Sie sind auf Seite 1von 21

c 



 



 

    
 

À 

This assignment highlights the challenges face by expatriates in managing highly diversified

cultural teams and the need for cultural intelligence to mitigate these challenges that arise in their

assignments. Also, highlighted will be the cost of failure of assignments, which result in lost

opportunities for multinational companies in the particular country they operate in. These failures

result in the need of repertoires that can be used to successfully implement the expatriate¶s

assignment in the respective host countries. As such, the importance of Cultural Intelligence (CI)

in a highly multi cultural workforce is further discussed.

CI can be learned and it is plays an important role in developing the main five repertoires namely,

manage diverse teams, recruit and develop cross-cultural talent, adapt leadership style,

demonstrate respect and understand diverse customers; which is needed for expatriate to manage

in highly culturally diversified organization.

Explained further will be the four step cycle of CI that will enhance the expatriates, drive,

knowledge, strategy and action needed in developing the repertoires for effective and efficient

management and operation in varied cultural environment.

Using this four step cycle of CI, emphasized in the latter parts will be how CI abilities such as:

cultural awareness, motivational cultural adaptation, adaptive behavior and effective cross-

cultural communication; can be used as a success factor for developing repertoires needed for an

expatriate that result in effective leadership.








       
c  

 



 

    
 


?    

In a globalised world where firms are competing to gain market share, need for resources

other than the basic factor of production has arisen in order for them to gain competitive

advantage. For the transformation towards a µpost-capitalist¶ world that we are witnessing

today, businesses need knowledge as the primary economic resource (Drucker, 1993, 1994

as cited in Carrion | ., 2004) to compete, rather than the ownership of land or access to

capital as their resources (Teece, 1998; Zack, 1999 as cited in Dunford, 2000).

Unsurprisingly knowledge has become a preferred entity of management in modern

business organizations (Kreiner, 2002) and their competitive advantage is based on the

capacity of taking effective action on knowledge (Lytras | ., 2002) by way of managing

knowledge which is the key element in the achievement and sustainability of a

competitive advantage (Perez and de Pablos, 2003). With this development has come

burgeoning attention to ``knowledge management'' and ``knowledge strategy'' (Dunford,

2000) as such, when knowledge management was introduced to the business world, many

declared it as a trend in the business environment; however today it is recognized as a

recommended tool for profitable approach to business management (Chauvel and Despres,

2002) and it is been a target for academics and practitioners whereby, knowledge

management is being addressed by a broad range of academic literature and popular press

(Kakabadse |  ., 2003). Historically, knowledge management can be distinguished into

three generation the first is the recognition and familiarizing with knowledge management

in 1990-1995, the second generation emerged in 1996 where new jobs for knowledge

management specialist were set up by corporations and the combination of knowledge

management in the organization discourse was absorbed, which brought in systematic

organizational change management practices, measurement systems, tools and content

management needed for co-development; resulting in the emergence of a third generation


       
c  

 



 

    
 

of knowledge management with new methods and results (Metaxiotis |  ., 2005).

Knowledge is not a static commodity it has a high value in its exploitation to deliver new

market values or expectations by destabilizing existing products in terms of entity to

market and relative value (Newman, 1997) and according to Argote and Ingram (2000) as

cited in Magnier-Watanabe and Senoo (2009) previous research has shown that the

creation and transfer of knowledge as well as knowledge embedded in interactions of

people, tools and tasks provide a basis for competitive advantage in firms. Knowledge

management includes the development, implementation and management of the

appropriate organizational infra-structure to enable the acquisition, generation,

management and deployment of knowledge within the enterprise (Carrion, |  ., 2004).

Use of knowledge management increased in most companies and is universally recognised

as a critical competitive asset (Ajmal |  ., 2010) however, organizations fail to

affectively use knowledge management in the organizations due to the fact that

organizations fail to grasp the concept of how knowledge can be managed. According to

Kleindl, 2003 as cited in Call, 2005 µµAn InformationWeek survey indicated that 94

percent of companies considered knowledge management to be strategically important to

their business¶¶ and yet it is µµreported that at least half of all knowledge management

initiatives fail; some peg the failure rate as high as 70 percent¶¶ (Rossett, 2002 as cited in

Call, 2005). Hence, in this literature review I am evaluating these viewpoints, by

thoroughly examining the concept of knowledge and the transfer and utilization of

knowledge in organizations. Considering the role of knowledge workers in leveraging

knowledge and increasing performance and innovation by effective knowledge

management as well how the integration of knowledge in organizational strategies, human

resource management and production processes and the use of knowledge management

systems can be used to further gain competitive advantage in the organization.



       
c  

 



 

    
 


?  
 

