Search results

The purpose of this paper is to disclose a new performance accounting method called the MultiCapital Scorecard, which makes it possible to measure, manage and report Triple Bottom Line performance relative to organization-specific norms for impacts on multiple capitals.

The authors set out to expand a pre-existing multiple capital accounting system known as Context-Based Sustainability. Whereas Context-Based Sustainability assesses the social and environmental performance of organizations relative to norms for impacts on non-economic capitals, the MultiCapital Scorecard adds economic performance to the mix.

The authors find that it is indeed possible to measure and report the social, environmental and economic performance of an organization in an integrated, context-based way relative to norms for impacts on multiple capitals. The MultiCapital Scorecard is the result.

The MultiCapital Scorecard is an open-source methodology that any organization can use. For managers or accountants interested in testing, evaluating or adopting multiple capital accounting, it provides a practical and systematic solution.

The MultiCapital Scorecard is transformational, in that it holds organizations and commerce writ large accountable to the limits in, and demands for, vital capitals in the world on a fair and proportionate basis. No other method does this, and yet it must be done if there is to be sustainability in the conduct of human affairs.

The paper describes the world’s first multiple capital, context-based accounting system that organizations can use to measure, manage and report their Triple Bottom Line performance in integrated and quantitative terms. The MultiCapital Scorecard is the authors’ original creation.

The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the application of some guidelines to evaluate new knowledge management (KM) models and frameworks, by means of the presentation and analysis of The New Knowledge Management, a model developed by the North‐American consultants Joseph M. Firestone and Mark W. McElroy, and the associated knowledge life cycle.

This is an analysis that encompasses epistemological issues and KM theory, intending to review some fundamental concepts and make comparisons to preeminent works. The KM framework examined is grounded on the philosopher Popper's ideas and has in its core the process of knowledge claim validation, which distinguishes it from other information‐oriented approaches. Based on the guidelines pointed, some of the aspects of the KM model exposed are outlined and criticized, among them the difficulty of establishing a meta‐theory that could support the judgment of diverse knowledge claims.

The guidelines found useful to analyze KM models are: the observance of the adopted scope, the concern over the fundamental concepts, the extension of the employed interdisciplinary procedures, the authors' intentions and background, and the possible comparisons and analogies to concepts and theories of related fields.

Many KM solutions and practices are implemented in the organizations without a solid theoretic background. The guidelines can help to choose from the myriad KM models and frameworks that show up uninterruptedly.

The paper focuses on providing methodological means to analyze and evaluate new KM models, not on merely discussing one of them.

Knowledge management (KM) as a field has been characterized by great confusion about its conceptual foundations and scope, much to the detriment of assessments of its impact and track record. The purpose of this paper is to contribute toward defining the scope of KM and ending the confusion, by presenting a conceptual framework and set of criteria for evaluating whether claimed KM interventions are bona fide instances of it or are interventions of another sort.

Methods used include conceptual evaluation and critique of a variety of types of “KM interventions” and presentation of a detailed analysis of an unambiguous case (The Partners HealthCare case) where KM has been successful.

The critical analysis indicates that the use of tools and methods associated with KM does not imply that interventions using them are KM interventions, and most “KM projects” are probably interventions of other types. The analysis also illustrates a pattern of intervention that can serve as the basis of a long‐term systematic strategy for implementing KM.

This is the first detailed examination of whether KM is really being done by those who claim to be doing it. It should be of value to all those who think about the scope of organizational learning and KM, and who care about unbiased assessments of its performance.

Reviews the scope, purpose and meaning of knowledge management (KM) and uses a case study to demonstrate the clear, tangible benefits a well researched and delivered KM strategy can deliver.

This briefing is prepared by two authors who present their comments on the importance of fully understanding the terms of KM before implementing a KM strategy.

Despite much talk about KM to highlight competitive advantage, few organizations realize the true definition of this quality process. Authors Joseph M. Firestone and Mark W. McElroy investigate KM and argue that only a structured strategy, with tightly controlled criteria and clear definitions of knowledge and information, will constitute true KM.

Provides clear guidance as to the importance of a clearly‐defined KM strategy.

