IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v140y2019icp169-181.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Initiating a system for visualizing and measuring dynamic knowledge

Author

Listed:
  • Nissen, Mark E.

Abstract

Knowledge is key to sustainable competitive advantage, but different kinds of knowledge affect competitive advantage differently, and they exhibit qualitatively different dynamic properties and behaviors. This places particular importance on understanding the dynamics of knowledge as it flows, and organization managers seek to visualize and measure such flows for efficacy and efficiency alike. Unfortunately, knowledge is inherently intangible, invisible and resistant to quantification, particularly when in dynamic motion. Moreover, managing key organization knowledge is left often to haphazard, trial and error processes, rendering pursuits of sustainable competitive advantage daunting at best and infeasible in many cases. Even when guided by well-accepted models in extant theory, managers may not be selecting the best knowledge flow processes for their purposes. The research described in this article builds upon Knowledge Flow Theory and application to initiate a system for visualizing and measuring dynamic knowledge. We leverage a multidimensional model to delineate and analyze a diversity of knowledge as it flows through the organization, and we draw analogically to develop a system of dynamic knowledge equations that enable measurement. We then illustrate its practical use and utility through a representative organization example, which we supplement with decision guidance pertaining to some fundamental knowledge flow tradeoffs facing decision makers. This article closes with a summary of key results and implications, which give us cause to rethink some concepts, assumptions and implications in the literature.