    

 


 



? 

   

Knowledge is withheld among the employees of the organization and interaction

among employees is required to gain access to this knowledge to further improve the

organization processes and gain competitive advantage. Knowledge is being held

between individuals and collectives, within organisational processes and systems

leading to a consideration of the personal and sociological needs of individuals and

collectives in knowledge genesis and learning (Blackman and Kennedy, 2009).

Knowledge type according to ³Knowledge creation theory´ knowledge is divided into

tactic knowledge (cognitive knowledge) and explicit knowledge (objective and

rational knowledge) (Polanyi, 1966 as cited in Magnier-Watanabe and Senoo, 2009;

Lang, 2001). Tactic knowledge involves beliefs, point of views, technical skills and

know-how thus is hard to express (Magnier-Watanabe and Senoo, 2009; Lang, 2001)

and it includes individual activities such as customer interactions, technical problem

solving, and new product developments (Silvi and Cuganesan, 2006) which can be

augmented and shared via interpersonal interaction and strong caring social

relationships among organization members (Lang, 2001). The conversion mode of

tactic to tactic knowledge is the most important source of affective knowledge

(Magnier-Watanabe, 2009). Explicit knowledge, on the other hand, is related to

activities such as order filling, inbound logistics, supply ordering, production computer

aided designs that are executed by using technologies (Silvi and Cuganesan, 2006) and

formal standard procedures (Silvi and Cuganesan, 2006; Lang, 2001) as such explicit

knowledge is easily captured artificially through manuals and is shared with others

through books or taught courses (Lang, 2001). The conversion mode of explicit to

explicit to explicit knowledge is the most important source of technical knowledge


       
c  

 



 

    
 

(Magnier-Watanabe and Senoo 2009). Knowledge management states that it is a

collection of processes that enables knowledge to be utilized as a key factor in adding

and generating value (Perez and de Pablos, 2003) and Nonaka | ., (2000) as cited in

Magnier-Watanabe (2009) showed that the base of knowledge creating processes are

knowledge assets and further categorize them into four types which are:

1-? Experiential knowledge assets- that consist of the shared tacit knowledge built

through shared hands-on experience among the members of the organization, and

between the members of the organization and its customers, suppliers and

affiliated firms.

2-? Conceptual knowledge assets- that consist of explicit knowledge articulated

through the assets based on the concepts held by customers and members of the

organization.

3-? Systemic knowledge assets- that consist of systematized and packaged explicit

knowledge.

4-? Cultural (routine) knowledge assets- that consists of the tacit knowledge that is

routinized and embedded in the actions and practices of the organization.

To successfully implement organizational knowledge management that provides

sustainable competitive advantage in an organization, it is important to understand the

infrastructure elements: People, Process and Technology which is required to support

the acquisition, management and transfer of tacit and explicit organizational

knowledge (Carrion | ., 2004) this is further seen to in the latter part of the literature

review. However, there is no framework on why some organizations can gain higher

capacity of knowledge management than others and it is unclear due to hidden causal

ambiguity which exists when a firm¶s sustained competitive advantage is not fully

understood with the capacity for knowledge management in the organization

(Hoffman | ., 2005).



       
c  

 



 

    
 




?     
  

Both business and academic communities believe that by leveraging

knowledge, an organization can sustain its long-term competitive advantages

(Bhatt, 2001). As such knowledge workers play an important role in leverage

knowledge in the organizations through distribution of knowledge with the

organization. Sustainable competitive advantage is attainable if the knowledge

worker is not perfectly mobile and if a knowledge workers knowledge and

understanding is asymmetrically distributed in the organization (Smith and

Rupp, 2002). Knowledge workers are becoming an increasingly important

segment of the workforce and are known to be present in many industries

(Wickramasinghe and Ginzberg, 2001) and with the massive organizational

restructuring and consequent dissolution of jobs in the professional ranks in

1990s in North America knowledge workers have move towards been

independent knowledge workers (Fenwick, 2007). Having external knowledge

workers as consultants bring out a different perspective on the issues faced in

maintaining knowledge and sharing knowledge in the organizations. From an

organizational point of view, these independently-oriented knowledge workers

are attractive as they tend to be enterprising flexible workers who thrive on

challenge and initiative (Fenwick, 2007). Knowledge workers own the means

of production (Wickramasinghe and Ginzberg, 2001; Lang, 2001) that is, the

knowledge workers decides on how great their yield of knowledge will be and

what knowledge will be contributed to the organization (Lang, 2001).

