creation. Out of the interaction of action and reflection-on-action, imagination may emerge when the system has reached a “critical state”. Imagination forms a second SECI spiral of knowledge creation. The interaction between imagination and action on a higher level results from the emergence and application of simple guiding principles, which provide the organization with coherence between what is imagined and what is done, and guide the actions taken throughout the organization with flexible planning. We conclude by proposing that strategy-making may be understood as a complex, double-loop process of knowledge creation.

Various authors have brought forth the idea that the increase in context turbulence and the relentless change in today's economic and competitive environments have rendered it essential for an effective firm strategy to combine both value appropriation and value creation (Porter, 1996; Moran & Ghoshal, 1999; Venkataraman & Sarasvathy, 2001; Hitt, Ireland, Camp, & Sexton, 2001b). Nonetheless, the methodological bases and the assumptions that characterize contributions concerning value appropriation and value creation are notably different and in many respects opposite to one another. These profound methodological differences hinder the possibility of a combined consideration of value appropriation and value creation issues within a coherent interpretative framework. By reinterpreting more conventional strategy studies in the light of the Austrian process view, this article builds a process framework which is able to consider and render mutually compatible both value appropriation and value creation within the unitary process of firm development. In addition, the use of the Austrian approach as an interpretative lens enables an evolution and extension of the resource-based theory that consents it, not only to grasp the mechanisms behind value appropriation, but also to suggest new ways of viewing post-industrial firm behavior that help to interpret its dynamic and proactive role in the value creation process.