Understanding and Assessing the Concept of Knowledge Leakage.docx
- 文档编号:24070989
- 上传时间:2023-05-24
- 格式:DOCX
- 页数:42
- 大小:168.75KB
Understanding and Assessing the Concept of Knowledge Leakage.docx
《Understanding and Assessing the Concept of Knowledge Leakage.docx》由会员分享,可在线阅读,更多相关《Understanding and Assessing the Concept of Knowledge Leakage.docx(42页珍藏版)》请在冰豆网上搜索。
UnderstandingandAssessingtheConceptofKnowledgeLeakage
UnderstandingandAssessingtheConceptofKnowledgeLeakage
Introduction
Intheworldofcommerce,business’abilitytomakeknowledgeworkhardertoimprovebothproductivityandcompetitivenessis‘thenextfrontier’.Thisisencapsulatedinconceptssuchas‘LearningLaboratories’,continuousimprovement,leanmanufacturing,etc.However,theapplicationofknowledgetotheworkprocessisnotstraightforward.Questionssuchasownershipofknowledge,knowledgetransferandincreasinglycomplexorganisationalboundariesmakeoperationalisationdifficult.Knowledgeisinherentlyleaky.Itpermeatesorganisationalboundaries–sometimesintended,sometimesnot.Oftenitislefttoperish,withitstruevaluetothebusinessortothewiderworld(knowledgeasapublicgood)beingoverlooked.Moreover,peoplearedefensivewithregardstothediffusionofknowledge,butincreasinguncertaintyandlabourmobilitygeneratesacirculationofknowledgeforgoodorbad.Thisreviewoftheliteratureseeksfirsttoinformthedevelopmentofataxonomyofknowledgeleakageborrowingfromscholarsofknowledgemanagement,industrialorganisation,valuechains,HRMandtrust-basedrelationsamongstothers.Wehavefocusedonpapersthatprovideeitherseminalconceptualtools(suchascorecompetences)orempiricalinsightsortrends.
Westartwithbriefdiscussiononknowledgewhichclarifiesourunderstandingoftheconceptforoursubsequentworkonknowledgeleakageandtaxonomybuilding.
1.Knowledge
Definitionofknowledge
Knowledgehasbeenwelldiscussedintheliterature,andithasdifferentmeaningsdependingonthedisciplineinwhichitisused.Inhere,AwadandGhaizri’s(AwadandGhaziri,2004)definitionisadoptedinwhichknowledgereferstowhatisgainedthroughexperienceorstudythatenablesapersontoperformaspecifictask.Itisimportanttodistinguishbetweeninformationandknowledgeforthepurposeofthisresearch.FirestoneandMcElroy(FirestoneandMcElroy,2005;FirestoneandMcElroy,2005)distinguishbetweeninformationandknowledge.Informationisreferredtoasaquestionableconcept,whichcouldorcouldnotdelivertruebenefitstoanorganisation,whileknowledgeissubstantiatedmuchfurther.Itisbelievedthatknowledgehasbeentestedandassessedovertimeandisamoretangiblenotion,thebenefitsofwhichcanbeeasilydetermined;itcanbeanexistingstructureofinformation(forexampleDNAinstructions,beliefsorclaims)thatcouldfacilitatetheexistingsystemthatdevelopedittoadapt.Therearemanyclassificationsintheliteraturethatfitstheabovedefinitionsandsomeoftheseclassificationsarereviewedbelow.
Classificationsofknowledge
Foreconomists,knowledgemanifestsitselfintwobasicforms:
embodiedanddisembodied.Embodiedknowledgeresidesindevices,equipment,machinery,andmaterials,aswellasinhumanbeingsintheformofideas,expertise,skillsandroutines.Itisnot,thereforecodifiedorevenamenabletocodification,andhenceisvulnerabletolossorneglect.Bycontrast,disembodiedknowledgeisaccessibletousallthroughdatabases,manuals,patents,specifications,IPRs,scientificbooksandjournals.Ingeneral,thegreaterthecodifiabilityofknowledge,thelowerthebarrierstoentry.Codificationisthusadanger,neverthelessatthesametime,theabsenceofcodifiabilitymayoftenmeanthatfirmsmayfailtosystematisetheirknowledgebaseandmaximisethereturnsfromtheirknowledgeflows.Styhre(Styhre,2004)believesthatknowledgeisonlyusefulinasocial,contextualandholisticsettingandthereforeshouldbeexaminedwithinthesamesetting.Thatbycodifyingknowledge,someofitwillbelost.
Knowledgecanalsobeclassifiedaseitherexplicitortacitknowledge;theformerbeingeasilycodifiedandthelatterbeingembeddedinthehumanbrainandcannotbeexpressedeasily(GroverandDavenport,2001).Similaritiesbetweendisembodiedandtacit–disembodiedisheldwithinpeopleratherthanmachines–someofthisdisembodiedknowledgemayindeedbetacit–itcannotbemadeexplicit,howevertheremayalsobedisembodiedknowledgeheldbythepersonthatcanbemadeexplicitshouldthepersonchoosetodoso.Theconceptoftacitknowledgehaspreviouslyfoundfascinationamongorganisational/managementtheoristsandtheknowledgemanagementresearchcommunityandisderivedfromthephilosopherPolanyi(Polanyi,1958).Indiscussionsaroundtacitandexplicitknowledge(NonakaandTakeuchi,1995)thereremainsabeliefthattacitknowledgecanberenderedexplicitandhencesharedandextensivelyutilised(MarshallandSapsed,2000).