A study done by Smith and Rupp (2002) confirms that the de-coupling of

performance rating and merit increases is a common practice today in modern

knowledge-based environment and 58% of the knowledge workers stated that


       
c  

 



 

    
 

they have been subject to a merit increase that did not coincide with their

performance rating. Management of knowledge workers is an important issue

to the organization due to the predominant workforce of knowledge workers

and their impact on organizational performance (Wickramasinghe and

Ginzberg, 2001). Therefore, knowledge workers have to be monitored closely

and should be motivated through incentives that goes with their performance as

they are decisive in how much they will be contributing to the organization and

plays an important role in the utilization of knowledge in the organization.



? À 

 
 


Knowledge management for some is a strategy of sharing and putting

information into action in ways that strive to improve organizational

performance by way of getting the right knowledge to the right people at the

right time (O¶Dell and Jackson 1998, p. 4, as cited in Kakabadse | ., 2003)

and in order to achieve performance result both tacit and empirical knowledge

has to be maintained simultaneously (Jordan and Jones, 1997 as cited in

Magnier-Watanabe and Senoo, 2009) According to Kalling (2003) knowledge

management is divided into three instances: development, utilization and

capitalization, based on the assumption that knowledge is not always utilized,

and that utilized knowledge does not always result in improved performance.

However, it was noted that transfer of knowledge between units within the

same corporation do lead to improved productivity (Szulanski, 1996; Darr | 

., 1995 as cited in Kalling, 2003) and the link between knowledge and

performance often takes place in the form of non-financial performance (such

as productivity), due to the lack of interest in utilization of knowledge by


        
c  

 



 

    
 

managers and employees in the organization (Perez and de Pablos, 2003).

Further supporting to the above, the research carried out by Zack | ., (2009)

showed that the potential for knowledge management to create competitive

advantage was positively linked to organizational performance but there was

no significant direct relationship between knowledge management and

financial performances. Deployed knowledge-related assets and capabilities in

the organizations operations can be used to gain competitive advantage which

consequently will lead to better performance (Akroush and Al-Mohammad,

2010). It is noted that organizational performance can be achieved not only via

financial performance but also through non-financial performance only through

utilization of knowledge in the organization. According to Darroch (2005)

knowledge management plays an important supporting function by providing a

coordinating mechanism to enhance the conversion of resources into

capabilities. Although the use of knowledge management as a resource barrier

is proposed to be positively associated with an organizations ability to achieve

sustained superior performance; there is no clear and cohesive theoretical

framework that can provide a structure for analysis and a lens through which to

assess how knowledge management can lead to sustained superior

organizational performance, or what determines an organization¶s capacity for

knowledge management capabilities (Hoffman | ., 2005).



?  
 
 


 

In a world that faces rapid changes that require quick action to be taken for

further improvement, innovation through knowledge management through

knowledge creation is one way to remain competitive in the business


       !
c  

 



 

    
 

environment today. Well-developed knowledge management behaviours are

evident in firms that have a propensity toward developing incremental

innovations (Darroch, 2005). Scholars such as Drucker (1998:) as cited in

Lewrick (2009) states that in order to bridge the gap between knowledge and

innovation stating: "we ¦    the |  |   |  

| ¦ | |
 |¦ | |  ¦|| ¦ 

   |     


 |¦ | |  ¦  | |

  || |    
 ¦ | | | | |

 
 From this also we can see that knowledge creates value in the

organization by way of innovation and productivity however, it has to be

utilized and applied in the organization to gain competitive advantages. The

challenges faced by knowledge intensive organizations, is to remain

competitive in a highly volatile and competitive knowledge environment where

markets quickly shift, technologies rapidly proliferate, competitors multiply,

and products and services become obsolete almost overnight (Carrion |  .,

2004) employees can help to improve organization performance (de Jong, and

Hartog, 2007) by organizations innovativeness and learning processes that

enables to re-bundle and revitalize existing and newly acquired resources into

core competencies and competitive advantages from internally and externally

created knowledge (Adams and Lamont, 2003) introducing new technologies,

research and break through ideas to sustain business and promote success.

