BazEkon - Biblioteka Główna Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Krakowie

BazEkon home page

Meny główne

Autor
Breunig Karl Joachim (Oslo and Akershus University College, Norway), Roberts Hanno (Norwegian Business School, Norway)
Tytuł
Money Talks : Communication Patterns as Knowledge Monetization
Źródło
Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation (JEMI), 2017, vol. 13, nr 3, s. 71-94, bibliogr. s. 91-93
Tytuł własny numeru
Special Issue : Knowledge Management - Current Trends and Challenges
Słowa kluczowe
Wiedza, Zarządzanie wiedzą, Dzielenie się wiedzą, Przepływ wiedzy
Knowledge, Knowledge management, Knowledge sharing, Knowledge flows
Uwagi
streszcz., summ.
Abstrakt
W niniejszym, koncepcyjnym, artykule sugerujemy, że przepływ wiedzy jest prekursorem tworzenia wartości poprzez swój komponent komunikacyjny. Wiedza staje się coraz bardziej akceptowana jako źródło tworzenia wartości i różnicowania między firmami. Jednak w znacznym stopniu obecne podejścia do zarządzania i zarządzania zasobami wiedzy wskazują na pomiary zasobów wiedzy. Dlatego postulujemy, że aby zrozumieć dzielenie się wiedzą, trzeba zaczerpnąć z teorii komunikacji w celu wypromowania słownictwa używanego we wzorcach komunikacji. Opierając się na wiedzy jako przepływie, a postulując że wartość opiera się na wykorzystaniu wiedzy, a nie na posiadaniu wiedzy, niniejszy artykuł opowiada na pytanie badawcze: "Jak możemy wyrazić wiedzę w taki sposób, aby mogła być zmonetyzowana i dostępna do konkretnych celów kierowniczych? Wyjaśniamy, w jaki sposób komunikacja ma zasadnicze znaczenie w zdobywaniu wiedzy i pozwala na połączenie z wartością pieniężną. Dalsza literatura na temat znaczenia komunikacji w organizacji podkreśla rolę, jaką odgrywają pracownicy przekraczający granice organizacji w poszukiwaniu i połączeniu doświadczeń z wiedzą milczącą. Poszczególne węzły w sieciach organizacyjnych mogą posiadać wiedzę. Jednakże, aby być cennym, zasoby wiedzy muszą być rozmieszczone i wykorzystane. Wykorzystanie wiedzy obejmie przekazanie tej wiedzy poprzez powiązania z innymi węzłami. W artykule proponuje się, aby role rozciągające granice stały się centralnym punktem dla takich działań w zakresie monetyzacji. (abstrakt oryginalny)