Styhre(2004)believesthatthedemarcationbetweenexplicitandtacitknowledgeisafalsedichotomyandthatexplicitandtacitknowledgeisintertwined;acontinuumbetweenintellect(objectiveknowledge)andintuition(subjectiveunderstanding).ReviewingtheliteratureontacitknowledgeStyhre(2004)highlightedBoisot’s(Boisot,1998)distinctionsoftacitknowledgetoinclude:
a)matterthataresaidbecauseeverybodyunderstandsthemandtakesthemforgranted;b)mattersthatarenotsaidbecausenobodyfullyunderstandsthem,andthustheyremainelusiveandinarticulate;andc)mattersthatarenotsaidbecausewhilesomepeoplecanunderstandthem.Styhre(2004)statesthatknowledgemanagementtheoristshavebeenemphasisingthethirdvariant,thepresentstudyisaddressingalltheabove-mentionedBoisot’svariants.
InvokingStyhre’s(2004)propositionofacontinuumbetweenintellectandintuition,Popper’s(Popper,1983)threeworldscanbesummarisedasfollows:
“Worldoneconsistsofthephysicalworldofobjectsandstates.Worldtwoistheworldofthesubjectthatconsistsofconsciousness,ofsubjectiveexperiencesandunderstanding.Worldthreeconsistsofobjectiveknowledge,knowledgewhichisindependentoftheknower”(Blackman,Connellyetal.,2004,p12).However,ratherthandepictthethreeworldsasdiscreteentities,Popper(Popper,1983)argued,“worldthreeobjectshaveaneffectonworldoneonlythroughhumanintervention,theinterventionoftheirmakers;moreespecially,throughbeinggrasped,whichisaworldtwoprocess,amentalprocess,ormorepreciselyinwhichworldtwoandworldthreeinteract(p265).InlinewiththePopper’s(1979)suggestionsMukherjee’setal.,(Mukherjee,Lapréetal.,1998)proposestwolearningdimensions:
conceptualandoperationalknowledge.Theformerrelatestoknow-whyandthelatterrelatestoknow-how.Conceptuallearningistheprocessofacquiringabetterunderstandingofcause-and-effectrelationships,i.e.theacquisitionofknow-why.Operationallearningistheprocessofobtainingvalidationofaction-outcomelinks,i.e.theacquisitionofknow-how.
Popper’s(1979)perspectiveofknowledgeisalsosimilartotheviewofModeIandIIsuggestedbyGibbonsetal.,(Gibbons,Limogesetal.,1994)andBillett(Billett,1997),theformerbeinglinkedtoscientificknowledgeandthelatterbeingapplication-orientedwhichiscontextuallybound.Likewise,Billett(1997)identifiedknowledgeaspropositional(i.e.ModeI),procedural(i.e.ModeII)andincludedathirdcategory:
dispositional,i.e.learntvalues,attitudesandintereststhatpredisposetheacquisitionandtreatmentofknowledge.Forknowledgetobemeaningful,Fleck(Fleck,1997)proposethatitneedstobewithinanappropriatecontextssuchas:
domain(anareaofexpertfocuswhichprovidesaparticularview;forexampletheaccountantvis-à-vistheengineer);situation(assemblageofpeopleandobjectsindiscourseatthesamepointintime)andmilieux(characteroftheimmediatephysicalandsocialenvironmentinwhichknowingactivitiestakeplacesuchasworkplacesovertime).
However,thereisawiderdebatearoundtypesofknowledgeandtheabove-mentionedclassificationsofknowledgefitsseveralsimilarclassificationsfoundintheliterature.Theauthorsareawarethatthereisextensiveliteratureonknowledge,butitisbeyondthescopeofthistexttodiscusstheseliteraturesanyfurtherandwillfocusontheconceptofknowledgeleakageinthefollowingsectionstoexplorehowknowledgeflowsaffectsanorganisation.
Theconceptofknowledgeleakage
Therearedifferenttermsusedintheliteraturetorefertotheconceptofknowledgeleakage.Termsmentionedincludeknowledgeseepage(someusee.g.(DiRomualdo,2004;Kingston,2004;MacDougallandHurst,2005);knowledgetransfer(commonlyusede.g.(BhattacharyaandGuriev,2004;Huang,2004;Kingston,2004;MacDougallandHurst,2005;MartiandFallery,2005));knowledgeloss(someuse,e.g.Huang,2004;MacDougallandHurst,2005);knowledgedisclosure(rareuseBhattacharyaandGuriev,2004)andknowledgeleakage(someusee.g.BhattacharyaandGuriev,2004;Vohringer,Kuosmanenetal.,2004).Inthereferencescitedabove,considerationisgiventothemovementofpeople.
Knowledgeleakagecantakeapositiveornegativeform.Annansingh,(Annansingh,2005)definesknowledgeleakageas“thepossibilityofinformationorknowledgethatiscriticaltotheorganisationbeinglostorleaked–whetherdeliberatelyorunintentionally–toacompetitororunauthorisedpersonnel”.Thisisperceivedasnegativeknowledgeleakageassoleownershipofknowledge,leaksawayfromtheoriginitmayleadtoalossofcompetitiveadvantage.Knowledgeleakagecanalsobepositive,Vohingeretal.,(Vohringer,Kuosmanenetal.,2004)definesknowledgeleakageinpositivetermswhenitoccursintheformofinformationspilloverbetweenprojectpartners.Thisisastheknow-howaboutaparticularprojectistransmitted,ifprojectissuccessful,thentheestablishedprojectsshows
- 配套讲稿:
如PPT文件的首页显示word图标,表示该PPT已包含配套word讲稿。双击word图标可打开word文档。
- 特殊限制:
部分文档作品中含有的国旗、国徽等图片,仅作为作品整体效果示例展示,禁止商用。设计者仅对作品中独创性部分享有著作权。
- 关 键 词:
- Understanding and Assessing the Concept of Knowledge Leakage
链接地址:https://www.bdocx.com/doc/24070989.html