(Lewrick, 2009). It all comes to the culture withheld in the organization, and if

a culture of innovation is adopted by the organization it is unfeasible to fail in

the market as leaders enhance the formulation of the culture among employees

resulting in the transfer of knowledge within the organization. Thus, as a leader


       "
c  

 



 

    
 

it seems it is impossible not to affect employees innovative behaviour (de Jong,

and Hartog, 2007) and companies will be unable to attract creative innovative

individuals unless they offer a supportive corporate culture (Takahashi and

Vandenbrink, 2004)

  

 ?  

 
 
 

 

According to Kakabadse | ., (2003) it can be argued that knowledge management is not

about managing knowledge but about changing entire business cultures and strategies of

organizations to ones that value learning and sharing. Also, it is important to realize that

knowledge management is less of a technical problem, and more of a cultural problem

(Call, 2005) although some aspects of knowledge, such as culture, organizational

structure, communication processes and information can be managed, knowledge itself,

cannot be managed (Kakabadse | ., 2003) and every organizations has to first change its

culture to successfully implement knowledge management (Call, 2005). There are four

basic stages in which organizational strategy for knowledge management are structured,

that constitute the knowledge management process (Perez and de Pablos, 2003). They are

as follows:

1-? Generating or capturing knowledge;

2-? Structuring and providing value to gathered knowledge;

3-? Transferring knowledge; and

4-? Establishing mechanisms for the use and re-use of this knowledge, both for individuals

as well as for groups of individuals within the organization.

It is understood that these processes will enhance to captivate knowledge in the

organization but it is unclear on how and why some organizations can manage knowledge

in a higher capacity than others. Organization can sustain its competitive advantage by


       #
c  

 



 

    
 

creating an environment that encourages ³learning-by-doing´ (Bhatt, 2001) through

skills learnt from trial and error and performance critique rather than knowledge fully

conveyed by communication alone (Winter, 1987 as cited in Kakabadse |  ., 2003).

Empirical evidence was found that collaborative culture influences organizational

learning. Collaborative culture is a means of leveraging knowledge through

organizational learning (Lopez | al., 2004). Thus, the culture of the organizations plays

an important role in the successful implementation and transfer of knowledge within the

employees of the organization to gain competitive advantages. According to Bhatt

(2001) the five phases of knowledge management; knowledge creation which is the

ability of an organization to develop novel and useful ideas and solutions (Marakas,

1999, p.440 as cited in Bhatt, 2001), knowledge validation is the extent to which a firm

can reflect on knowledge and evaluate its effectiveness for the existing organizational

environment , knowledge presentation refers to the way knowledge is displayed to the

members, knowledge distribution where knowledge has to be shared throughout the

organization and knowledge application in which firms make knowledge more active and

relevant creating values, allows an organization to learn, reflect, and unlearn and relearn,

usually considered essential for building, maintaining, and replenishing of core-

competencies. 

However to fully utilize and benefit from these five phases of knowledge management

and create a knowledge management culture organizations have to incorporate

knowledge in their corporate strategies. This means that the top level management will

play an important role in leveraging knowledge within the organization in their processes.

The competitive and time-based nature of knowledge leadership becomes evident in

effect and CEO¶s responsibility is to gain competitive advantage by continually evaluate

organizations knowledge inventory to find potential to deliver market leadership,


       
c  

 



 

    
 

readiness to exploit it and seen to timing for release new products or processes (Newman,

1997), looking at knowledge management in a strategic context thus identifying the

mission that knowledge management initiatives are to support to adopt a competitive

position within that industry (Lang, 2001). As such, a successful link between the

knowledge and profit is also, tacitly reflected in the field of strategic management.