In this conceptual paper, we suggest that knowledge flows constitute the antecedences of value creation by means of its communication component. Knowledge is increasingly being accepted as a source of value creation and a differentiator between firms. However, to a large extent, current approaches to management and governance of knowledge resources prescribe measurements of the stock of knowledge. Therefore, we suggest a bridge that connects current knowledge sharing understanding with properties from communication theory, to explicate knowledge in use through a communication patterns perspective. Building on the perspective of knowledge as a flow, and postulating that value is based on knowledge use, rather than knowledge possession, this paper addresses the research question: How can we express knowledge in such a way that it can be monetized and made accessible to specific managerial interventions? We explain how communication is instrumental in capturing knowledge value and allows for a connection with monetary value. Extant literature on organizational communication roles emphasizes the role of boundary-spanners in the search for and combination of experience and tacit knowledge. Individual nodes in organizational networks can possess knowledge. However, to be valuable, the knowledge resources need to be deployed and utilized. The use of knowledge will involve the communication of this knowledge through ties to other nodes. The paper proposes that boundary-spanning roles provide a focal point for such monetization efforts. The contribution of this paper is six propositions for future research on how management accounting and control systems can be brought to bear in their governable and calculable aspects if communication functions are given more attention. (original abstract)
Pełny tekst
Pokaż
Bibliografia
Pokaż
  1. Adler, P., Kwon, S. W., & Heckscher, C. (2008). Professional work: The emergence of professional community. Organization Science, 19(2), 359376.
  2. Ahuja, G. (2000). Collaboration networks, structural holes and innovation: A longitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(2), 425-455.
  3. Allee, V. (2008). Value network analysis and value conversion of tangible and intangible assets. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 9(1), 5-24.
  4. Allen, T. J., Tushman, M. L., & Lee, D. M. (1979). Technology transfer as a function of position in the spectrum from research through development to technical services. Academy of Management Journal, 22(4), 694-708.
  5. Bontis, N. (1999). Managing organizational knowledge by diagnosing intellectual capital: Framing and advancing the state of the field. International Journal of Technology Management, 18(5/6/7/8), 433-462.
  6. Bourdieu, P. (2008). The forms of capital. In N. Woolsey Biggart (Ed.), Readings in Economic Sociology (pp. 280-291). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Inc.
  7. Breunig, K. J., & Roberts, H. (2013). Caught off balance: Managing knowledge value creation through boundary spanning roles. International Journal of Learning and Intellectual Capital, 10(3/4), 258-275.
  8. Brown, J., Broderick, A. J., & Lee, N. (2007). Word of mouth communication within online communities: Conceptualizing the online social network. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 21(3), 2-20.
  9. Brown, J. S., & Duguid, J. (2000). Balancing Act: How to capture knowledge without killing it. Harvard Business Review, 78(5), 73-80.
  10. Christensen, C. M., Wang, D., & van Bever, D. (2013). Consulting on the cusp of disruption. Harvard Business Review (October), 3-10.
  11. Cross, R., & Prusak, L. (2002). The people who make organizations go - or stop. Harvard Business Review, 80(6), 105- 112.
  12. Cuozzo, B., Dumay, J., Palmaccio, M., & Lombardi, R. (2017). Intellectual capital disclosure: a structured literature review. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 18(1), 9-28.
  13. Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
  14. Ditillo, A. (2004). Dealing with uncertainty in knowledge-intensive firms: The role of management control systems as knowledge integration mechanisms. Accounting, Organisations and Society, 29(3/4), 401-421.
  15. Ditillo, A. (2012). Designing management control systems to foster knowledge transfer in knowledge-intensive firms: A network-based approach. European Accounting Review, 21(3), 425-450.
  16. Dwivedi, Y. K., Venkitachalam, K., Sharif, A. M., Al-Karaghouli, W., & Weerakkody, V. (2011). Research trends in knowledge management: Analyzing the past and predicting the future. Information Systems Management, 28(1), 43-56.
  17. Gasson, S. (2005). The dynamics of sensemaking, knowledge, and expertize in collaborative, boundary-spanning design. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(4), 00- 00.
  18. Gillani, N., Yasseri, T., Eynon, R., & Hjorth, I. (2014). Structural limitations of learning in a crowd: Communication vulnerability and information diffusion in MOOCs. 4, 6447.
  19. Hatcher, T., Aalsburg Wiessner, C., Storberg-Walker, J., & Chapman, D. (2006). How a research conference created new learning: A case study. Journal of European Industrial Training, 30(4), 256-271.
  20. Helfat, C. E., Finkelstein, S., Mitchell, W., Peteraf, M. A., Singh, H., Teece, D., & Winter, S. G. (Eds.). (2007). Dynamic Capabilities: Understanding Strategic Change in Organizations. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
  21. Inkpen, A. C. (1996). Creating knowledge through collaboration. California Management Review, 39(1), 123-140.
  22. Inkpen, A. C., & Tsang, E. W. K. (2005). Social capital, networks, and knowledge transfer. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 146-165.
  23. Inkpen, A. C., & Tsang, E. W. K. (2016). Reflections on the 2015-decade award. Social capital, networks, and knowledge transfer: An emergent stream of research. Academy of Management Review, 41(4), 573-588.
  24. Jones, G. R. (2007). Organizational Theory, Design, and Change (5th ed). New Jersey Pearson Education, Inc.
  25. Kazi, A. S., Wohlfart, L., & Wolf, P. (Eds.). (2007). Hands-on Knowledge Co-creation and Sharing: Practical Methods & Techniques. London: Knowledge Board.
  26. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: University of Cambridge Press.
  27. Lee, M. R., & Chen, T. T. (2012). Revealing research themes and trends in knowledge management: From 1995 to 2010. Knowledge-Based Systems, 28, 47-58.
  28. Mariano, S., & Awazu, Y. (2016). Artifacts in knowledge management research: A systematic literature review and future research directions. Journal of Knowledge Management, 20(6), 1333- 1352.
  29. Metaxiotis, K., Ergazakis, K., & Psarras, J. (2005). Exploring the world of knowledge management: Agreements and disagreements in the academic/practitioner community. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(2), 6-18.
  30. Miller, P., & O'Leary, T. (1987). Accounting and the construction of the governable person. Accounting, Organisations and Society, 12(3), 235265.
  31. Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242-266.
  32. Nelson, R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge, MA: Belknap.
  33. Obstfeld, D. (2005). Social networks, the tertius lungens orientation, and involvement in innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(2), 130-150.
  34. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster.
  35. Ritter, T. (1999). The networking company: Antecedents for coping with relationships and networks effectively. Industrial Marketing Management,, 28(5), 467-479.
  36. Roberts, H., Simic-Br0nn, P., & Breunig, K. J. (2003). Intangible Assets and Communication. San Fransisco: IABC Research Foundation.
  37. Scott, J. (2000). Social Network Analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
  38. Stevenson, W. (1990). Formal structure and networks of interaction within organizations. Social Science Research, 19(2), 113-131.
  39. Tasselli, S. (2015). Social networks and inter- professional knowledge transfer: The case of healthcare professionals. Organization Studies, 36(7), 841- 872.
  40. Tucker, M. L., Meyer, G. D., & Westerman, J. W. (1996). Organizational communication: Development of internal strategic competitive advantage. The Journal of Business Communication, 33(1), 51-69.
  41. Tushman, M. L., & Scanlan, T. J. (1981). Characteristics and external orientations of boundary spanning individuals. Academy of Management Journal, 24(1), 83-98.
  42. Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  43. Wenger, E. C., & Snyder, W. M. (2000). Communities of practice: The organizational frontier. Harvard Business Review, 78(1), 139-145.
  44. Zhao, Z. J., & Anand, J. (2013). Beyond boundary spanners: The 'collective bridge' as an efficient interunit structure for transferring collective knowledge. Strategic Management Journal, 34(13), 1513-1530.
Cytowane przez
Pokaż
ISSN
2299-7075
Język
eng
URI / DOI
http://dx.doi.org/10.7341/20171333
Udostępnij na Facebooku Udostępnij na Twitterze Udostępnij na Google+ Udostępnij na Pinterest Udostępnij na LinkedIn Wyślij znajomemu