Suggested Citation

  • Nissen, Mark E., 2019. "Initiating a system for visualizing and measuring dynamic knowledge," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 169-181.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:140:y:2019:i:c:p:169-181
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2018.04.008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162517302998
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.04.008?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nicholas John Wake, 2015. "The use of the balanced scorecard to measure knowledge work," International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 64(4), pages 590-602, April.
    2. Ikujiro Nonaka & Georg von Krogh, 2009. "Perspective---Tacit Knowledge and Knowledge Conversion: Controversy and Advancement in Organizational Knowledge Creation Theory," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(3), pages 635-652, June.
    3. Morten T. Hansen, 2002. "Knowledge Networks: Explaining Effective Knowledge Sharing in Multiunit Companies," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(3), pages 232-248, June.
    4. Saviotti, Pier Paolo, 1998. "On the dynamics of appropriability, of tacit and of codified knowledge," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(7-8), pages 843-856, April.
    5. Dennis Epple & Linda Argote & Rukmini Devadas, 1991. "Organizational Learning Curves: A Method for Investigating Intra-Plant Transfer of Knowledge Acquired Through Learning by Doing," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 58-70, February.
    6. Herbert A. Simon, 1996. "The Sciences of the Artificial, 3rd Edition," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262691914, December.
    7. Milan Zeleny, 2013. "Integrated Knowledge Management," International Journal of Information Systems and Social Change (IJISSC), IGI Global, vol. 4(4), pages 62-78, October.
    8. Ingemar Dierickx & Karel Cool, 1989. "Asset Stock Accumulation and Sustainability of Competitive Advantage," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(12), pages 1504-1511, December.
    9. Swart, Juani & Powell, John, 2012. "An analytical theory of knowledge behaviour in networks," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 223(3), pages 807-817.
    10. Georgina Alenka Guzmán Chávez & Hortensia Gómez Víquez, 2015. "Patterns of knowledge flow from industrialized to Latin American and Asian countries in the pharmaceutical industry: a patent citation analysis," Contaduría y Administración, Accounting and Management, vol. 60(5), pages 31-56, Octubre-D.
    11. Ingemar Dierickx & Karel Cool, 1989. "Asset Stock Accumulation and the Sustainability of Competitive Advantage: Reply," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(12), pages 1514-1514, December.
    12. Hernan Casakin, 2010. "Visual Analogy, Visual Displays, and the Nature of Design Problems: The Effect of Expertise," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 37(1), pages 170-188, February.
    13. Simon Marginson, 2009. "The knowledge economy and higher education: Rankings and classifications, research metrics and learning outcomes measures as a system for regulating the value of knowledge," Higher Education Management and Policy, OECD Publishing, vol. 21(1), pages 1-15.
    14. Peterson, M. J., 1997. "The use of analogies in developing outer space law," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 51(2), pages 245-274, April.
    15. Ikujiro Nonaka, 1994. "A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(1), pages 14-37, February.
    16. Szulanski, Gabriel, 2000. "The Process of Knowledge Transfer: A Diachronic Analysis of Stickiness," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 82(1), pages 9-27, May.
    17. Maurizio Zollo & Sidney G. Winter, 2002. "Deliberate Learning and the Evolution of Dynamic Capabilities," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(3), pages 339-351, June.
    18. Michael Roach & Wesley M. Cohen, 2013. "Lens or Prism? Patent Citations as a Measure of Knowledge Flows from Public Research," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(2), pages 504-525, October.
    19. Dianne P. Ford & D. Sandy Staples, 2008. "What is Knowledge Sharing from the Informer's Perspective?," International Journal of Knowledge Management (IJKM), IGI Global, vol. 4(4), pages 1-20, October.
    20. David J. Teece & Gary Pisano & Amy Shuen, 1997. "Dynamic capabilities and strategic management," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(7), pages 509-533, August.
    21. Emmanuel Duguet & Megan MacGarvie, 2005. "How well do patent citations measure flows of technology? Evidence from French innovation surveys," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(5), pages 375-393.
    22. A. Kankanhalli & B. C.Y. Tan, 2005. "Knowledge Management Metrics: A Review and Directions for Future Research," International Journal of Knowledge Management (IJKM), IGI Global, vol. 1(2), pages 20-32, April.
    23. Anirban Ganguly & Ali Mostashari & Mo Mansouri, 2011. "Measuring Knowledge Management/Knowledge Sharing (KM/KS) Efficiency and Effectiveness in Enterprise Networks," International Journal of Knowledge Management (IJKM), IGI Global, vol. 7(4), pages 37-54, October.
    24. Karlheinz Kautz & Annemette Kjærgaard, 2007. "Towards an Integrated Model of Knowledge Sharing in Software Development: Insights from a Case Study," International Journal of Knowledge Management (IJKM), IGI Global, vol. 3(2), pages 91-117, April.
    25. Paul Ingram & Tal Simons, 2002. "The Transfer of Experience in Groups of Organizations: Implications for Performance and Competition," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(12), pages 1517-1533, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Der-Fang Hung, 2015. "Sustained Competitive Advantage and Organizational Inertia: The Cost Perspective of Knowledge Management," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 6(4), pages 769-789, December.
    2. Isabelle Le Breton-Miller & Danny Miller, 2015. "The paradox of resource vulnerability: Considerations for organizational curatorship," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(3), pages 397-415, March.
    3. Koen H. Heimeriks & Geert Duysters, 2007. "Alliance Capability as a Mediator Between Experience and Alliance Performance: An Empirical Investigation into the Alliance Capability Development Process," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(1), pages 25-49, January.
    4. Yolande E. Chan & James S. Denford & Joyce Y. Jin, 2016. "Competing Through Knowledge and Information Systems Strategies: A Study of Small and Medium-Sized Firms," Journal of Information & Knowledge Management (JIKM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 15(03), pages 1-37, September.
    5. Heimeriks, K. & Duysters, G.M., 2004. "A study into the alliance capability development process," Working Papers 04.21, Eindhoven Center for Innovation Studies.
    6. Leiponen, Aija, 2003. "The Choice of Organizational Form for Collaborative Innovation," Working Papers 127230, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management.
    7. Bernat, Stefan & Karabag, Solmaz Filiz, 2019. "Strategic alignment of technology: Organising for technology upgrading in emerging economy firms," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 295-306.
    8. Leiponen, Aija, 2003. "Organizational Knowledge and Innovation in Business Services," Working Papers 127228, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management.
    9. Linda Argote & Ella Miron-Spektor, 2011. "Organizational Learning: From Experience to Knowledge," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(5), pages 1123-1137, October.
    10. Laurence Capron & Will Mitchell, 2009. "Selection Capability: How Capability Gaps and Internal Social Frictions Affect Internal and External Strategic Renewal," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(2), pages 294-312, April.
    11. Schriber, Svante & Löwstedt, Jan, 2015. "Tangible resources and the development of organizational capabilities," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 54-68.
    12. Nicolai J. Foss & Keld Laursen & Torben Pedersen, 2011. "Linking Customer Interaction and Innovation: The Mediating Role of New Organizational Practices," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(4), pages 980-999, August.
    13. Zhai, Endong & Shi, Yongjiang & Gregory, Mike, 2007. "The growth and capability development of electronics manufacturing service (EMS) companies," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(1), pages 1-19, May.
    14. Tan, Justin & Wang, Liang, 2010. "Flexibility-efficiency tradeoff and performance implications among Chinese SOEs," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 356-362, April.
    15. Jan-Erik Vahlne & Jan Johanson, 2017. "From internationalization to evolution: The Uppsala model at 40 years," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 48(9), pages 1087-1102, December.
    16. Sarianna M. Lundan & Jiatao Li, 2019. "Adjusting to and learning from institutional diversity: Toward a capability-building perspective," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 50(1), pages 36-47, February.
    17. Linda Argote & Sunkee Lee & Jisoo Park, 2021. "Organizational Learning Processes and Outcomes: Major Findings and Future Research Directions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(9), pages 5399-5429, September.
    18. Lin, Yini & Wu, Lei-Yu, 2014. "Exploring the role of dynamic capabilities in firm performance under the resource-based view framework," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(3), pages 407-413.
    19. Giovanni. Gavetti & Daniel A. Levinthal, 2004. "50th Anniversay Article: The Strategy Field from the Perspective of Management Science: Divergent Strands and Possible Integration," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(10), pages 1309-1318, October.
    20. Wolfgang H. Güttel & Stefan Konlechner & Barbara Müller, 2012. "Entscheidungsmuster und Veränderungsarchitekturen in Wandelprozessen: Eine Dynamic Capabilities-Perspektive," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 64(6), pages 630-654, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:140:y:2019:i:c:p:169-181. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00401625 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.