(Kalling, 2003). Reconceptualising the role of knowledge is an important shift in

improving effective knowledge strategies in the organization (Blackman and Kennedy,

2009). Incorporating knowledge management in organizations strategies reduces the

hindrance of knowledge creation within the organization. It reduces the problems arising

from insufficient linkage between knowledge management and corporate strategy due to

the lack of support from top management (Lang, 2001).


? 

  

 
 



?   
  

  

The most difficult to control resources are the employees in the organization

(Perez and de Pablos, 2003). Enabling knowledge management in corporate

culture in turn will affect HRM polices towards that culture. Hence, HRM

plays a huge role in resolving problems faced by employees in the organization

and enabling knowledge transfer in the organization by various HRM policies

that encourage employees to participate and share knowledge. According to

Lam and Lambermont-Ford (2010) facilitating knowledge sharing is a difficult

task: the willingness of individual to share and integrate their knowledge is one

of the central barriers. However, implementing the changes in appraisal and

reward system as well as inculcating values aligned with acceptable and


       
c  

 



 

    
 

encouraged practices and providing a setting wherein knowledge sharing can

occur in an organizational level may augment knowledge sharing prosperity

amongst individuals in the organization (Lam and Lambermont-Ford, 2010)

One example of a company that is involved in knowledge management

throughout their career is PwC in which bonuses, promotions, and partner

admissions are linked to knowledge sharing (Call, 2005).

 ? !  
  
 
 


? 

   

The core organizational competency comes from developing new technology via the

implementation and creation of knowledge (Newman, 1997). Knowledge is

continually being turned into something new therefore, it needs to be fixed in a

signifying system or captured by (semi) stable concepts that can be used to denote

objects of knowledge (Styhre, 2003). KMS is one temperament in the chain involved

in leveraging organizational resources to develop sustainable competitive advantage

over time. (Adams and Lamont, 2003). Although technology can assist a well-

established knowledge management initiative; knowledge management will not

succeed based solely on technology (Call, 2005) as knowledge management system

alone do not possess the qualities required to provide organizations with sustainable

competitive advantage (Adams and Lamont, 2003). According to Lang (2001) recent

knowledge management technologies cannot yet handle uncertainty with imperfect

information and most existing knowledge management systems cannot allow the kind

of continuous learning and unlearning needed to generate multiple, diverse, even

contradictory perspectives to meet dynamically changing business environments


       
c  

 



 

    
 

knowledge management system does not retain any new knowledge in the

organization or manage any new knowledge through the software obtained for it.

Thus, in knowledge management, key processes in trying to create a shared knowledge

resource are deliberations about what information should be included, how best to

organize it, and who should be authorized to access and alter it (Lang, 2001).

Technology may bring knowledge management system into the organizations but it¶s

the human capital that is going to manage the knowledge in the knowledge

management system. In the research of Call (2005) Management at Ritz-Carlton

believes the most important component of the knowledge management system is the

company¶s employees. Further to support this, the research done by Park | ., (2004)

states that the success of knowledge management technology implementation was

mediated by human behavior. Also Park | ., (2004) data analysis revealed sufficient

evidence to establish a correlation between cultural attributes and the successful

implementation of KM technology and knowledge sharing. Knowledge management

systems must connect people to enable them to think together and to take time to

articulate and share information and insights they know are useful to others in the

organization (Bhatt, 2001). Knowledge management system can make direct

contributions to the development of sustainable advantages using several types of

innovative and learning based organizational activities (Adams and Lamont, 2003).

Use of absorptive capacity and development of absorptive capacity is critical in the

revitalization of existing competitive advantages and the creation of new core

competencies and competitive advantages over time (Adams and Lamont, 2003)

Transformative capacity is an internally-driven process that aids in the extension of

existing competitive advantages and the creation of new, more effective and efficient

products processes (Adams and Lamont, 2003) It also include provision, circulation,


       
c  

 



 

    
 

and storage of internal reports and information needed to utilize firm resources

effectively and efficiently and creation, processing, and distribution of data into

information and knowledge to be assessed by organizational members for strategic

decision-making (Adam and Lamont, 2003). Furthermore the examination of the

external environment for identification of competitor activities and potential strategic

learning opportunities such as joint venture, mergers and acquisition (Hambrick, 1981

as cited in Adams and Lamont, 2003) also is a way of gaining benefit for the

knowledge management system.


       
c  

 



 

    
 

£ ?   