The briefing saves busy executives and researchers hours of reading time by selecting only the very best, most pertinent information and presenting it in a condensed and easy‐to‐digest format.

This paper seeks to argue the relevance of knowledge management (KM) to the development of social capital, and to enhancing the capacity to take effective action in human social systems.

The study applies a pluralistic definition of knowledge (including subjective beliefs in minds and objective claims expressed in language) to show that most forms of social capital reduce to knowledge.

First, social capital mostly comprises knowledge (trust, beliefs, rules, and norms). Second, the capacity to individually and collectively learn (in networks) is therefore arguably the most important form of social capital, even if rarely acknowledged as such in the literature. Third, because of the importance of learning and innovation to the production of social capital in society and organizations, KM has an important role to play in related development efforts.

The paper introduces social capital constructivism. Practicing it to strengthen social capital can enhance the capacity to take effective action in human social systems. This points to a new value proposition and functional orientation for KM: to enhance the human capacity to take effective action by fostering the growth and development of social capital.

The thesis reveals social capital as consisting mostly of knowledge, and shows how KM can enhance a human capacity to take effective action in social systems by fostering the production of social capital itself.

To many in the fields of organizational learning (OL) and knowledge management (KM), the relationship between the two is something of a small mystery. The authors are practitioners coming from the KM side, who in the course of their work developed a process framework to delimit the scope of KM. They believe this framework also provides a context for viewing OL and for relating it to both social knowledge processing and KM

To examine the critical roles of leadership in higher education and to define how such roles enable an environment that embraces the demands of a knowledge‐based organization.

Through interviews with executive leadership in several higher education institutions, the ontology of knowledge management was established and the methods by which knowledge gaps were resolved were explored. The question of how leadership behaviors, policies, and programs enable or inhibit knowledge‐processing activities was analyzed.

Leadership influence in six key areas emerged as significant in the study: environment manager, network manager, policy manager, crisis manager, knowledge gap manager, and future leader preparation. The authors confirmed that the leader has tremendous control over the knowledge‐processing environment and the role of leadership has broader influence than the resolution of knowledge gaps.

By understanding leadership roles in knowledge management, organizations and their leaders can enhance the learning capacity of the organization.

Chronicles the unfolding convergence of thinking and practice behind knowledge management, organizational learning and complexity theory. Of particular interest are the roles that knowledge management and complexity theory play in this impending consilience of ideas. On the one hand, knowledge management is anxious to rid itself of its overly technology‐centric reputation in favor of promoting the role it can play in furthering organizational learning. On the other, complexity theory, a confident solution in search of unorthodox problems, has discovered its own true place in the world, an explanation for the means by which living systems engage in adaptive learning – the seminal source of social cognition in living systems.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the conceptual construct of social innovation in business as distinct from social innovation implemented by civil society and the state. The general absence of sustained research and analysis of this phenomenon, and the dominance of grey and policy-oriented literature, mean that a broadly accepted definition of how social innovation theorises the changing role of business in society is missing

An integrative review of the representative literature on social innovation was conducted. The analysis focused on the key arguments made about the involvement of business actors in processes of social innovation and interweaved in this study to build a logically coherent definition of what social innovation in business means for the bulk of those who write and speak about it today. The scope of the literature review was expanded by integrating insights from the extant “business in society” and social innovation literatures, thereby adding clarity to the authors' conceptualisation.

The findings indicate that social innovation is best understood as a process driven by human relations, morality and creative capacity breaking routines and path dependencies. It fundamentally relies on the socially constructed dynamics between business and social actors who carry ideas, focus their energies, mobilise competences and create new complementarities to tackle social problems. Economic gain, in this approach, is at best an outcome of social innovation, not its engine.

What this literature review unveils that is unique about social innovation, and contributes to an enrichment of the “business in society” debate beyond the business case and win-win scenarios depicted by most scholars in this field, is that it best manifests itself as an informal social process that comes into existence at the margins of conventional ways of thinking and organising business activities. Business actors involved in social innovation are framed as self-directed and self-organised around the moral purpose of fostering social progress.