It is seen that in today¶s rapid changing world knowledge plays an important role. As

knowledge is reckoned to be the ultimate source of providing organizations with

products, processes and innovation that can gain competitive advantage it has become

highly critical to manage knowledge in the organizations. Although the implementations

of knowledge management systems have been undertaken by organizations to manage

knowledge, it is not the ultimate source of managing knowledge effectively. Knowledge

cannot be managed without knowing what kind of knowledge is needed within the

organization, as per the review it is highly important to differentiate among the available

knowledge and in finding the right knowledge requirement of the organization. Hence an

ultimate importance is given to the human capital and the capability of organizations to

enable the employees to share knowledge for further enhancing to the successful

implementation of knowledge utilization. Organizational culture is the ultimate link to

managing knowledge successfully in the organization. Incorporating an innovative and

knowledge sharing culture in the corporate strategy enables the transfer of knowledge

among the employees in the organization in making use of the knowledge to gain

competitive advantage. It is seen that organizational culture also plays an important role

in leveraging knowledge which can enable increase in the performance of the

organizations I can conclude that knowledge management is the ultimate competitive

advantage for the modern business organizations. Despite of all these above factors

contribute to knowledge to gain competitive advantage, it is still unclear on how

knowledge management provides competitive advantage to organization to succeed in the

market and there is need for further empirical studies to build the link on how these

elements can achieve sustainable performance through innovation and organizational

culture to gain competitive advantage.      

 

       
c  

 



 

    
 

 

Akroush, M.N. and Al-Mohammad, S.M. (2010) µThe effect of marketing knowledge
management on organizational performance: an empirical investigation of the
telecommunications organizations in Jordan¶, |    | ¦| , Vol. 5,
No. 1, pp. 38-77.

Adams, G.L. and Lamont, B.T. (2003) µKnowledge management systems and developing
sustainable competitive advantage¶,   | | || , Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 142-
154.

Ajmal, M., Helo, P. and Kekale, T. (2010) µCritical factors for knowledge management in project
business¶,   | | || , Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 156-168.

or
Argote, L. and Ingram, P. (2000) µKnowledge transfer: a basis for competitive advantage in
firms¶,     |      |  ||, Vol. 82, No. 1, pp. 150-169.
As cited in Magnier-Watanabe, R. and Senoo, D. (2009) µCongruent knowledge management
behaviors as discriminate sources of competitive advantage¶, Journal ¦||  , Vol.
21, No. 2, pp. 109-124.

Bhatt, G.D. (2001) µKnowledge Management in organizations: examining the interaction between
technologies, techniques, and people¶,   | | || , Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 68-
75.

Blackman, D. and Kennedy, M. (2009) µKnowledge management and effective university


governance¶,   | | || , Vol. 13, No. 6, pp. 547-563.

Call, D. (2005) µKnowledge management- not rocket science¶,     | |
 || Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 19-30.

Carrion, G.C., Gonzalez, J.L.G. and Leal, G. (2004) µIdentifying key knowledge area in the
professional service industry: a case study¶,     | |  || , Vol. 8, No. 6,
pp. 131-150.

Chauvel, D. and Despres, C. (2002) µA review of survey research in knowledge management:


1997-2001¶,   | | || , Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 207-223.

Darroch, J. (2005) µKnowledge management, innovation and firm performance¶,  
 | | || , Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 101-115.

Darr, E.D., Argote, L. and Eppie, D. (1995) µThe acquisition, transfer, and depreciation of
knowledge in service organizations; productivity in franchises¶,  ||  | |, Vol. 41,
No. 11, pp. 284-295. As cited in Kalling, T. (2003) µKnowledge management and the occasional
links with performance¶,   | | || , Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 67-81.

        
c  

 



 

    
 

de Jong, J.P.J and Hartog, D.N.D. (2007) µHow leaders influence employees innovative
behaviour¶, |       || , Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 41-64.

Drucker, P.F. (1998)     | || | London: Harper Business Publishing. As


cited in Lewrick, M. (2009) µIntroduction of an evaluation tool to predict the probability of
success of companies: the innovativeness, capabilities and potential model (ICP)¶,   
|  ||      , Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 33-47.

Drucker, P.F. (1993)     | , Butterworth/Heinemann, Oxford. As cited in
Carrion, G.C., Gonzalez, J.L.G. and Leal, G. (2004) µIdentifying key knowledge area in the
professional service industry: a case study¶,     | |  || , Vol. 8, No. 6,
pp. 131-150.

Drucker, P.F. (1994)     |   Harper Business, New York, NY. As cited in
Carrion, G.C., Gonzalez, J.L.G. and Leal, G. (2004) µIdentifying key knowledge area in the
professional service industry: a case study¶,     | |  || , Vol. 8, No. 6,
pp. 131-150.

Dunford, R. (2000) µKey challenges in the search for effective management of knowledge in
management consulting firms¶,   | | || , Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 295-302.

Fenwick, T. (2007) µKnowledge workers in the in-between: network identities¶,   
    | || , Vol. 20, No. 4, pp 509-524.

Hambrick, D. (1981) µSpecialization of environmental scanning activities among upper level


executives¶,     ||    |, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 293-320. As cited in Adams,
G.L. and Lamont, B.T. (2003) µKnowledge management systems and developing sustainable
competitive advantage¶,   | | || , Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 142-154.

Hoffman, J.J., Hoelscher, M.L. and Sherif, K. (2005) µSocial capital, knowledge management,
and sustained superior performance¶,   | | || , Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 93-
100.

Jordan, J. and Jones, P. (1997), µAssessing your company¶s knowledge management style¶,  
 |   Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 392-8. As cited in Magnier-Watanabe, R. and Senoo, D. (2009)
µCongruent knowledge management behaviors as discriminate sources of competitive advantage¶,
Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 109-124.

Kakabadse, N.K., Kakabadse, A. and Kouzmin, A. (2003) µReviewing the knowledge


management literature: towards a taxonomy¶,   | | || , Vol. 7, No. 4,
pp. 75-91.

Kalling, T. (2003) µKnowledge management and the occasional links with performance¶,  
 | | || , Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 67-81.

       !
c  

 



 

    
 

Kleindl, B.A. (2003)   ||  ¦|  , (2nd edn), Thomson Learning, Mason, OH,
p. 279. As cited in Call, D. (2005) µKnowledge management- not rocket science¶,   
 | | || Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 19-30.

Kreiner, K. (2002) µ Tacit knowledge management: the role of artifacts¶,    | |
 || , Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 112-123.

Lam, A. and Lambermont-Ford, Jean-Paul. (2010) µKnowledge sharing in organizational


contexts: a motivation-based perspective¶,     | |  || , Vol. 14, No. 1,
pp. 51-66.

Lang, J.C. (2001) µManagerial concerns in knowledge management¶,     | |
 || , Vol.5, No. 1, pp. 43-57.

Lewrick, M. (2009) µIntroduction of an evaluation tool to predict the probability of success of


companies: the innovativeness, capabilities and potential model (ICP)¶,    | 
 ||      , Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 33-47.

|  

  


and.  !  

"
 #$%%&' (   ¦ | |) |  ¦ *| || 
 |    |  
  | | || "
+ ,
- 
./
0%&

Lytras, M.D., Pouloudi, A. and Poulymenakou, A. (2002) µKnowledge management convergence-


expanding learning frontier¶,   | | || , Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 40-51.

Magnier-Watanabe, R. and Senoo, D. (2009) µCongruent knowledge management behaviors as


discriminate sources of competitive advantage¶,  ¦||  , Vol. 21, No. 2,
pp. 109-124.

Marakas, G.M. (1999) Decision Support Systems in the Twenty-first Century, Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ. As cited in Bhatt, G.D. (2001) µKnowledge Management in organizations:
examining the interaction between technologies, techniques, and people¶,    | |
 || , Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 68-75.

Metaxiotis, K., Ergazakis, K. and Psarras, J. (2005) µExploring the world of knowledge
management: agreements and disagreements in the academic/practitioner community¶,  
 | | || , Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 6-18.

Newman, V. (1997) µRedefining Knowledge Management to deliver competitive advantage¶,


  | | || , Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 123-128.

Nonaka, I., Toyama, R. and Konno, N. (2000) µSECI, ba and leadership: a unified model of
dynamic knowledge creation¶,    |   , Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 5-34. As cited in

       "
c  

 



 

    
 

Magnier-Watanabe, R. and Senoo, D. (2009) µCongruent knowledge management behaviors as


discriminate sources of competitive advantage¶,  ¦||  , Vol. 21, No. 2,
pp. 109-124.

O¶Dell, C. and Jackson, C. (1998)   |     |  ) |  |  | 
 | |   |   |  Free Press, New York, NY. As cited in Kakabadse, N.K.,
Kakabadse, A. and Kouzmin, A. (2003) µReviewing the knowledge management literature:
towards a taxonomy¶,   | | || , Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 75-91.

¦, ., *||, V


    |, 

(2004) 'Critical attributes of organizational culture that
promote knowledge management technology implementation success¶,     | |
 || , Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 106-117.

Perez, J.R. and de Pablos, P.O. (2003) µKnowledge management and organizational
competitiveness: a framework for human capital analysis¶,     | |  || ,
Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 82-91.

Polanyi, M. (1966)   |  , Peter Smith, Gloucester, MA. As cited in Magnier-
Watanabe, R. and Senoo, D. (2009) µCongruent knowledge management behaviors as
discriminate sources of competitive advantage¶,  ¦||  , Vol. 21, No. 2,
pp. 109-124.

Rossett, A. (2002) µBest practices, strategies, and case studies for an emerging field¶ available at:
http://books.mcgraw-hill.com/authors/rossett/km.htm (accessed 15 July 2003). As cited in Call,
D. (2005) µKnowledge management- not rocket science¶,     | |  || 
Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 19-30.

Silvi, R. and Cuganesan, S. (2006) µInvestigating the management of knowledge for competitive
Advantage A strategic cost management perspective¶,   ||  , Vol. 7, No.
3, pp. 309-323.

Smith, A.D. and Rupp, W.T. (2002) µKnowledge workers: exploring the link between
performance rating, pay and motivation aspects¶,   | | || , Vol. 7, No
1, pp. 107-124.

Styhre, A. (2003) µKnowledge management beyond codification: knowing as practice/concept¶,


  | | || , Vol. 7, No. 5, pp. 32-40.

Szulanski, G. (1996) µExploring the internal stickiness: impediments to the transfer of best
practice within the firm¶,   | ||   Vol. 17, Winter, pp. 27-43. As cited in
Kalling, T. (2003) µKnowledge management and the occasional links with performance¶,  
 | | || , Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 67-81.

Takahashi, T. and Vandenbrink, D. (2004) µFormative knowledge: from knowledge dichotomy to


knowledge georgraphy ± knowledge management transformed by the ubiquitous information
society¶,   | | || , Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 64-76.


       #
c  

 



 

    
 

Teece, D.J. (1998) µCapturing value from knowledge assets: the new economy, markets for know-
how, and intangible assets'', California Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 55-79. As cited in
Dunford, R. (2000) µKey challenges in the search for effective management of knowledge in
management consulting firms¶,   | | || , Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 295-302.

Wickramasinghe, N. and Ginzberg, M.J. (2001) µIntegrating knowledge workers and the
organization: the role of IT¶, |    | , Vol. 14, No. 6, pp. 245-253.

Winter, S.G. (1987) µKnowledge and competence as strategic assets¶, in Teece, D.J. (ed.), |
|   | | |)   ||             | | Ballinger, Cambridge,
MA, pp. 159-184. As cited in Kakabadse, N.K., Kakabadse, A. and Kouzmin, A. (2003)
µReviewing the knowledge management literature: towards a taxonomy¶,     | |
 || , Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 75-91.

Zack, M.H. (1999) Developing a knowledge strategy',    ||  | |, Vol. 41
No. 3, pp. 125-45. As cited in Dunford, R. (2000) µKey challenges in the search for effective
management of knowledge in management consulting firms¶,     | |
 || , Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 295-302.

Zack, M., McKeen, J. and Singh, S. (2009) µKnowledge management and organizational
performance: an exploratory analysis¶,     | |  || , Vol. 13, No. 6, pp.
392-409.

A 
! 

Gao, F., Meng, L. and Nakamori, Y. (2002), µSystems thinking on knowledge and its
management: systems methodology for knowledge management¶.     | |
 || , Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 7-17.

Peña, I
#$%%$'µ Knowledge networks as part of an integrated knowledge management approach¶,
  | | ||  Vol. 6, No. 5, pp. 469-478.

 


       

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen