194
KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL TRANSFORMATION: A CASE STUDY ANALYZING ENTERPRISE RESOURCE PLANNING (ERP) IMPLEMENTATION A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of Argosy University Campus College of Business In Partial Fulfillment of The Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Organizational Leadership by Oliver Jones October 2011

KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

  • Upload
    others

  • View
    14

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL TRANSFORMATION:

A CASE STUDY ANALYZING ENTERPRISE RESOURCE

PLANNING (ERP) IMPLEMENTATION

A Dissertation

Submitted to the Faculty of Argosy University Campus

College of Business

In Partial Fulfillment of The Requirements for the Degree of

Doctor of Organizational Leadership

by

Oliver Jones

October 2011

Page 2: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL TRANSFORMATION:

A CASE STUDY ANALYZING ENTERPRISE RESOURCE

PLANNING (ERP) IMPLEMENTATION

Copyright © 2011

Oliver Jones

All rights reserved

!2

Page 3: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!3

Page 4: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL TRANSFORMATION: A CASE STUDY ANALYZING ENTERPRISE RESOURCE

PLANNING (ERP) IMPLEMENTATION

A Dissertation

Submitted to the Faculty of Argosy University Campus

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Organizational Leadership

by

Oliver Jones

Argosy University

October 2011

Dissertation Committee Approval:

_____________________________________ ______________________________ William Dzekashu, PhD Date

_____________________________________ Walter McCollum, PhD

_____________________________________ _____________________________ Jo Chang, Ed. D

!4

Page 5: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!5

Page 6: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL TRANSFORMATION: A CASE STUDY ANALYZING ENTERPRISE RESOURCE

PLANNING (ERP) IMPLEMENTATION

Abstract of Dissertation

Submitted to the Faculty of Argosy University Campus

College of Business

in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Organizational Leadership

by

Oliver Jones

Argosy University

October 2011

William Dzekashu, PhD

Walter McCollum, PhD

Jo Chang, Ed. D

Department: College of Business

!vi

Page 7: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

Abstract

Knowledge continues to be a critical part of the organizational transformation effort;

however, accomplishing the objective of developing and leveraging critical

organizational knowledge to improve performance remains an elusive goal for

organizations. A critical area of knowledge strategy during transformational change is

determining where to focus business efforts to protect, develop, and deploy the

knowledge resource for effectiveness; however, organizations continue to fail to meet the

goal of effectively creating and leveraging knowledge during change. The purpose of the

research is to address the gap between the objective and outcome of the knowledge

strategy during transformational change. The research problem addressed was the means

by which leaders in a particular organization create and manage organizational

knowledge held by employees during ERP implementation. The research questions

addressed was how an organization manages the identification and transition of implicit

(unarticulated) knowledge to an articulated state. The theoretical framework used for the

study was the knowledge creation theory. The research methodology was a case study, a

mixed methods research design was used to examine relationships and patterns through

the experiences of participants. Data was collected via five sources: surveys,

observations, documents, focus groups and interviews. In general, the study results

showed an organization with a strong culture of informal knowledge sharing. Company

leaders implemented deliberate measures to enable knowledge capture, including

embedding mid-managers and knowledge workers into project teams. Through socialization,

knowledge was captured. Challenges still exist in formalizing a sustaining way of

!vii

Page 8: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

knowledge capture. The significance of the findings could advance the understanding of

the complex myriad of organizational knowledge held by individuals within a firm. .

From a social perspective, the results of this study could help organizations and

corporations to develop a reliable process to cultivate the creation of organizational

knowledge.

!viii

Page 9: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This dissertation is the result of an endless supply of love, support, and encouragement from my two families: the "Jones family" and my "expanded family." I will be forever grateful to my wonderful wife, Dr. Dawne M. Jones, who persisted through often joyful but sometimes strenuous discussions of my work, filled parenting gaps, and inspired me to persist in this adventure. I am grateful as well to my brother Fitzroy, who pushed me to seek challenges while embracing life; my sisters Sheila and Arlene, whose lives I can proudly emulate; and of course my parents Robert and Yvonne, whose own perseverance through life's many challenges has been, as the old song says so well, the wind beneath my wings.

I am dedicating this dissertation to my children: Damon (9), Olivia and Octavia (7), and Olesia (6). In truth, you are the reason I've done this. I hope this accomplishment sets a standard that will help stir your own aspirations. Your dad will always be your biggest fan.

To my father-in-law, Dr. Elijah Porter, who exemplifies discipline and the pursuit of perfection: you have provided me with a road map to follow. To my mother-in-law, Laverne Porter: your cheering me along this journey has touched my heart. To my brothers-in-law, Elijah and Dr. Tyrone Porter: your unwavering support has meant much to me.

To my pastor Randy Wooden: your never-ending encouragement has been important and essential. To Mark Mayes: thank you for believing in me as well as in my work. To my colleague Kimyatta Divinity: I have gained a sister through this experience. To my colleague Bruce Clemence: thank you for sharing your gift of collegial conversation and personal mastery. Thank you!

I am indebted, of course, to my dissertation committee, who endured many drafts and many diversions during my discovery process. I must also acknowledge my dissertation chair, to whom I owe my doctoral experience, Dr. William Gang Dzekashu, whose never-ending selflessness, attention to detail and empathy has been so much appreciated. To Dr. Jo Chang and Dr. McCollum: your unwavering commitment to excellence has been of tremendous value.

To my editor Toni Williams and statistician Dr. Brian Sloboda: thank you for your dedicated work in ensuring the integrity of my writing. I am forever indebted.

And to everyone else who helped and supported me through the process, let me say that your name not appearing here in no means diminish my appreciation for your friendship,

!ix

Page 10: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

love, and support. This finished work, the result of so much effort by so many people, truly has as much to do with you as it does with me.

!x

Page 11: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

DEDICATION

This dissertation is dedicated

to my mother — Yvonne Delores Jones

!xi

Page 12: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

TABLE OF TABLES xv .........................................................................................................

TABLE OF APPENDICES xviii ............................................................................................

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY 1 ....................................................Statement of Research Problem 3 ...........................................................................................Background of the Organization Studied 4 ............................................................................Nature of the Study 7 ..............................................................................................................Research Questions 9 ..............................................................................................................Purpose of the Study 10 ..........................................................................................................Theoretical Framework 10 .....................................................................................................Definitions and Terms 12 ........................................................................................................Assumptions of the Study 14 ..................................................................................................Scope and Delimitation of Study 14 .......................................................................................Limitation of the Study 15 ......................................................................................................Significance of the Study 16 ...................................................................................................Summary 17 ............................................................................................................................

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW 18 ....................................................................History of Knowledge 18 .......................................................................................................Approach to Knowledge Creation 20 ....................................................................................

Economic Approach to Knowledge 20 ...........................................................................Social Constructionist Approach to Knowledge 23 ........................................................

Delineations, Taxonomies, and Typologies of Knowledge 24 ...............................................Articulated Versus Unarticulated Knowledge 24 ...................................................................Knowledge Structures 25 ........................................................................................................

Cognitive Research 26 ......................................................................................................Collective Cognition 26 ....................................................................................................The Knowledge Creation Theory of a Firm 30 ................................................................The Knowledge Vision 35 ................................................................................................The Driving Objectives 35 .............................................................................................Ba 36 .................................................................................................................................Knowledge Assets 36 ........................................................................................................The Environment 36 .........................................................................................................Nature of Knowledge Concerning Organizational Change 37 .........................................Pillars of Knowledge 38 ...................................................................................................

The Knowledge Worker 44 .....................................................................................................Knowledge Experts 44 ............................................................................................................Knowledge Mapping 45 .........................................................................................................Case Studies in Knowledge Management 46 .........................................................................Summary of the Literature 47 .................................................................................................

!xii

Page 13: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

CHAPTER THREE: METHODS 50 ......................................................................................Research Design 52 ................................................................................................................Limitations/Delimitations 54 ..................................................................................................Role of the Researcher in Collecting Data 56 ........................................................................Instrumentation 57 ..................................................................................................................Reliability and Validity of OAS 61 .........................................................................................Summary of Methods 66 ........................................................................................................Strength of Method 67 ............................................................................................................

Trustworthiness 67 ............................................................................................................Validity 68 .........................................................................................................................Reliability 69 ....................................................................................................................

Ethical Protection of Research Participants 71 .......................................................................Population 71 ..........................................................................................................................

Site Selection 71 ...............................................................................................................Site Description 72 ...........................................................................................................Sample Population 72 .......................................................................................................

Preliminary Mapping and Site Access 74 ...............................................................................Data Collection Procedures 74 ...............................................................................................Data Analysis 77 .....................................................................................................................Interpretation of Data 78 .........................................................................................................Summary 78 ............................................................................................................................

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS 80 ...................................................................................................Data Generation, Gathering, and Recording Processes 82 .....................................................Data Tracking System 83 ........................................................................................................Analysis of Relevant Research Data 85 .................................................................................

Descriptive Statistics 85 ...................................................................................................Document Review 93 .......................................................................................................Focus Groups 97 ...............................................................................................................Interviews 102 ..................................................................................................................

Integrating the Qualitative and Quantitative Results 105 .......................................................Summary 108 ..........................................................................................................................

CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 111 ......Summary of Findings 111 .......................................................................................................Specific Findings of the Study 114 .........................................................................................Recommendations From Previous Studies and From the Current Study 117 ........................Recommendations 118 ...........................................................................................................Impact of the Study on Social Change 120 ............................................................................Experiences During the Conduct of the Study 121 ................................................................Conclusions 121 .....................................................................................................................Future Research 123 ...............................................................................................................

!xiii

Page 14: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

REFERENCES 124 ................................................................................................................

APPENDICES 137 .................................................................................................................APPENDIX A

Summary of Theories of Organizational Knowledge and Knowledge Creation 138 .......APPENDIX B

Organization Action Survey 144 ......................................................................................APPENDIX C

Focus Group Script 153 ....................................................................................................APPENDIX D

Interview Questions 156 ...................................................................................................APPENDIX E

Permission to Conduct Research 158 ...............................................................................APPENDIX F

IRB Approval to Conduct Research 162 ..........................................................................APPENDIX G

Permission to Use Survey Instruments 164 ......................................................................APPENDIX H

Formal Letter to Potential Research 166 ..........................................................................APPENDIX I

Site Research Plan 168 .....................................................................................................APPENDIX J

Survey Results 170...........................................................................................................

!xiv

Page 15: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

TABLE OF TABLES

Table Page

Table 1 Knowledge Structures: Contributing Scholars .........................................................................................................................................27

Table 2 Sample Mixed Methods Studies .........................................................................................................................................51

Table 3 OAS Learning Performing Factor Descriptors .........................................................................................................................................58

Table 4 Organizational Learning and Performance Actions .........................................................................................................................................62

Table 5 Measures of Organizational Learning Variables Using OAS .........................................................................................................................................63

Table 6 Cronbach Alpha Coefficient for OAS Learning Survey Items .........................................................................................................................................65

Table 7 Overview of Method, Collection Strategy, Process, and Output .........................................................................................................................................66

Table 8 Organization Action Survey: Item Breakout .........................................................................................................................................74

!xv

Page 16: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

Table 9 Approach to Primary Question .........................................................................................................................................75

Table 10 Approach to Subquestions .........................................................................................................................................76

Table 11 Pillars of Knowledge .........................................................................................................................................82

Table 12 Results: Responses by Ethnicity .........................................................................................................................................85

Table 13 Levels of Educational Attainment .........................................................................................................................................86

Table 14 Results: Age Distributions of the Respondents .........................................................................................................................................86

Table 15 Number of Years at Organization .........................................................................................................................................87

Table 16 Results: Departmental Affiliation .........................................................................................................................................87

Table 17 Results Status of Position Within the Firm .........................................................................................................................................88

!xvi

Page 17: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

Table 18 Results: Number of People Supervised .........................................................................................................................................88

Table 19 Results: Number of Employees in Department .........................................................................................................................................89

Table 20 Results: OAS Ranking .........................................................................................................................................90

Table 21 Document Review Summary .........................................................................................................................................94

Table 22 Transformation as Defined .............................................................................................105

!xvii

Page 18: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

TABLE OF APPENDICES

Abstract Page Abstract vii .............................................................................................................................

TABLE OF TABLES xv .........................................................................................................

TABLE OF APPENDICES xviii ............................................................................................

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY 1 ....................................................

Statement of Research Problem 3 ...........................................................................................

Background of the Organization Studied 4 ............................................................................

Nature of the Study 7 ..............................................................................................................

Research Questions 9 ..............................................................................................................

Purpose of the Study 10 ..........................................................................................................

Theoretical Framework 10 .....................................................................................................

Definitions and Terms 12 ........................................................................................................

Assumptions of the Study 14 ..................................................................................................

Scope and Delimitation of Study 14 .......................................................................................

Limitation of the Study 15 ......................................................................................................

Significance of the Study 16 ...................................................................................................

Summary 17 ............................................................................................................................

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW 18 ....................................................................

History of Knowledge 18 .......................................................................................................

Approach to Knowledge Creation 20 ....................................................................................Economic Approach to Knowledge 20 .................................................................................Social Constructionist Approach to Knowledge 23 ..............................................................

Delineations, Taxonomies, and Typologies of Knowledge 24 ...............................................

Articulated Versus Unarticulated Knowledge 24 ...................................................................

!xviii

Page 19: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

Knowledge Structures 25 ........................................................................................................Cognitive Research 26 ............................................................................................................Collective Cognition 26 ..........................................................................................................The Knowledge Creation Theory of a Firm 30 ......................................................................The Knowledge Vision 35 ......................................................................................................The Driving Objectives 35 ...................................................................................................Ba 36 .Knowledge Assets 36 ..............................................................................................................The Environment 36 ...............................................................................................................Nature of Knowledge Concerning Organizational Change 37 ...............................................Pillars of Knowledge 38 .........................................................................................................

The Knowledge Worker 44 .....................................................................................................

Knowledge Experts 44 ............................................................................................................

Knowledge Mapping 45 .........................................................................................................

Case Studies in Knowledge Management 46 .........................................................................

Summary of the Literature 47 .................................................................................................

CHAPTER THREE: METHODS 50 ......................................................................................

Research Design 52 ................................................................................................................

Limitations/Delimitations 54 ..................................................................................................

Role of the Researcher in Collecting Data 56 ........................................................................

Instrumentation 57 ..................................................................................................................

Reliability and Validity of OAS 61 .........................................................................................

Summary of Methods 66 ........................................................................................................

Strength of Method 67 ............................................................................................................Trustworthiness 67 ..................................................................................................................Validity 68 ...............................................................................................................................Reliability 69 ..........................................................................................................................

Ethical Protection of Research Participants 71 .......................................................................

Population 71 ..........................................................................................................................Site Selection 71 .....................................................................................................................Site Description 72 .................................................................................................................

!xix

Page 20: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

Sample Population 72 .............................................................................................................

Preliminary Mapping and Site Access 74 ...............................................................................

Data Collection Procedures 74 ...............................................................................................

Data Analysis 77 .....................................................................................................................

Interpretation of Data 78 .........................................................................................................

Summary 78 ............................................................................................................................

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS 80 ...................................................................................................

Data Generation, Gathering, and Recording Processes 82 .....................................................

Data Tracking System 83 ........................................................................................................

Analysis of Relevant Research Data 85 .................................................................................Descriptive Statistics 85 .........................................................................................................Document Review 93 .............................................................................................................Focus Groups 97 .....................................................................................................................Interviews 102 ........................................................................................................................

Integrating the Qualitative and Quantitative Results 105 .......................................................

Summary 108 ..........................................................................................................................

CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 111 ......

Summary of Findings 111 .......................................................................................................

Specific Findings of the Study 114 .........................................................................................

Recommendations From Previous Studies and From the Current Study 117 ........................

Recommendations 118 ...........................................................................................................

Impact of the Study on Social Change 120 ............................................................................

Experiences During the Conduct of the Study 121 ................................................................

Conclusions 121 .....................................................................................................................

Future Research 123 ...............................................................................................................

REFERENCES 124 ................................................................................................................

!xx

Page 21: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

APPENDICES 137 .................................................................................................................

APPENDIX A Summary of Theories of Organizational Knowledge and Knowledge Creation 138 .......

APPENDIX BOrganization Action Survey 144 ......................................................................................

APPENDIX CFocus Group Script 153 ....................................................................................................

APPENDIX DInterview Questions 156 ...................................................................................................

APPENDIX EPermission to Conduct Research 158 ...............................................................................

APPENDIX FIRB Approval to Conduct Research 162 ..........................................................................

APPENDIX GPermission to Use Survey Instruments 164 ......................................................................

APPENDIX HFormal Letter to Potential Research 166 ..........................................................................

APPENDIX ISite Research Plan 168 .....................................................................................................

APPENDIX JSurvey Results 170...........................................................................................................

!xxi

Page 22: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!1

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY

In a world in which the creation and management of knowledge continues to be a

critical part of the organizational transformation effort, few organizations have fully

accomplished the objective of developing and leveraging critical organizational

knowledge to improve performance (Leibold, Probst, & Gibbert, 2002; O’Donnell, 2004;

O’Donnell, Henriksen, & Voelpel, 2006; Voelpel & Streb, 2006). Researchers have

shown that a key reason for such organizational failure is the complexity of the

knowledge held by people (Cole & Bruch, 2006). Despite advancements in artificial

intelligence and management of explicit data, people are still the holders of the

organizational knowledge resource called implicit knowledge (Florence, 2008; Trinkle,

2005). Individuals hold knowledge, but the application of knowledge requires

innovativeness. A critical area of knowledge strategy during transformational change is

determining where to focus business efforts to protect, develop, and deploy the

knowledge resource for effectiveness; however, organizations continue to fail to meet the

goal of effectively creating and leveraging knowledge during change (Davenport, 2005;

Davenport & Voelpel, 2001).

The terms knowledge and information have been widely studied and sometimes

used interchangeably. A clear distinction between data, information, and knowledge can

be of great value to an examination of how critical organizational knowledge is

developed and leveraged. Davenport and Prusak (2000) defined data as “a set of discrete,

objective facts about events” (p. 2), while information is data that have been given

meaning through messaging (Dzekashu, 2009). Fahey and Prusak (1998) asserted that

Page 23: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!2

knowledge not only is derived from information but also increases its value by means of

connection along with comparison, conversation, and consequence.

A consensus exists among practitioners that two kinds of knowledge exist: (a) the

type that is articulated, codified, and documented—explicit knowledge (Nonaka, 1991a)

and (b) the type that can be seen in an individual's internal state and ability to act. The

second type of knowledge, known as capacity knowledge, can be further broken down

into tacit and implicit knowledge. Tacit knowledge can be difficult to articulate and

identify (Dzekashu, 2009; Nickols, 2000). Implicit knowledge can be, but has not yet

been, identified and expressed (Spender, 1996). Implicit knowledge grows through

people’s expertise and experiences. With the right skill sets, implicit knowledge can be

teased out of a competent performer and converted to explicit knowledge (Leonard &

Swap, 2004; Nonaka, 1991a).

The current study included an examination of the knowledge structure in creating

organizational knowledge during the process of transformational change—enterprise

resource planning (ERP) implementation—at the North American headquarters (NAHQ)

of Organization W in the Mid-Atlantic United States. The focus of the study was on

managing the identification and transition of implicit knowledge to an articulated state.

Specifically, the study recommended a map of the knowledge organized by learning

dependency, risk assessment, and other analytical information with options for action for

managers to consider.

Page 24: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!3

Statement of Research Problem

The problem addressed in the current research was the means by which

Organization W leaders create and manage organizational knowledge held by employees

during ERP implementation. The ERP implementation process provides a great

opportunity for leaders of organizations transforming from a function-based to a process-

based style of operation to develop and leverage critical organizational knowledge to

improve their performance (Baker & Maddux, 2005; Sarkis & Sundarraj, 2003).

However, organizational leaders are failing to meet the objective. Studies generally show

that a primary cause for this failure may be found in the complex nature of the knowledge

held by people (Cole & Bruch, 2006; O’Donnell, 2004; O’Donnell et al., 2006; Voelpel &

Streb, 2006).

I am by no means suggesting that resolving the reason stated above is the only

key to successful transformation from a function-based to a process-based style of

operation. Baker and Maddux (2005) suggested that three essential keys of success exist:

(a) structural changes allowing businesses to operate in a process-oriented environment

versus a function-based environment, (b) a successful adaptation of the new environment

by workers, and (c) knowledgeable individuals capable of managing in an increasingly

complex process-oriented environment. While recognizing the significance of all three

key criteria for a successful transformation, the primary focus of the research was to help

individuals and organizations meet the last challenge. Cole and Bruch (2006) contended

the difficulty organizational leaders face in achieving the last challenge is the inability to

Page 25: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!4

develop and leverage the critical organizational knowledge held by knowledgeable

individuals.

A failure to successfully create and leverage organizational knowledge could be

the differentiation factor in the survival of an organization (Y. Malhotra, 2002; Sharkie,

2003). The availability of highly sophisticated knowledge-sharing technologies might be

rendered ineffective if individuals are not willing to share information, disseminating it to

peers and beyond, to supervisors and other areas of the organization. “The lack of

motivation to share knowledge could stem from a belief that the knowledge in their

possession provides an advantage in bargaining and negotiation” (Dzekashu, 2009, p.

30). Even more critical is the sharing of partial or inaccurate information. The

motivation for employees, along with customers and suppliers, to share reliable and time-

critical information arises from trust, information-sharing cultures, and other variables

(Ciulla, 1996; Y. Malhotra, 2002). My intent was to examine a more reliable alternative

approach. In a world where the very survival of an organization can depend on the

creation of organizational knowledge, a reliable process to cultivate this asset is

necessary.

Background of the Organization Studied

Organization W is a holding company with NAHQ in Virginia. The company

operates on a decentralized basis with strong, experienced management teams leading

each principal operating subsidiary. Organization W’s principal operating businesses are

organized into three segments: North American Plumbing and Heating Distribution, U.S.

Building Materials Distribution, and European Distribution. According to the 2008–2009

Page 26: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!5

annual statement, Organization W had 74,000 employees worldwide, over 5,000

locations, and a vehicle fleet numbering 22,000. As stated in its Business Change

mission statements and by a former chief executive officer (CEO) in a 2006 interview,

Organization W is transitioning to open systems to allow flexibility to respond to

changing needs, capture new market opportunities, and realize their global processes and

worldwide integrated systems vision” (Lenius, 2005, p. 1).

In addition to organic growth, Organization W has sustained an aggressive

acquisition strategy. Between September 2002 and September 2007, the organization

acquired over 100 companies (Dewson, 2007). The acquisitions meant taking over

systems and infrastructure as well as the human resources. To take advantage of scale,

the company is transforming to a more centralized business model that requires a uniform

platform, hence the ERP system.

The North American business of Organization W consists of two companies:

Organization W USA and Organization W Canada. Within the two companies are 13

semiautonomous subcompanies (business units). As of January 31, 2009, the cluster had

1,586 branches across North America, supported by 10 large distribution centers. The

back office operations that provide the support for the matrix is the Organization W

NAHQ.

One role of the 1,300 associates across the NAHQ campus is to ensure corporate

governance. Organization W NAHQ is a key element of the overall corporate structure

of Organization W. Corporate functions within the entity include strategic planning,

company communications, tax management, legal support, marketing functions,

Page 27: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!6

procurement and sourcing services, finance planning and operations, human resources,

and information technology development and support. The corporate services provided

by employees of NAHQ are activities and processes that together comprise a set of

enterprise-wide support functions. Services are based on specialized knowledge sets,

both explicit and tacit best practices, and a technology base that extends not only to

internal customers but when appropriate to external customers and business partners as

well.

Organization W NAHQ manages distinct operating units called strategic business

units (SBUs). Core operations are decentralized to the SBU level. As a result, the

supporting departments in NAHQ align with the operational structure. The result is

overlapping roles and uncoordinated knowledge that some consider wasteful and

inefficient. One such SBU is Division F. Division F was the focus of the study. As of

January 31, 2010, the company had 19 branches with 400 employees across the Mid-

Atlantic United States.

In 2008, the leadership team at Organization W approved the implementation of

an ERP system. ERP is “an integrated, multidimensional system that encompasses all

functions of an organization, including planning, control, and global optimization of the

supply chain, using state-of-the-art information technology tools” (Carson, 2005, p. 1).

Carson (2005) further defined ERP as “a suite of software applications that links

accounting, human resource, and planning functions in the front-office to warehouses,

manufacturing facilities, and transportation functions in the back-office” (p. 1). At the

Page 28: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!7

time of this study the ERP team had completed the implementation in Division F and the

relevant back-office support, making this subdivision an ideal study.

Nature of the Study

The nature of the study was in the tradition of a case study using mixed methods,

including the use of both qualitative and quantitative methods of research. Yin and

Moore (1987) noted that explanatory case studies might be suitable for conducting causal

studies. Yin (1994) iterated that case study strategy is a valuable method of researching

the how and why questions, making it ideal for examining 3 years of activities. Yin

further contended that the particular advantage of the case study tradition of inquiry lies

in its capacity for a highly detailed examination of business cases as they exist in real-life

settings (p. 1).

The design of the study was aimed at gaining insights into the knowledge

structure of an organization relating to change during an organizational transformation

effort. Therefore, a case study methodology using mixed methodology strategies was

appropriate to examine the knowledge structure and related shift in organization action

(Yin, 1994, 2003). The methodology, aligning with Yin (1994), included four stages

pertaining to the case study: (a) design, (b) conduct, (c) analysis of emerging trends, and

(d) conclusions along with recommendations and further implications. To aid in

understanding the knowledge structures in both their existent and emergent states, data

gathering employed focus groups and interviews to yield organizational schemas and

scripts at the personal level (Stake, 1995; Yin, 2003). To understand the organization’s

action, data collection included four sources: surveys, observations, documents, and

Page 29: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!8

interviews (Stake, 1995; Yin, 2003). Data from multiple sources was triangulated to

reduce research bias.

The cognitive constructionist research tradition influenced the current study

(Babbie, 1995). The tradition recognizes that individuals in an organization are engaged

in constructing their environment in an active manner as they merge knowledge

structures already in place with other, external information through interpretive actions

(Nonaka & Toyama, 2005; Parac, Meindl, & Stubbart, 1996; Weick, 1995). Because the

focus of the study was the identification and mapping of knowledge, the unit of analysis

was the relationship of dependencies. By analyzing the available documents produced by

employees using select content analysis and information visualization techniques,

knowledge mapping can reveal the pillars of knowledge relevant to knowledge strategy

(Hsinchun & Mihail, 2009). The design included examination of both expressed ideas

and actions perceived by each member to gain insight into the knowledge structure of the

firm pertaining to organizational transformation (Parson, Bales, & Shiles, 1953;

Singleton & Straits, 2005). Data analysis included a content analysis approach and

knowledge mapping techniques.

I explored two additional research strategies in an attempt to determine a fit for

the current study. One alternate approach explored was action research, which is a spiral

process that has the flexibility to lend itself simultaneously to accomplishing (a) action

through change and progress and (b) research through comprehension and knowledge

(Babbie, 1995; Bornemann & Sammer, 2003). I was attracted to this approach to

research because of the access granted to me, thus allowing an examination of real time

Page 30: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!9

data of the study site as it experienced transformational change. The action research

strategy fell short of the requirements for the research questions because it restricted the

use of the historical occurrences and documentations, therefore eliminating the prior 2

years of the study. Another research strategy explored was grounded theory (Glaser &

Strauss, 1967), which allows “collecting information-rich data; gathering empirical

materials from the interviews, observations, and focus group; form concepts and themes;

compare that with more data; and generated theories” (Chang, 2008, p. 3). The grounded

theory strategy also fell short of the requirement for the research. The primary objective

of the research was not to create a new theory or model, but to further the practical

understanding of the area of research pertaining to the effective creation and leveraging

knowledge during change.

Research Questions

The study involved examining organizational knowledge creation and

management during transformational change. In particular, the focus of the study was on

managing the identification and transition of implicit (unarticulated) knowledge to an

articulated state. It was intended that, through the study, answers would emerge for the

following questions:

1. What is the firm’s transformational process and what measure do firm leaders take

to ensure employees’ understanding of the process?

2. How do firm leaders convert implicit knowledge held by employees into articulated

knowledge during organizational transformation?

Page 31: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!10

3. How does the knowledge structure reflect on the firm’s performance during

organizational transformation?

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of the study was to investigate the nature of a firm’s knowledge

structure by focusing on what employees need to know to carry out their work effectively.

I sought to provide knowledge risk assessment and other decision support information for

managers that could help shed light on important business resources. I also sought to

show where business efforts to protect, develop, and deploy knowledge resources would

be most effective. The study was intended to advance the theoretical understanding of

this knowledge resource for organizations.

I viewed the organization using data generated over 2 to 3 years (2008-2010)

within a period of accelerated change to see how organizational knowledge was handled.

The potential change in the organizational knowledge dynamics was a consequence of

inherent change caused by the ERP implementation. Organizational knowledge, though

difficult to measure, is amenable to measurement through mapping, which allows

information to be processed through examining the map representing the knowledge

structure of a company (Ha°kanson, 2007). The examination of the map strengthened the

case study.

Theoretical Framework

The underlying theory of the current study was the organizational knowledge

creation theory. The theory deals with the process of extracting knowledge from sources

accessible to people in organizations and storing it in knowledge repositories (Nonaka &

Page 32: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!11

Toyama, 2005; Nonaka, von Krogh, & Voelpel, 2006). Organizational theory is the study

of an organization to identify shared themes with the objective of creating solutions to

problems, increasing efficiency and productivity, and addressing the needs of

stakeholders (Gorman, 2004).

The current study included Nonaka and Takeuchi’s (1995) socialization,

externalization, combination, internalization (SECI) model to examine the knowledge

creation process. Nonaka and Takeuchi proposed that tacit knowledge held by

individuals can be converted to explicit knowledge through a spiral process. The SECI

model provides the framework for managing relevant processes.

Nonaka’s theory of organizational knowledge creation, centering on the SECI

model, was developed by Nonaka and his colleagues (Nonaka, 1994; Nonaka, Byosiere,

Borucki, & Konno, 1994; Nonaka & Takeuchi 1995; Nonaka & Toyama 2003; Nonaka,

Toyama, & Byosière, 2001; Nonaka, Toyama, & Konno, 2000). The theory originated

from studying innovative companies to understand their information creation process

(Imai, Nonaka, & Takeuchi, 1985; Nonaka 1988a, 1988b, 1990, 1991b; Nonaka &

Kenney, 1991). Since its creation, the SECI model has evolved from a two-dimensional

state that included (a) social interaction between tacit and explicit and (b) the spiral state

after internalization (Nonaka, 1994) to its current three-dimensional state, which includes

the original two plus the Ba or the shared context of the knowledge creation state

(Nonaka et al., 2001). The model is further explained in Chapter 2.

To examine management of organizational knowledge from an implicit state to an

explicit state, I also relied on a general model of articulation. Ha°kanson (2007)

Page 33: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!12

described the model as the articulation circle. The underlying precept of the model is that

all practice includes three basic elements: cognitive frames (theory), coding schemes and

other symbolic methods of expression (code), and the technology intrinsic to physical

artifacts (tools). The interaction of these three elements enables the articulation and

codification of knowledge (Ha°kanson, 2007, p. 63).

The study was undergirded by organizational knowledge creation theory in

conjunction with the SECI model, which together offered a structure for understanding

what individuals come to know in the course of their work life and the benefits of this

knowledge for both their colleagues and the organization as a whole. Because I

examined how knowledge is identified and summoned from its implicit state to be

organizationally beneficial, the theory of organizational knowledge creation was a good

fit. The continued evolution of the theory can reflect a modern and technologically

enhanced organization.

Definitions and Terms

Enterprise resource planning (ERP) system: The most recent evolution of

technology systems designed to manage various resources of an organization. The

purpose of ERP is the integration of various information systems across the enterprise.

ERP interconnects various operations of the organization (human resources, finances and

accounting, operations and production, marketing and distribution, and so forth) and also

provides a technological liaison between the organization, suppliers, and customers

(Jones & Price, 2004).

Page 34: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!13

Function-based operation: Department-based operational style historically found

in accounting, human resources, and other service-based businesses (Baker & Maddux,

2005).

Holding company: Holding companies are conglomerate entities whose purpose is

the ownership of other companies. Typically, a holding company possesses sufficient

voting stock in another company to control its management and its operations through

either exerting leverage on or actually electing its board of directors. Holding companies

may also be called parent companies (Leibold et al., 2002).

Process-based operations: Historically found in production sectors, this model

extends across functional boundaries, so that members of a single department or

performers of a single function are unlikely to engage in a process-based perspective.

Process management ties strategic aims and organizational structure to performance

(Baker & Maddux, 2005).

Process workers: Such workers are managed from a performance standpoint, with

their performance shaped by measures directly linked to increasing specific competencies

determined in the course of strategic planning (Baker & Maddux, 2005).

Strategic business units (SBUs): A corporate division, a line of products within it,

or an individual product or brand within the company whose mission is independent from

the company’s other business, so that it may be marketed in a different way than

elsewhere in the company. Typically, the structure of an SBU is not as defined or

disciplined as the structure of the company, permitting the SBU to react more rapidly to

changes in the market and to new opportunities (Tsai, 2001).

Page 35: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!14

Assumptions of the Study

The following assumptions served as a foundation for the study: (a) firms are

social systems, (b) organizational knowledge is socially created, (c) the capacity to create

organizational knowledge is inherent in all firms as social systems, (d) organizational

reality is a subjective matter and is perceived in different ways by different participants in

the study, (e) researchers can measure collective-level action and cognition, (f) the

Organization Action Survey (OAS) used is a valid and reliable instrument to measure

collective action, and (g) the OAS can be used to describe nonlinear dynamic social

action systems such as an organization.

Scope and Delimitation of Study

Certain delimitations were developed to limit the scope of the research. These

delimitations included research site, method and research sample, focus of study, and

time. The organization studied is a global organization with 5,000 locations worldwide.

The study was confined to a division with the organization. I focused the investigation

on the employees directly affected by the ERP implementation. Additionally, the

research was constrained to the 2008–2010 time frame. The study cut-off point was

subject to my scheduled research timeline.

The literary review will not expand beyond organizational knowledge creation to

individual knowledge creation. The focus of this study is knowledge creation at an

organizational level during change. In addition, the ERP implementation is extensive and

is expected to continue beyond the period examined in the current investigation. I chose

focus the study on division F because, unlike the rest of the organization, the project was

Page 36: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!15

fully implemented in these locations. The chosen location was conducive to the case

study method since employees experience the two phases required for project completion

within a year of the completed date.

Limitation of the Study

The study limitations were related to the previously discussed delimitations.

First, the focus of the study was to the single subsidiary of Organization F, while

providing in-depth data that were location and firm specific. The information may not be

transferable or generalized beyond the location or firm studied. In addition, because the

location was deliberately chosen (because the site is undergoing transformation), there

was a decrease in the transferability of findings.

The study was also limited by its method. Although a case study approach allows

an in-depth view of a business case as it occurs in actual practice (Yin, 1994), the

findings may not represent the overall population. Additionally, although many facets

might affect the development and leveraging of critical organizational knowledge to

improve performance, the study was confined to examining the implicit knowledge held

by people and the process of extracting the said knowledge for the benefit of the

organization. The focus of the study was on creating and managing organizational

knowledge during transformation. As mentioned previously, the time constraint of the

research did not allow an examination of the process over an extended period of time.

Page 37: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!16

Significance of the Study

Companies are risking enormous capital in implementing ERP systems. Starting

from the assertion that a company’s ability to generate new knowledge is essential for

change in the organization (Nonaka, 1991b), and that this generation of new knowledge

results from an iterative social process (Giddens, 1990; Schwandt, 1997), there are

opportunities to gain knowledge through the process of ERP implementation that would

be invaluable to the organization postimplementation (Orlikowski & Hufman, 1997).

The study could make theoretical, methodological, and practical contributions.

From a theoretical perspective, the study advanced the understanding of the

complex myriad of organizational knowledge held by individuals within a firm.

Investigating the nature of a firm’s knowledge structure by focusing on what employees

need to know to carry out their work effectively can be valuable in a knowledge

economy. The theoretical underpinnings were analyzed and led to the discovery of new

insights and common themes. Additionally, if organizational leaders are not able to

understand their knowledge asset, the survival of the organization may be threatened.

From a practical perspective, the study may help firm leaders identify and manage

the key asset of knowledgeable individuals capable of managing in an increasingly

complex process-oriented environment. Although researchers have conducted studies on

organizational knowledge, minimal research includes a focus on how to manage the

identification and transition of implicit knowledge to an articulated state effectively in an

effort to align an organizational knowledge strategy with the overall strategy. Ha°kanson

(2007) noted, “Organizations to a large extent are ‘articulation machines,’ built around

Page 38: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!17

codified practices and deriving some of their competitive advantages from clever, unique

articulation” (p. 51). Organization W’s variety of product offerings, company size, and

transforming business model led to a unique study.

Summary

This chapter included a discussion of the research question, assumptions about the

study, significance of the research, and the general plan disclosing how the research was

conducted. Chapter 2 includes an overview of the literature reviewed for the study,

syntheses and critiques about the literature on approaches to knowledge and knowledge

structures, and further discussions of Nonaka and Takeuchi’s (2005) SECI model for

examining the knowledge creation process. The chapter further examines Nonaka’s

organizational knowledge creation theory.

Page 39: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!18

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

Although implied agreement exists regarding the need for organizations to create

and leverage knowledge (Y. Malhotra, 2002; O’Donnell et al., 2006; Sharkie, 2003;

Youngdahl & Ramaswamy, 2008), there is much less agreement on how to identify,

create, manage, and leverage organizational knowledge. The term organizational

knowledge creation is a tent under which various noncoherent models, theories, and

concepts are housed (Ortiz Laverde, Baragano, & Sarriegui Dominguez, 2003). Some

models include Nonaka and Takeuchi’s (2005) SECI model; Probst, Raub, and

Romhardt’s (2002) building blocks of knowledge management model; Heisig, Mertins,

and Vorbeck’s (2001) competency model; and McElroy’s (2002) demand-side supply-side

model. The foundation for the study included two theoretical bases: knowledge and

action. This chapter includes a discussion on the key points among different streams of

research and various approaches to comprehend knowledge creation. The chapter also

includes a literature review of the history of knowledge, approaches to knowledge

creation, knowledge structures, the SECI model, the building blocks of knowledge

management model, and knowledge articulation. Given the setting of the research, a

brief section of the review focuses on transformational change.

History of Knowledge

The working definition of knowledge is based on Fahey and Prusak’s (1998)

interpretation of knowledge as a concept to be held and applied in the mind of the knower

and which increases the value of information through the four avenues of comparison,

connection, consequence, and conversation (p. 267). The study of knowledge reaches

Page 40: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!19

back to the Greek era (Dzekashu, 2009). Awad and Ghaziri (2007) attributed the origins

of some current methods to Aristotle and Plato. Reflections of Aristotle’s work may be

seen in various scientific research approaches, including gathering data, relating to

experience, and attempts to comprehend and interpret data through models and theories

(Dzekashu, 2009, p. 20). Plato’s work is also reflected in modern approaches to

understanding knowledge (Awad & Ghaziri, 2007). Furthering a dialogue between

Socrates and Glaucon, Plato demonstrated that “humans come to know through the

process of sharing experiences and storytelling” (Dzekashu, 2009, p. 20).

The Greek era produced two paradigms for knowing: the subject-object model

and the observer model. The subject-object model involves analyzing human experience

and determining objective versus subjective elements of an experience (Schopenhauer,

1966). The observer model suggests the universe consists of objects (entities) based on

perceptions and presumptions of subjects (observers; Schopenhauer, 1966). Modern

philosophers such as Descartes, Locke, and Kant have built on two models reflected in

current research on knowing. Other researchers such as Heidegger, Mead, and Tugendht

(1986 ) challenged aspects of these models, particularly the aspect of consciousness and

self-awareness.

Although the centuries-old debate on individual knowledge continues among

philosophers and researchers, neoclassical researchers of organizational (collective)

knowledge have tried to avoid the subjective or human area of the knowledge debate,

focusing instead on objective, quantifiable, fact-based knowledge of a firm.

Contemporary theories construed the differences among companies as “a result of a profit

Page 41: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!20

maximizing firm’s ability to imitate successful firms” (Nonaka & von Krogh, 2009, p.

636). The embedded assumption was that firms are passive and merely adapt to their

environment without affecting the structural make-up (Teece, 2003). Other researchers

have successfully argued it is impossible to isolate human subjectivity from the objective

(Chandle, 1977; Flvberg, 2001).

Approach to Knowledge Creation

Looking at 100 years of literature that has developed around the study of

organizational knowledge, two approaches to knowledge have emerged (Gorman, 2004;

Schwandt, 1997). One approach involves building on the economic tradition (Penrose,

1959; Schumpeter, 1934), which includes several models addressed further in the review.

Another approach to the study of knowledge is the social constructivist approach

(Gorman, 2004; Weick, 1979, 1995) that contends knowledge is derived from

experiences.

Economic Approach to Knowledge

The dominant approaches to knowledge are built on economic traditions

(Gorman, 2004) and include the four distinctions addressed in this review: the transaction

cost economy (TCE), the competency economy, the information processing model, and

the resource-based model (Nelson & Winter, 1982; Penrose, 1959; Schumpeter, 1934). A

transaction cost is “the cost of providing for some goods or services through the market

rather than having it provided from within the firm” (Coase, 1937, p. 386). The TCE

represents an early and influential attempt to propound a theory of economics that factors

the firm’s knowledge architecture into the model. Like other equilibrium-based

Page 42: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!21

economic theories, TCE assumes that maximizing profit is the function of a firm and that

minimizing costs is a component of this maximization (Williamson, 1971, 1981;

Williamson & Masten, 1999). Additionally, TCE takes as a given the rationality of

ownership and management.

The distinction between TCE and other early economic models is the significance

attributed to transaction cost as well as production cost (Fliaster & Spiess, 2008). An

essential factor for determining the cost of transactions is the degree to which knowledge

is specific (Picot, Borenlanger, & Rohrl, 1997). Fliaster and Spiess (2008) identified

knowledge that is specific and can be used only for a small number of tasks of large

value. In contrast, frequent transactions allow individuals to distribute the relatively large

costs of developing and maintaining social connections, especially strong connections,

across a larger group of transactions involving one partner (Fliaster & Spiess, 2008, p.

99). In the TCE model, human capital and knowledge are assets; hence, acquisition and

exchange of knowledge becomes the focus. Creating organizational knowledge is a

conversion process from unarticulated (tacit or implicit) knowledge to articulated

(explicit) knowledge (Gorman, 2004, p. 42).

Langlois and Foss (1999) introduced the competency perspective as a

complementary approach to TCE. The competency perspective has roots in evolutionary

theory, which includes an argument for the role of routine in-process flow (Nelson &

Winter, 1982), and resource-based theory, which includes a focus on the clustering of

related transactions (Foss, 1996). A key contribution of the competence approach is its

emphasis on knowledge creation and learning as core competencies of a firm (Gorman,

Page 43: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!22

2004; Morroni, 1992). Companies are moving from business models whose view of

value is derived from physical products to models in which value to a greater or lesser

extent includes intangibles such as providing services, maintaining knowledge, and

building relationships (Ojasalo, 2009, p. 216).

Mintzberg and Waters (1983) highlighted a third approach in which organizations

are viewed from an information processing perspective: the information processing

model. In this approach, Mintzberg and Waters focused on functional approaches to

understanding information processing using decision making, problem solving, and

artificial intelligence models. This perspective includes a view of knowledge as valued

information stored within individuals (Gorman, 2004; Li & Change, 2009). The

information processing model provides a clear framework that explains how

organizations function and adapt processes, although Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995)

contended that it lacks sufficient explanation on knowledge creation.

The resource-based model (Barney, 1991; Crook, Ketchen, Combs, & Todd, 2008;

Hamel & Prahalad, 1994; Jeroen Kraaijenbrink & Groen, 2010; McIvor, 2009) is

grounded in the competitive advantage argument that views knowledge as an important

strategic resource (Albert & Anderson, 2010; Ardichvili & Won Yoon, 2009; Argote,

McEvily, & Reagans, 2003). The approach focuses on maximizing a firm’s performance

and leveraging corporate knowledge (Uzama, 2009). Resource-based theories are

generally used in constructing theoretical frameworks for examining how knowledge and

capabilities are generated and transferred (Eltantawy, 2008). An advantage in

competitive terms can be derived from using resource-based approaches in apprehending

Page 44: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!23

relationships between different skills and practices employed by managers (Eltantawy,

2008, p. 152).

Social Constructionist Approach to Knowledge

Another stream of knowledge research derives from the social constructionist

perspective (Berger & Luckmann, 1966; Gorman, 2004; Weick, 1979, 1995). The social

constructionist view of knowledge creation is as a dynamic interplay among individuals

at a collective level. Sometimes characterized as postmodernist, this stream of research is

grounded in the concept that individuals actively assemble their environment. Social

construction involves a combination of existing knowledge structures with interpreted

external information (Weick, 1995). From the combination of two forces, new

knowledge is formed, incorporated into institutions, and evolve into tradition (Yeganeh &

Su, 2006). Social constructionists view reality as a continuing, constantly changing

process. This reality is maintained and continued by individuals acting according to how

they interpret and understand it (Geertz, 1974). Organizational knowledge is therefore

viewed as a product of collective minds. Only a collective, not a single person, can know

this emergent phenomenon entirely (Gorman, 2004).

Although the general consensus is the social constructionist stream of research

lags behind the economic stream in popularity, prominent models and concepts have been

created over time. Some models include Schwandt’s (1997) knowledge framework,

Canary’s (2010) structurating activity theory, and Seely Brown’s (1991, 2002)

communities of practice. Other concepts include Spender’s (1996) industry recipes and

Page 45: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!24

knowledge taxonomies; Tsoukas’s (1996) knowledge as a continuum; and von Krogh,

Roos, and Slocum’s (1994) conditions for new or recreated knowledge.

Delineations, Taxonomies, and Typologies of Knowledge

The discussion continues about how to delineate knowledge successfully

(Dolfsma, 2008). Many social scientists have attempted to delineate knowledge (Nickols,

2000; Polanyi, 1962; Probst et al., 2002; Spender, 1996). One approach used was the

creation of taxonomies to define dimensions, components, and types of knowledge. A

recognized and widely accepted delineation was Polanyi’s (1962) attempt. Polanyi

proposed a twofold view of knowledge: a tacit dimension and an explicit dimension. The

two dimensions have served as the foundation for many researchers in the field of

knowledge management (Gorman, 2004). The typology proposed by Spender (1996) was

similar in that it differentiated implicit knowledge (generated through action) and explicit

knowledge (generated through communication). Kogut and Zander (1996) delineated

knowledge between new knowledge and reproduced knowledge. Nickols (2000) further

delineated unarticulated knowledge into two categories: (a) implicit knowledge, which,

while not yet converted, is amenable to becoming explicit, and (b) tacit knowledge,

which differs in that it strongly resists being made explicit.

Articulated Versus Unarticulated Knowledge

In his famous delineation of knowledge, Polanyi (1962) identified the tacit and

explicit types of knowledge. Polanyi’s theory rested on three basic concepts: (a) real

discovery cannot arise out of articulated governance; (b) knowledge is both public and, to

a great extent, private; and (c) knowledge starts in the tacit unarticulated realm. Polanyi

Page 46: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!25

concluded that tacit knowledge could not be articulated because it is internalized in the

unconscious mind. Consistent with the focus of the current study, the review was

structured around Nichols’s (2000) delineation of nonexplicit knowledge into implicit and

tacit types. Tacit and implicit knowledge is unarticulated, whereas explicit knowledge is

articulated knowledge. Despite the delineation efforts presented above, researchers have

cautioned against valuing the significance of one type of knowledge over another for

organizations.

Knowledge Structures

Cognitive researchers use the concept of knowledge structures to represent an

interrelated collection of facts or knowledge about behaviors or actions held by human

experts. Such knowledge structures are controlled by learning dependencies (knowledge

elements), which provides structural integrity for human-centered approaches to

examining knowledge (Lyles & Schwenk, 1992). Knowledge structures assume the role

of filters, affecting the interpretation and action of how new information is processed by

members of social system (Gorman, 2004, p. 56).

Knowledge structure varies across firms, workgroups, and organizations. Foss

and Pedersen (2001) proposed that subgroups within organizations be viewed as

individual knowledge structures that are heterogeneous in nature. A subsidiary, division,

or headquarters of a multinational firm such as Organization W should therefore be

examined for intrafirm heterogeneity and not interfirm heterogeneity. Knowledge

elements within a knowledge structure hold characteristics of knowledge content such as

Page 47: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!26

tacitness, complexity, and source (Foss & Pedersen, 2001). These characteristics are

further examined in the Pillars of Knowledge section.

Cognitive Research

As mentioned earlier in the review, neoclassic researchers of organizational

(collective) knowledge have tried to avoid the subjective (human) area of the knowledge

debate. The reverse is also true for cognitive researchers. Wong and Sitkin (2002 ) noted

that the focus of cognitive science has been the study of the human mind and the thought

process of individuals, ignoring the social context in which individuals exist. Brower

(1996 ) and Resnick (1991 ) noted a fundamental shift has taken place in the subjective

area of research to focus on the role of both the social context and process of emergence

of knowledge. Organizational theorists interested in knowledge management,

integration, and creation have conducted extensive work on this area of study.

Collective Cognition

Hayak’s (1945 ) interpretation of collective cognition was borrowed for the

current study, attributing it to the involvement of three interacting elements: the

individual abilities of the agents, their shared knowledge, and their communication

structure. Collective cognition can be recognized by organized principles, routines and

practices, management schemes, related organization consensus on past experiences

(organizational memory), agreed-upon goals, adaptive orientation to the environment,

and the relationships commonly held and diffused throughout organizations (Lyles &

Schwenk, 1992; Zander & Kogut, 1995). Justification for collective cognition is based

Page 48: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!27

on the premise that individual processes are disjointed from and generally ignorant of the

detailed dynamics of the overall system (Sackman, 1992).

The appropriateness of studying cognition at the collective level was first argued

by Durkiem (1895) and championed by Hayak (1945); however, the number of empirical

studies has increased since the early 1990s at the collective level examining knowledge

structures and schema (Bougon, 1992; Casey, 1994; Giegle, 1997). Schneider and

Angelmar (1993) indicated that when studying the collective, researchers must account

for social interactions, group dynamics, politics, and communication because their

variables are not captured at the aggregate level. A convergence of interest exists in the

area of collective cognition in organizations between social scientists and strategists.

Social scientists are interested in context sensitivity, from a social perspective, of

cognitive processing within a firm, whereas organizational strategists focus on a firm

from a knowledge-processing perspective (Schneider & Angelmar, 1993, p. 354). Table 1

displays a list of contributing scholars.

Table 1

Knowledge Structures: Contributing Scholars

Page 49: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!28

(continued)

Author Knowledge structure

Neiser (1976) Knowledge structures arise because of cognitive limitations of individuals to absorb and

recall large amounts of information.

Hannan &

Freeman (1977)

Knowledge structures classified into core and peripheral (Lyles & Schwenk, 1992)

extend these classifications.

Argyris &

Schon (1983)

Knowledge structures define expected relationships, behaviors, and actions for

organizational members’ complex knowledge structure in order for the top management

team to respond appropriately to the organizations environment

Daft & Weick

(1984)

The top management team bears responsibility for determining the way in which an

organization interprets the environment and responds to it strategically. Properties relevant

to knowledge structure = encoding, storage, elaboration, forgetting, retrieval, modeling,

modification, addition of new structures, complexity of structure.

Schwenk (1984) Knowledge structures create biases in interpretation of information and the

oversimplification in strategic management decision making.

Lurigio &

Carroll (1985)

Complexity of knowledge structure differs depending on individual domain-specific

expertise

Page 50: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!29

Table 1. Knowledge Structures: Contributing Scholars (continued)

(continued)

Author Knowledge structure

Prahald &

Bettis (1986)

Knowledge structures create perceptual filters that allow managers to emphasize relevant

information while disregarding irrelevant information; effective perceptual filters that

allow top management teams to focus on relevancy, even if information is not accurate or

complete.

Weick &

Bougon (1992)

Three stages for developing knowledge structure: (1) agreement on which concepts

capture and abstract their joint experience; (2) consensus on relationships among these

concepts; (3) similarity of view on how these related concepts affect each party (Lyles,

1992, p. 157).

Fahey &

Narayanan

(1989)

Structural knowledge of key decision-making groups skewed their understanding of

environmental information which contributed to demise of company over 15 year period

(case study in television manufacturing firm).

Huff &

Schwenk (1990)

Executives actively examine their firm's external environment and altered their

cognitive map in a predictable fashion (casual maps in oil and auto industry).

Hershey, Walsh,

Read, & Chulef

(1990)

Complexity of knowledge structure differs depending on individual's domain knowledge

(study of expertise on financial problem solving).

Barr, Stimpert,

& Huff (1992)

First empirical study to call attention to utility of knowledge structures and their

relationship to learning (per Walsh, 1995). Studied two firms who altered knowledge

structure, but surviving company showed evidence of continued experimentation,

change, and learning (studied changes in cognitive maps of two railroad companies using

archival documents).

Geigle (1997) Knowledge structures are impacted by variables such as work experience, group

membership, organizational tenure, organizational culture, organizational context, and

industry

Page 51: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!30

Table 1. Knowledge Structures: Contributing Scholars (continued)

The Knowledge Creation Theory of a Firm

The focus of the current study was the phenomenon of knowledge creation and

management within a firm from the perspective of the organization knowledge creation

theory (OKC) of a firm (Nonaka & Toyama, 2003). OKC perspective is distinct because

of its emphasis on understanding the conscious act of creating meaning (knowledge

Author Knowledge structure

Kuhn &

Corman, 2003

Convergence and divergence of members' knowledge structures over time; using

interviews and observations—nine month case study of government agency striving to

understand complexities marking implementations of organizational change programs.

Gorman (2004) The study examined 7 primary characteristics of a firms knowledge structure

concerning change: Study examined two firms

Clariana &

Wallace (2007)

Examines a computer based approach to examine knowledge structures in individuals

and groups

Anantatmula &

Kanungo (2009)

The study examines way of establishing monetary benefit to Knowledge Management

using knowledge structures

Zhang, Wang,

Dong, & Zhou

(2009)

The study compared Chinese and American students’ knowledge structure: Study

results showed remarkable difference

Wu & Ragatz

(2010)

The study examine the feasibility of integrated supplier into new product development

process using knowledge structure to frame the study

Friesl,

Sackmann, &

Kremser (2011)

The study examines the barriers to knowledge sharing on German air force

Yin, Ge, & Li,

(2011)

Use knowledge structure framework to assess knowledge transfer from consultants to

knowledge workers during ERP implementation

Kawashima,

Lobel, Yamada,

& Ohtake (2011)

Legal structuring of knowledge products to benefit society

Page 52: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!31

creation) and how knowledge is processed within a firm. Building on Plato’s perspective

of knowledge as a justified true belief (Baird, 1961/2008), Nonaka and Toyama (1995)

and Nonaka et al. (2006) premised the OKC on the concept that an individual creates

knowledge by making sense of a new situation by committing to his or her justified

belief.

Additionally, unlike the neoclassical organizational knowledge theorists, the OKC

is grounded on the premise that knowledge inherently includes human values and ideals

and is therefore inherently subjective (Nonaka & Toyama, 2003). Truth becomes a truth

through human interactions being influenced by the ideal, ideologies, and values of the

collective (Nonaka & Toyama, 2003, p. 5). Complementing the subjective aspects of

knowledge creation, the OKC also prescribes a role for hard knowledge, which facilitates

the expansion (universality) of knowledge. The OKC proposes that “subjective (tacit)

knowledge held by individuals is externalized into hard (explicit) knowledge to be shared

and synthesized” (Nonaka & Toyama, 2005, p. 419). During the process of sharing and

synthesis, new knowledge is created, which in turn is internalized and built on preexisting

subjective knowledge (SECI).

Figure 1 represents Nonaka and Takeuchi’s (2005) SECI model to examine the

knowledge creation process. Nonaka and Takeuchi proposed that unarticulated

knowledge held by individuals could be converted to articulated knowledge through a

spiral process. The SECI model provides the framework for managing the relevant

processes.

Page 53: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!32

!

Figure 1. Four modes of knowledge conversion. From The Knowledge Creating Company (p. 62), by I. Nonaka and H. Takeuchi, 1995, London, England: Oxford University Press. Copyright 1995 by Oxford University Press. Adapted with permission.

In an effort to describe their model, Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) used the process

of developing a new product. In this case, the process of creating a new product starts

with accumulating and sharing the tacit knowledge of the customer through marketing

research: socialization. Research and development facilitates the articulation of tacit

knowledge into a product concept: externalization. Product concept is then synthesized

and developed into product by product engineers and other groups: combination. The

explicit knowledge created by this new product to the customers generates more tacit

knowledge: internalization. Internalization sets off a new spiral.

Nonaka’s theory of organizational knowledge creation centering on the SECI

model was developed by Nonaka and his colleagues (Nonaka, 1994; Nonaka et al., 1994;

Socialization Externalization

Internalization Combination

TacitKnowledge

ExplicitKnowledge

ExplicitKnowledge

TacitKnowledge

From

To

Page 54: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!33

Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Nonaka & Toyama, 2003; Nonaka et al., 2000, 2001). Many

scholars have employed the OKC approach. Becerra-Fernandez and I Sabherwal (2001)

used OKC to develop a knowledge sharing scale, Bonifacio and Molani (2003) applied

OKC to examine diversity in knowledge creation, Bryant (2005) employed OKC to

examine tacit knowledge sharing, Chen and Edgington (2005) used OKC to assess the

value of organizational knowledge, A. Malhotra, Gosain, and El Sawy (2005) applied

OKC in understanding the knowledge creation in the supply chain of a business, and

Massey and Montoya-Weiss (2006) applied OKC to examine the knowledge conversion

process. Additionally, the OKC has provided the basis from which theories such as

knowledge-based theory of the firm, resource-based view of the firm, information

processing theory, social capital theory, social network theory, social exchange theory,

structuration theory, and theory of the growth of the firm were developed (Gorman,

2004).

Nonaka et al. (2006) identified several propositions for the OKC approach: (a)

knowledge-based exploration, (b) examining information processing, (c) managing

organizational structure, and (d) analyzing a firm’s growth. An examination of the

situation, end, and means contained in the creation, processing, and management of

knowledge is required.

As noted in Chapter 1, the OKC theory originated from studying innovative

companies to understand their information creation process (Gorman, 2004; Imai et al.,

1985; Nonaka 1988a, 1988b, 1990, 1991b; Nonaka & Kenney, 1991). Since its creation,

the SECI model has evolved from a two-dimensional state social dynamic interplay

Page 55: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!34

between tacit and explicit and the spiral state after internalization (Nonaka, 1994) to its

current three-dimensional state that includes the original two plus the ba state, or shared

context that harbors meaning for knowledge creation (Nonaka et al., 2001). Figure 2

illustrates the three-dimensional state of knowledge creation.

!

Figure 2. The dynamic model of a knowledge-creating company. From “The Theory of a Knowledge Creating Firm: Subjectivity, Objectivity and Synthesis,” by I. Nonaka and R. Toyama, 2005, Industrial and Corporate Change, 14, p. 423. Copyright 1995 by Reed Business Information, Inc. Adapted with permission.

Nonaka and Toyama’s (2005) dynamic model of a knowledge-creating company

demonstrate the conceptual framework that examines how knowledge is created through

the dynamic interplay with its environment. The model consists of 5primarycomponents:

the SECI process of dialogues and practice (described above); the knowledge vision and

driving objective, which provide a direction and energy to the SECI process; ba, the place

Page 56: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!35

where the SECI process operates; knowledge assets, SECI process input and outputs; and

the environment, the dynamic space as knowledge and multilayered ba coexists.

The Knowledge Vision

The concept of knowledge vision has been used to represent many different

interpretations by researchers over time. Nonaka and Toyama (2003) honed the

knowledge vision as the notion that represents a firm’s reason to exist. A knowledge

vision derives from key members of a firm asking why we do what we do (Nonaka &

Toyama, 2003). From this questioning, the firm derives knowledge creation and the

strategic direction of knowledge creation that transcends current capabilities of the firm.

The Driving Objectives

A knowledge vision within itself cannot create knowledge (Nonaka & Toyama,

2003). To bring a knowledge vision to fruition, the firm has to establish concrete steps,

goals, or actions to link with the dialogues and processes explained in the SECI process.

This process is defined as the driving objectives.

Nonaka and Toyama (2003) explained that knowledge creation is guided by

“synthesis of contradictions and thoughts” (p. 434). The acceptance of the dichotomy

transcends either–or solutions, accommodating the creation of new knowledge to solve

such contradictions. Some contradictions cannot be resolved by synthesis and dialogue

but rather through practice. To accomplish knowledge creation through practice, Nonaka

and Toyama noted that preconceived notions have to be discarded and replaced with an

acceptance of the current reality. The synthesis of contradictions through dialogue or

practice creates concepts and hypotheses.

Page 57: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!36

Ba

Nonaka and Takeuchi (2005) defined ba as “shared context in motion, where

knowledge is shared, created and utilized” (p. 428). Basing their premise on Haek’s

(1945) and Suchman’s (1987) arguments that knowledge is context-specific and is

therefore reliant on physical context or situated action to be created, Nonaka and

Takeuchi proposed ba as that context in motion. Ba represents the time and space of such

interactions. Within this constant movement of shared context in motion and the creation

of new meanings, new knowledge is created. Additionally, Nonaka and Takeuchi

proposed that a firm could therefore be viewed as an “organic configuration of multi-

layered ba” (p. 430).

Knowledge Assets

During the knowledge creation process of dialogue and practices at ba, knowledge

assets are created (Nonaka & Toyama, 2003). Knowledge assets may consist of

previously created knowledge such as learned practices, patents, and brand. “Knowledge

assets also include the knowledge to create knowledge and the social capital shared

within an organization (Nonaka & Toyama, 2003, p. 430).

The Environment

Nonaka and Toyama (2003) defined the environment as a multilayered ba that

transcends boundaries of organizations. Knowledge is created through a synthesis of a

firm’s knowledge with knowledge held by stakeholders such as customers, suppliers,

competitors, and universities (Nonaka & Toyama, 2003, p. 431). This interaction in turn

Page 58: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!37

supports revisiting and redefining vision, dialogues, and practices and driving objectives

that affect the environment (Nonaka & Toyama, 2005).

Nature of Knowledge Concerning Organizational Change

The basis of the current study was the premise that organizational change is

dependent on the ability to develop new knowledge (Hedberg, 1981; Lundberg, 1989;

Schwandt, 1997). Therefore, embedded in an effort of transformational change is the

requirement that the social system must create new knowledge and sustain deep-level

change (Nickols, 2000). In the study, transformational change was viewed from both a

macro level representing episodic change and a micro level exploring ongoing adaptation

and continuous change models. If change is dependent on the ability to develop

knowledge (Hedburg, 1981; Lundberg, 1989, 1991; Nonaka, 1991; Schwandt &

Gundlach, 1992), then understanding the dynamics of a collective learning framework

becomes useful for examining how organizations transform themselves to survive in a

changing environment.

Punctuated change models have influenced contemporary thinking about how

organizations change (Sastry, 1997). Originally proposed by Gould and Eldridge in 1972,

punctuated change models characterize change as relatively stable followed by infrequent

transformative punctuations in which new structure emerges (Gorman, 2004). Tushman

and Romanelli (1985) first introduced empirical evidence for a punctuated equilibrium

model after studying 14 organizations. Tushman and Romanelli (1994) furthered their

work with an empirical study on the microcomputing industry. Additional evidence of

these findings was presented in the work of Tushman and Anderson (1986) and Tushman

Page 59: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!38

and Rosenkropt (1992). Although punctuated equilibrium has been researched as a

perspective and analytical lens to understand what change has been developed (Tushman

& Romanelli, 1994), the empirical testing of the role of knowledge structures in that

change dynamic is limited.

A living systems approach could also be considered to understand

transformational change and collective cognition (Capra, 1996; Gersi, 1991; Mingers

1995; Theirtart & Forges, 1995; Wheatly, 1992). However, limited empirical evidence

exists to affirm the link. The perspective living systems approach highlights the inherent

capacity of a system to self-produce and create knowledge from a nonlinear ecological

perspective (Bateson, 1977; Capra, 1996; Luhman, 1984; Maturana & Verela, 1980;

Miller, 1971, 1978; Prigogine, 1979). A living systems approach provides explanations

for why a firm replicates itself in its own image. When a firm places more emphasis on

developing its internal capabilities and competencies in an effort to increase its

knowledge-creating capacities, it can incorporate the living systems perspective to

understand the social process in creating new knowledge.

Pillars of Knowledge

Gorman (2004) described seven pillars to the nature of knowledge concerning

organizational change: (a) the focus of knowledge structure—internally versus externally,

(b) the structure of the dominant core toward inquiry—suppress versus evoke, (c) the

element contributing to the suppressing inquiry, (d) the focus of action orientation—

performing versus learning, (e) the structure of actions, (f) the response to threatening

conditions in external environments, and (g) the perspective of change. The current study

Page 60: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!39

included seven pillar lenses to examine the nature of the firm’s knowledge structure.

Additionally, the management of knowledge can be viewed in the seven pillars context.

Focus of knowledge. In this context, a firm’s knowledge focus describes actions

associated with knowledge retrieval and how a firm maintains, controls, and creates

criteria for judgment, selection, and legitimization of action (Powell, 1991; Schein, 1987;

Walsh & Ungson, 1991; Weick, 1995). Svieby (1997) suggested that there are two core

purposes of measuring intangible assets, like knowledge, and two key parties interested in

the results. One way of measuring intangible assets is assessing levels at a point in time.

Another way of measuring intangible assets is utilizing flows and trends due to the

fluidity of the assets. Externally, interested parties are stakeholders, customers, creditors,

and shareholders, whereas internally, managers and decision makers are the parties of

interest. Although a plausible argument exists for examining intangible assets by flows

and trends, external stakeholders might display an interest in protecting their investments

and therefore placing greater value in a point-in-time valuation. A management team

with a primary focus on satisfying external interest might adopt policies that could affect

the knowledge structure (Svieby, 1997).

Structure of the dominant core toward inquiry. Collinson, Cook, and Conley

(2006) contextualized inquiry as a “cyclical process of questioning, predicting, data

collection, data analysis, and action” (p. 239). Two general approaches have evolved in

the organizational development. One approach utilizes problem-solving orientations in

organizational development. According to Luechauer (2000), this approach has

dominated business schools over the past 50 years, resulting in heavy uses in

Page 61: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!40

organizations. The problem-solving approach presumes a problem needs to be resolved.

Daft (2007) noted that this approach could lead to a demoralized workforce and act as

disincentives to innovation, which could affect knowledge creation. Another approach

utilizes appreciative learning inquiry. Cooperrider and Srivastva (1987) coined this

alternate approach, which attempts to incentivize groups and organizations to generate

and create new self-images. Unlike the problem-solving approach, appreciative inquiry

assumes that everything is going well in the organization. The focus is on creating an

atmosphere that encourages, identifies, emboldens, duplicates, and enhances the

knowledge structure that is currently valuable to the group and organization.

Element contributing to suppressing inquiry. Continuous improvement is an

ideal of organizational learning (Collinson et al., 2006). Inquiry can be useful to an

organization knowledge structure by promoting continuous and cyclical learning.

Organizational cultures that support inquiry combined with the inquiry process can create

a work environment that is productive, rewarding, and stimulating.

Focus of action orientation. An organizational knowledge structure could also

be affected by actions of organization leaders. The overall goal of a for-profit business is

to maximize shareholder wealth (Coase, 1937). In individual organizations, however, the

approach to this objective can be accomplished differently. Some leaders might place

emphasis on the bottom-line performance, therefore eking as much productivity out of a

worker as possible and disregarding employee morale (Paladino, Bates, & da Silveira,

2001). Other leaders strive to build a learning organization by emphasizing building the

intangible asset—organizational knowledge—in the process (Paladino et al., 2001). The

Page 62: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!41

approach that firms and institutions take in managing knowledge can tremendously affect

their competency levels and, as a consequence, their performance (Sanchez, 2006).

Additionally, subgroups within an organization have varying short-term priorities;

therefore, a gap may exist between the action orientations of the organization individuals

and the overall goal (Sanchez, 2006, pp. 256-257).

The structure of these actions. Consistent with Goldkuhl and Braf (2001), a

pragmatic perspective directs a focus on utilization of knowledge in organizational

actions. Goldkuhl and Braf noted,

In order to act, the actor must have knowledge about the situation: declarative

knowledge. The actor must know what to do (i.e., what actions to perform). The

actor must also know within what kind of situation he or she acts. Situational

knowledge will also include knowledge about circumstances (what kind of

objects) within the situation. (p. 4)

Goldkuhl and Braf further noted that an actor requires know-how (procedural knowledge)

and must be attuned to the goals and values of the organization (motivational

knowledge). In addition to the distinctions about what, how, and why, Goldkuhl and Braf

further suggested adding knowledge about whom (i.e., knowledge concerning which

persons certain actions will be performed in relation to).

The response to threatening conditions in external environments. Storey,

Emberson, Godsell, and Harrison (2006) noted that, in theory and in practice, senior

managers expect to align their organization with the current and expected external

environment while developing internal organizational capabilities not only to respond to

Page 63: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!42

these threats but also to increase adaptive capacity, improve organizational performance,

and achieve competitive advantage. Weick (1987) further supported this position by

asserting that in addition to evaluating the merit of adapting to strategy or design, senior

managers must be aware of the changes in the organization (p. 113).

Studies have shown that managers’ belief systems derive from experienced past

activities and outcomes (Klein, Moon, & Hoffman, 2006a; Snowden & Boone, 2007;

Weick, 1995). There seem to be consensus that, as long as these belief systems reflect a

sensible representation of the environment, the system can be a valuable map for

directing effective organizational action. March and Simon (1958) explained that most

organizations operate in environments that are fluid and complex, where the only

constant is change. The reaction to such environments can be erratic and not well

thought out as leaders face unfamiliar events and choices. Snowden and Boone (2007)

noted that decision makers need to update their beliefs to mount an effective response to

an organizational environment.

The area of strategic management has been fertile for researchers for the past 50

years. Daniels et al. (2002) reported that much of the strategic management literature

focuses on tasks of being a manager and managers’ technical response to environment.

Other strategic management scholars propose that organizations should also focus on

creating distinctiveness in internal organization. The dual environment focus could

create a competitive advantage for an organization (Collis & Montgomery, 1995; Porter,

1980; Wernerfelt, 1984).

Page 64: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!43

According to Daniels et al. (2002), “Managers actively seek for their organization

to be advantageously different from others, either by identifying available opportunities

in the competitive environment or by positioning their organization distinctly from others

by using resources specific to their own organization” (p. 33). The lens through which

managers view their organizations drives differences in how they interpret their

competitive environment. Unlike managerial groups in the same organization, managers

in different organizations encounter varied sectors of the task environment. As a result,

the cognitive perspective from which the structure is viewed is different. (Daniels et al.,

1994; Hodgkinson & Johnson, 1994).

Perspective on change. Some environment events might have an impact on and

be a factor in an organizational knowledge structure. The combination of the

environmental events into a simple knowledge structure might result in an increase in the

complexity of the structure over time (Meyer, 1992; Shank & Alberson 1977). Pruzak

(1997) noted that in the course of this condition of influx, organizations whose structures

are simple will identify areas in their environment where they can operate with

reasonable stability or choose to ignore the jolts being experienced. According to Draft

and Wik (1984), firms with tightly coupled knowledge structures tend to resist change

and maintain the status quo. Instead, the leaders of these firms might attempt to force the

environment to change at the expense of stability. The firm with long-established

traditional values might choose to ignore contradictory evidence that might cause change

(Draft & Wiek, 1984). Other tightly coupled firms, according to Lyle (1988), seek out

new markets (geographic or demographic) that reflect the historical structure.

Page 65: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!44

Conversely, firms with a higher tolerance for disagreement (loosely coupled knowledge

structures) can accommodate varying opinions and more flexibility on taking action and

strategies (Pruzak, 1997).

The Knowledge Worker

First coined by Peter Drucker in the 1960s, the term knowledge worker represents

an individual who adds value to information via comparison, connection, consequence,

and conversation within an area of specialty. Knowledge workers can enrich the overall

understanding of an area of interest using analytics, concept framing, or development.

(Davenport, Thomas, & Cantrell, 2002). Most businesspeople understand that knowledge

workers are at the heart of innovation and are hence important to long-term

organizational sustainability and growth (Davenport et al., 2002, p. 23).

Knowledge Experts

The term knowledge expert is widely used to represent lead researchers and

practitioners in the field of knowledge management. For the purpose of the current study,

the term represented the decision makers responsible for processing implicit

(unarticulated) knowledge to an explicit (articulated) state for the benefit of the

organization. Although knowledge workers are expected to play a key role in managing

data, Dzekashu (2009) proposed that the success of knowledge management initiatives is

the primary responsibility of the managers of different departments within the

organization possessing the capacity to manage projects, change, and technology (p. 35).

Knowledge experts might contribute greater standards than knowledge workers by

Page 66: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!45

ensuring that individual knowledge transitions into highly dynamic organizational

knowledge (Dzekashu, 2009).

Knowledge Mapping

In a world in which the creation and management of knowledge continues to be a

critical part of the organizational competitive advantage strategic objective, the question

of how organizations retain their intellectual capital has been a favorite subject of

knowledge researchers since the early 1990s (Jordon & Tricker, 1995; Nonaka et al.,

1994). One approach to identifying which knowledge is important for the delivery of

products or services is knowledge mapping. The argument for knowledge mapping is

based on the premise that although retaining knowledge experts in an organization should

be a priority, it is even more important to transfer their knowledge into a condition that is

useful to management and people who remain loyal to an organization (Gordon, 2000;

Howard, 1989; Kim et al., 2003).

A knowledge map is a graphical depiction of what, when, where, and how

knowledge is applied in a web of cause and effect relationships (Gordon, 2000; Howard,

1989; Kim et al., 2003). This knowledge web, portrayed in a knowledge map, is

comprised of ascendant knowledge (as cause) and descendant knowledge (as effect). The

map therefore displays the characteristics of current business processes because it is

developed based on these practices. A knowledge map therefore displays players,

sources, flows, constraints, and leaks of knowledge within an organization and represents

a navigation aid for both tacit and explicit knowledge (Gordon, 2000).

Page 67: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!46

Using knowledge mapping as a part of their approach to investigating knowledge,

Adam and Murphy (1995) developed a map to support the strategic activities of top

managers resulting in more structurally sound decision support systems. Gordon (2000)

applied the knowledge mapping approach to assemble dispersed knowledge in several

large organizations. Garcia-Flores et al. (2000) applied knowledge mapping techniques

as a part of their efforts to improve interagency information and knowledge flow,

resulting in the integration of several previously disintegrated supply chains. Forza and

Salvador (2001) examined the relationship between knowledge and performance in

manufacturing facilities, resulting in developing a knowledge map integrating research in

operations management and in organizational communication. Yoo, Suh, and Kim (2007)

used a knowledge map to alter a conventional decision-making procedure within an

organization.

Case Studies in Knowledge Management

Several knowledge management scholars have applied the case study approach to

examine organizational knowledge. Gorman (2004) used the case study method to

examine the dynamic social process of creating organizational knowledge during

transformational change in two corporations: financial and manufacturing. King and

Zeithaml (2003) used a similar approach with firms from two diverse industries: textile

and hospital. Jensen and Szulanski (2007) used case study methodology to examine a

claim that using templates enhances the effectiveness of knowledge transfer at Xerox

Corporation. Rao, Earls, and Sanchez (2007) also used case study methodology to study

a special case of global transorganizational insourcing in two dispersed, semiautonomous

Page 68: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!47

organizations. The following chapter outlines how the case study approach was used for

the study.

Summary of the Literature

Efforts to understand identification, creation, management, and leveraging of

organizational knowledge have led organizational leaders to take formal and informal

knowledge management initiatives to survive. Chapter 2 included an analysis of the

literature and key research components of organizational knowledge creation. The

relationship between the study and previous research reinforces the complexity of the

knowledge held by people and the challenges of managing it, although it confirms

several ways exist to manage this organization asset effectively. The current study

differed from others because of its target, timeliness, and the uniqueness of the

organization studied.

The history of the study of knowledge demonstrates the quest to understand the

nature of knowledge and how inconclusive the findings have been. The history of the

study of organizational knowledge indicates that two approaches to understand

knowledge have emerged: economic and social constructivist. Scholars in the

economic stream view economy as the primary impetus for organizational knowledge

creation whereas the social constructivist scholars credit the dynamic interplay among

individuals at a collective level as the key driver. Although the general consensus is

the social constructionist stream of research lags behind the economic stream in

popularity, prominent models and concepts have been created over time.

Page 69: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!48

The theoretical frameworks for the study came from the school of

organizational theories, specifically the organizational knowledge creation theory. The

distinction of this theory is the emphasis on understanding the conscious act of

creating meaning (knowledge creation) and how knowledge is processed within a

firm. Extracting knowledge from the sources accessible to people in organizations and

storing the knowledge in knowledge systems is an enormous task. The complexity

increases with capturing unarticulated and articulated knowledge during

transformational change.

People, processes, and technology comprise the three important components of

knowledge management coming together as different parts of a system that require

contemplation during the knowledge capture process (Dzekashu, 2009).

Understanding organizational knowledge during transformational change means

identifying knowledge structure and examining the transformation process to

determine where business leaders focus their efforts to protect, develop, and deploy

knowledge resources for effectiveness. One approach to identifying which knowledge

is important for the delivery of products or services is knowledge mapping. The

argument for knowledge mapping is based on the premise that although retaining

knowledge experts in an organization should be a priority, it is even more important

for knowledge to be converted and transferred to ensure usefulness to management

and people who remain loyal to an organization (Gordon, 2000; Howard, 1989; Kim et

al., 2003).

Page 70: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!49

Gorman (2004) described seven pillars to the nature of knowledge concerning

organizational change: (a) the focus knowledge structure—internally versus externally,

(b) the structure of the dominant core toward inquiry—suppress versus evoke, (c)

element contributing to the suppressing inquiry, (d) the focus of action orientation—

performing versus learning, (e) the structure of actions, (f) the response to threatening

conditions in external environments, and (g) the perspective of change. I used the seven

pillar lens to examine the nature of a firm’s knowledge structure. Additionally, the

management of knowledge can be viewed from the seven pillars context. Chapter 3

includes an examination of the methodology, research design, treatment, my role as the

researcher in collecting data, the instrumentation, and sampling methods and procedures

used to conduct the study.

Page 71: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!50

CHAPTER THREE: METHODS

The purpose of this chapter is to explain the design and methods chosen for the

study. The research methodology was driven by the research objective and questions. A

study of this caliber requires extensive understanding of existing literature and methods

used to examine the studies. The problem addressed in the current study was a failure of

organizational leaders to take advantage of a system-driven transformational change to

develop and leverage critical organizational knowledge to improve performance (Baker

& Maddux, 2005; Sarkis & Sundarraj, 2003). The study was designed to gain insights

into a firm’s knowledge structure during a transformational change effort. To examine

the organizational actions and the structure by which these actions are guided, a case

study using mixed methods was appropriate.

The nature of the research validated a single case design (Yin, 2003). I sought the

perceptions of participants as they related to the capture and management of knowledge

held by individuals in a specific situation with little interest in generalizability. The

company was reflecting radical transformation (Tushman & O Reilly, 1996), as evident in

its stated direction to change strategy, structure, and power distribution in response to

requirements of implementing an ERP within the organization. Case study strategy has

been a valuable approach to researching how and why questions (Yin, 1994), making it

ideal for examining 3 years of the life of the project. Yin (1994) further contended that

case study method has the advantage of being able to examine a case in detail as it exists

in its real-life context (p. 1).

Page 72: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!51

Several knowledge management scholars have applied the case study approach to

examine organizational knowledge as well as a mixed methodologies approach to inquiry

(see Table 2). In addition, the focus on a single location allowed for the in-depth analysis

for the inquiry. Table 2 displays examples of single, mixed-method case studies in the

area of knowledge management.

Table 2

Sample Mixed Methods Studies

The issue of biases and prejudices due to my personal experiences is well-

documented. However, if a researcher can remain blind to the status of the participant,

Author Title of dissertation or journal article

Methodolog

y

Rao, Earls, & Sanchez

(2007)

International Collaboration in Transorganizational

Systems Development: The Challenges of Global

Insourcing

Jensen & Szulanski (2007) Template Use and the Effectiveness of Knowledge Transfer

King & Zeithaml (2003) Measuring organizational knowledge: A conceptual and

methodology framework

Gorman (2004) Creating organizational knowledge during transformation

change: A multi-site case study using an action theory

approach

Mixed

Hanks (2008) Measuring Relative Risk Intelligence: Model Development Mixed

Florence (2008) Contractor Knowledge Transfer as Perceived by Defense

Federal Civilians in Washington, DC

Qualitative

Bresman, Birkinshaw, &

Nobel (2010)

Knowledge transfer in international acquisitions Mixed

Fullerton (2010) Transformative learning Among College Students Mixed

Barnes et al. (2010) Developing Instructional Leaders Mixed

Page 73: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!52

the experiences can be critical to the merit of the study (Cone & Foster, 2006). Thus, my

experience as a manager and internal consultant in the organization under study could be

considered relevant and useful. The challenge was to be “explicitly mindful of the

purpose of the study and of the conceptual lenses on it—while allowing oneself to be

open and to be reeducated by the things we don’t know or expect to find” (Miles &

Huberman, 1994, p. 20).

Research Design

The methodology followed the recommendation of Yin (1994) and had four

stages: (a) design case study; (b) conduct case study; (c) analyze case study evidence; and

(d) develop conclusions, recommendations, and implications. Qualitative strategies were

appropriate to examine the knowledge structure and related shift in organization action

(Yin, 1994, 2003). Quantitative procedures were focused on capturing a broad

representation of employees’ view of the firms’ actions as it relates to performance and

learning while adapting to the changing environment.

According to Miles and Huberman (1994), although quantitative evidence can

outline prominent relationships not readily obvious to a researcher, understanding that

relationship requires qualitative evidence (p. 14). Combining methods proved useful,

adding scope and breadth to the study through triangulation and enhanced synergy

(Creswell, 1994; Green, Caracelli, & Graham, 1989; Miles & Huberman, 1994). When

compared to traditional methods of research in social sciences, mixed methodologies is

relatively new; however, the use of the method is expanding (Creswell, 2003; Creswell,

Plano, Gutmann, & Hanson, 2003; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998, 2003). Recently,

Page 74: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!53

empirical work on knowledge structures and organizational change has involved

multiple methods (Barnes, Camburn, Sanders, & Sebastian, 2010; Fullerton, 2010).

In seeking to understand both the existing and the emergent knowledge structures,

data gathering included the use of focus groups and interviews for the purpose of

obtaining personal perspectives of members of the organization (Stake, 1995; Yin, 2003).

To understand an organization’s action, data collection included five sources: surveys,

observations, documents, focus groups, and interviews (Stake, 1995; Yin, 2003). Data

from the multiple sources were triangulated to reduce bias.

Data gathering and analysis was focused on multiple levels (Chang, Lee, Cheng,

& Marek-Sadowska, 1998), meaning that data concerning organization knowledge and

actions were gathered from individuals and groups. A multilevel approach was supported

because it simultaneously considered individual perceptions about individual actions and

the collective actions (Meng, Zhang, & Liu, 2007).

The cognitive constructionist research tradition influenced the current study

(Babbie, 1995). The tradition recognizes that existing knowledge structures are actively

combined with external information through actions of interpretation by members of an

organization (Nonaka & Toyama, 2005; Parac et al., 1996; Weick, 1995). Data analysis

included a content analysis approach and knowledge mapping techniques using NVivo

software as a tool.

As the focus of the study was identifying and mapping knowledge, the unit of

analysis was the relationship of dependencies. By analyzing the available documents

produced by employees using select content analysis and information visualization

Page 75: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!54

techniques, knowledge mapping revealed the pillars of knowledge relevant to the

knowledge strategy (Hsinchun & Mihail, 2009). The design included an examination of

both expressed ideas and actions as perceived by each member to gain insight into the

intrinsic qualities of Division F’s knowledge structure related to organizational change

using NVivo software as an aid (Singleton & Straits, 2005).

Limitations/Delimitations

Certain delimitations were developed to limit the scope of the research. These

delimitations included research site, method and research sample, focus of study, and

time. The organization studied is a global organization with 5,000 locations worldwide.

The study was confined to a division with the organization. I focused the investigation

on the employees directly affected by the ERP implementation. Additionally, the

research was constrained to the 2008–2010 time frame. The study cut-off point was

subject to my scheduled research timeline.

The ERP implementation is extensive and is expected to continue beyond the

period examined in the current investigation. I chose focus the study on division F

because, unlike the rest of the organization, the project was fully implemented in these

locations. The chosen location was conducive to the case study method since employees

experience the two phases required for project completion within a year of the completed

date.

The decision not to consider factors such as the effectiveness of the leadership,

technical capabilities within the industry, and overall group effectiveness limited the

findings. Additionally, the selection of a single site limited cross-company or cross-

Page 76: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!55

industry comparison capabilities. Because of the sampling design, I was not always able

to match survey data with the qualitative data for individuals. The study was not

designed to evaluate the transformational change, nor is the study focused on the

alteration of the knowledge structure over time.

Several study limitations were related to delimiter previously discussed. First, the

firm was purposefully selected because it was undergoing a transformational change

effort; therefore, the transferability of the findings may also be decreased. Second, the

study was also limited by its methods. Although a mixed-method approach allows for

examining both relationships and underlying causes for relationships, the qualitative

methods used in the study are subject to other interpretations (Kunes, 1991). Qualitative

findings cannot be generalized to the layer of the population (Stake, 1995). Furthermore,

the study was limited to describing the creation of knowledge within the organization in

the course of a transformation effort. The study did not link knowledge-creating

capability to the success or effectiveness of the transformation and subsequent survival of

the firm or to the overall performance of the firm. Finally, although statistically

significant, the sample design may not represent participation by the full organization.

There may be biases in the data because of the type of employees who responded to the

survey and those who participated in the focus groups and interviews. Other employees

with other strong opinions could have declined to participate in the study.

Page 77: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!56

Role of the Researcher in Collecting Data

The laws of instruments say that what an individual thinks exists and what an

individual believes to exist is completely determined by the instruments used to research

such beliefs (McQuade, 2006). The choice of conceptual instruments influences how

reality is created. For the current study, an action frame of reference was based on an

assumption of the collectives, and the social construction of reality served as a bias. The

organizational action instruments chosen were based on these assumptions, as were the

questions and analytical frameworks selected to analyze the interview and observational

data. The challenge was to be “explicitly mindful of the purpose of the study and of the

conceptual lenses on it—while allowing oneself to be open and to be reeducated by the

things we don’t know or expect to find” (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 20).

Heightened emphasis on being the primary instrument for data collection and

analysis occurred in the qualitative portion of the study. According to Creswell et al.

(2003), the role of the researcher is based on merit, time spent in the field, and rapport

established by participants. Lastly, I assumed that my experiences were critical to the

merit of the study. Thus, my experience in organizations as a manager and as a research

consultant was considered relevant and useful.

Primary access is the ability to get into an organization and be allowed to conduct

research (Coghlan & Brannick, 2005, p. 67). In the current study, I was granted

permission to examine the process. Agreement of participation included both obtaining

visibility into the research areas while also providing value to the SAP implementation

initiative. After determining the objectives of the research, it was necessary to identify

Page 78: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!57

the resources essential to achieving these objectives. Next, prerequisites of creating a

winning situation were explored, which includes identifying the long-term and short-term

value of the study for the organization and its effect on the overall outcome.

A key factor in a researcher’s decision to conduct field research is securing the

necessary resources such as funding, human skills, and time (Coghlan & Brannick, 2005).

Such challenges include getting process owners to recognize the strategic value of their

data and the research. I secured executive champions that ensured collaboration between

the business units and myself. Additionally, time was allotted by organization leaders to

conduct the research.

Data were captured through survey responses, transcripts, and field notes from the

tape-recorded focus groups and interviews. Additionally, data were utilized from my

personal journal aimed at capturing methodological considerations during the course of

the research process. To increase the response rate and address confidentiality concerns,

the primary Business Readiness project team administered the survey. I followed up with

personal interviews and document reviews.

Instrumentation

I used instruments used in previous similar research to conduct the study. The use

of such instruments was intended to increase the credibility of the study. I received final

approval for the OAS.

The OAS was developed by George Washington University's Center for the Study

of Learning to capture dynamic social action at a firm level as it relates to performance

and learning. Developed in the mid-1990s, the theoretical foundations of the survey stem

Page 79: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!58

from Schwandt’s dynamic social action learning model (Schwandt, 1997). Fundamental

to the survey is the premise that the efficacy of an organization depends upon its values

and the processes, norms, and actions considered critical by the organizational leaders for

the fulfillment of its mission (Johnson, 2000; Parson et al., 1953; Schwandt, 1997). The

survey collects information on perceptions of the organization’s actions. The survey has

eight factors, corresponding to learning and performing orientations for prerequisites. A

copy of the survey appears in Appendix B. Table 3 provides a brief overview for each of

the eight factors.

Table 3

OAS Learning Performing Factor Descriptors

Page 80: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!59

(continued)

Factor Descriptors

Factor 1: Adapting to

environment

(Adapting: learning)

Proactive external interfacing: Seeking out information to meet unanticipated

customer needs or emerging market; proactively gathering data to anticipate

consumer or industry trends; tracking competitors, strategic group

configurations, customer or supply chain satisfaction.

Factor 2: Adapting to

environment

(Adapting:

performing)

Reactive external interfacing: Responding to intense industry competition or

technological changes; reacting to governmental agencies or consumer's

requests; adopting new industry standards; market-driven approach

Attaining goals (Goals:

learning)

Reflective planning: Reflecting on priorities and goal-oriented actions,

critically examining criteria for success, focusing on new knowledge and

innovation, creating goals for research and development; emphasizing

plausible readiness over planned change approach.

Factor 4: Attaining

goals (Goals:

performing)

Production focus prioritizing: Establishing clear performance goals;

consistently meeting deadlines; maintaining accountability for, achieving

goals; having an achievable mission; producing well-established products;

emphasizing accurate planning to minimize the unexpected.

Page 81: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!60

Table 3. OAS Learning Performing Factor Descriptors (continued)

The survey has four primary sections (see Table 4; adapting, goal, learning, and

culture), each of which utilizes a different scale designed to maximize interpretive

capability and confidence. Additionally, the scales (rank Likert, rank order, and forced

choice) each provide different insights into the learning and performing orientation of a

firm as perceived by survey respondents. The first section contains items about the

current daily practice, procedures, and processes of the firm. Respondents evaluate the

extent to which their firm carries out its functional requirements using a 5-point Likert-

type scale. The second section contains items about the present actions of the firm with

respect to the firm’s emphasis relative to performance. Responses are measured through

Factor Descriptors

Factor 5: Integration

and coordination

(Integrating:

learning)

Network idea sharing: Taking opportunities for developing knowledge, skills,

and abilities; sharing new insights; collaborating and networking; using

situational approaches to resource allocation and communication.

Factor 6: Integration

and coordination

(Integrating:

performing)

Communicating and coordinating effective actions: Implementing changes to

make people more effective; holding leaders responsible for decision making;

ensuring fair and equitable allocations of resources; enforcing formal/

hierarchical communication structure; creating rigorous role responsibilities.

Factor 7: Maintaining

cultural patterns

(Culture: learning)

Reinforcing flexibility and growth: valuing individual and firm development;

viewing mistakes as learning opportunities; critically reviewing current

Factor 8: Maintaining

cultural patterns

(Culture:

performing)

Establishing performance standards: rewarding performance achievement;

maintaining established standards; emphasizing systemic equity over

flexibility; ensuring consistent values to guide daily activity; minimizing risk-

taking and norm deviancy; reinforcing rule-bound reward punishment-based

systems

Page 82: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!61

a forced-choice method in which respondents select one of five options that best

describes the firm. This component was not used for the current research. The third

section ascertains respondents’ perceptions concerning what is important to their firm.

The fourth section asks about the firm’s actions in case of change. These items are

forced choice, are intended to ascertain perceptions of firm preponderance toward

learning actions, and require participants to respond based on changes in the external

environment. This section provides useful insights into organizational knowledge and

perceptions about how the firm approaches change.

Reliability and Validity of OAS

Johnson (2000) conducted a four-stage study to assess reliability and validity of the

OAS. Stage 1 was a pilot study with 144 items, conducted with three subgroups in two

different organizations (N = 26, 48, and 30). In Stage 2, 24 of the pilot study items were

reworded to improve the clarity of the items. The third stage involved piloting the

revised instrument in an organization similar to the one in Stage 1. With a population

size of 774 selected from a Mid-Atlantic governmental agency in the United States, 236

participated in the study. Based on the data collected in the pilot study, the testing of the

final phase on index construction was completed (Johnson, 2000). Johnson (2000)

reported the following reliability measures for the four learning indexes: environmental

interface, α = .78; action/reflection, α = .64; dissemination and diffusion, α = .81; and

meaning and memory, α = .74. Table 4 and 5 outlines the OAS functions and measures.

Page 83: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!62

Table 4

Organizational Learning and Performance Actions

Note. From A Theoretical Model of Organizational Learning and Performing Action Systems, by C. G. Johnson, 2000, Masters Abstracts. (UMI No. 9973084). Copyright 2000 by C. G. Johnson. Adapted with permission.

OAS functions

Performance

or learning Description

Adapting to the change environment Performing Identifying resources to meet organizational

goals

Learning Obtaining information concerning changes

external to the environment

Attaining organizational goals Performing Producing products and services of the highest

quality

Learning Reflecting on organizational experiences to

improve the quality of products and services

Integrating and coordinating within

the organization

Performing Utilizing structures that support effective

products and services

Learning Sharing Information and Knowledge for

continuous improvement

Maintaining/reinforcing

organizational culture

Performing Achieving performance standards

Learning Reinforcing an open and flexible culture

Page 84: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!63

Table 5

Measures of Organizational Learning Variables Using OAS

(continued)

Organizational learning variables Survey items

Meaning and memory (Maintaining/

reinforcing organizational culture)

from its employees?

6. Does your organization see mistakes learning opportunities?

8. Does your organization use ideas and suggestions

12. Does your organization believe that continuous change is

necessary

14. Do people in your organization believe that evaluation is

critical in reaching our goals

17. Does your organization have a strong culture of shared

values, beliefs, and norms that support individual and group

development

Dissemination and diffusion

(Integrating from its employees?)

3. Does your organization provide opportunities for employees to

develop their knowledge, skills, and capabilities?

4. Do your organization’s leaders support quick and accurate

communication among all the employees?

15. Does your organization have established work groups,

networks, and other collaborative arrangements to help the team

adapt and change?

16. Are there systems in place to share new operational processes

and procedures throughout the team?

Environmental interface (Adapting

to the changing environment)

1. Do members of your organization share external

information?

2. Does your organization continuously track how your

competitors improve their products, services, and operations?

Page 85: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!64

Table 5. Measures of Organizational Learning Variables Using OAS (continued)

From A Theoretical Model of Organizational Learning and Performing Action Systems, by C. G. Johnson, 2000, Master’s Abstracts International. (UMI No. 9973084). Copyright 2000 by C. G. Johnson. Adapted with permission.

Several other studies were conducted to test the validity and reliability of OAS

(Hunte-Cox, 2004; Vincent, 2006). With a sample size of 105 executives, Hunte-Cox

(2004) found reliability measures for the OAS while using expert judgment to establish

content validity. Vincent (2006) further established item-level reliability acceptance of

the OAS by using the Cronbach alpha calculations for the 17 learning items. Table 6

outlines the reliability coefficients of the different learning subsystems.

Organizational learning variables Survey items

7. Does your organization predict the changes occurring in the

external environment?

10. Does your organization deliberately reflect upon and evaluate

external information?

Action/reflection (Attaining

organizational goals)

5. Does your organization have set goals for researching and

developing new products and/or services

9. Does your organization learn through informal

communication?

10. Do members of the organization effectively use

organizational structures (e.g. chain of command, personal

networks) when sharing ideas and innovations?

13. Does your organization have clear goals for individual and

team development

Page 86: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!65

Table 6

Cronbach Alpha Coefficient for OAS Learning Survey Items

Note. From A Leadership in Knowledge Society: An Examination of the Relationship Between Perceptions of Leadership and Knowledge Management Actions Using a Social Action Theory Approach (p.107), by C. Vincent, 2006, Dissertation Abstracts International (UMI No. 3218612). Copyright 2006 by C. Vincent. Adapted with permission.

Focus groups and in-depth interviews were used to gather information about

organizational variables and existing or emerging knowledge structures. Because

knowledge structures include content and structure, the data-gathering technique was

structured to obtain information relative to the prevailing assumptions about

organizational knowledge and how it is created during transformational change efforts.

The words members used as they described how they made sense of the changes and how

they developed and institutionalized new ideas served as a lens for data gathering.

An understanding of a firm’s knowledge structure was based on analysis of the

focus group data and interview data. Direct quotes from participants appear with the

analysis to provide evidence for the results. For each of the focus groups, the following

steps were followed: (a) developing a storyline—the narrative summary of the focus

group's discussion from the knowledge mapping process based upon the transcripts, field

notes, and maps developed in the activity; (b) preparing an element table—the listing of

the broad categories to represent the dimension of the story and evidence from the

Learning subsystems Cronbach’s alpha

Environmental interface .6257

Action/reflection .7606

Dissemination and diffusion .6719

Meaning and memory .7272

Page 87: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!66

transcript, and (c) developing an element matrix to identify any relationships between

elements as captured by the focus group’s depiction.

Summary of Methods

Table 7 summarizes the research question and the data gathering and analysis

methods that support each subquestion. The overall research question, which asked how

firm leaders convert implicit knowledge held by employees into articulated knowledge

during organizational change and transformation, guided selection and sequencing for the

collection and analysis of data. A cross-source summary shows how data were gathered.

Table 7

Overview of Method, Collection Strategy, Process, and Output

Collection strategy Purpose and/or process Output

Focus groups 4-6 participants, consensus building Individual maps shared during process to

build a consensus map to represent

elements and relationships

Interviews Individual sessions Individual notes and/or maps constructed

Observations Gain insight into the stated direction,

into the daily routines of work, and

into their sense making process of

change effort underway in their firm

Contextual understanding of the nature of

work and climate, confirmatory process for

analysis

Document review Gain insight into the stated direction,

history of firm, policies, and

procedures

Identification of internal and external

contextual factors impacting knowledge

structure

Survey Ascertain perceptions about

organizational actions related to

changing environment

Broad representation of interrelated actions;

insights into the learning/performing

orientation

Page 88: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!67

Strength of Method

The design of the study involved an attempt to address the trustworthiness,

validity, and reliability issues that arose in case studies. Reliability and validity were

analyzed for the quantitative survey. Along with conformity factor analysis, the phase

design of the study allowed for additional validation to measure collective actions of

performance and learning. For the quantitative methods, triangulation (Denzin &

Lincoln, 2008) was used to enhance reliability and credibility (Patton, 2002) and to serve

as a heuristic tool to establish trustworthiness (Miles & Huberman, 1994).

Trustworthiness

The persistent observation and the exploration of relationships between the

theoretical constructs employed served to enhance the trustworthiness of the study.

Additionally, Lincoln and Guba’s (1985) trustworthiness criteria were considered.

Researchers’ criteria included (a) truth value—data collection and analysis techniques

designed to help control variance and response to Campbell and Stanley’s (1966) eight

threats to internal validity; (b) applicability—although the random sampling within the

defined population might not be maximized, the case selection process might enhance the

extent to which the findings might apply in other contexts; (c) consistency—the survey

research and detail in methodology aim to allow for replication of the study with the

development of reliable measures; and (d) neutrality—member check, expert panels,

multiple data sources, and multiple analysis techniques are all designed to increase the

degree to which the findings of the study are conditions of the inquiry rather than my

biases, motivation, or interest.

Page 89: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!68

To increase the credibility of the qualitative aspect of the study, I used instruments

used in previous similar research to conduct the study. Additionally, the use of

triangulation to provide multiple data points from different sources contributed to

creditability.

Validity

Threats to internal and external validity for the qualitative and quantitative data

gathering were considered. The design of the study and use of multiple data-gathering

strategies served as criteria in the validation process.

Campbell and Stanley’s (1966) list of threats to internal validity was the primary

framework used for the quantitative method. The methods included consideration for

history, maturation, repeat testing, differential selection, loss of respondents, and

instrument. External validity, or the generalizability of the study, was relatively limited

because the study took place in a single organization. However, findings are consistent

with the empirical work of comparable studies in other organizations, contributing to

generalizability. The description of time and contextual elements through document

analysis, interviews, and observations might increase the degree to which findings are

transferred to other organizations.

The threat to construct validity of the construct was mitigated via factor analysis

assessing patterns found in the cluster of responses to the survey. The approach involved

verifying that the items developed for the organizational learning instrument within each

Page 90: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!69

construct statistically belonged together. Additionally, items from the instruments were

used as part of the interview guide, providing another check on face validity.

According to Patton (2002), any validity of the qualitative method is dependent

on my competency and the rigor employed. In the current study, internal validity might

have increased through a number of strategies. First, the study included the use of

multiple data collection methods and techniques. Through triangulation, I was able to

leverage the advantages of each method of data collection while depreciating the

drawbacks of any one method (Patton, 2002). Additionally, triangulation increased the

credibility of the phenomena by providing several data points from different sources to

help confirm findings. In addition, observations and interviews took place in the

everyday environment of the organization to reflect actual experiences of those who

participated in the study.

Internal validity in qualitative research addresses the question of whether

researchers actually observed what they think they observed (McMillan & Schumacher,

1997). Two strategies were employed to confirm the findings. The first involved

member checks. I contacted respondents to validate results and to solicit feedback. The

second strategy was to use an expert panel to share the progression of the study. The

panel included outside individuals not directly involved with the project but who served

as a sounding board for me about circumstances surrounding initial project findings.

Reliability

Reliability is the principle of consistency. To ensure the same or similar results

are reflected when the survey is repeated, several strategies were developed. Some

Page 91: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!70

strategies included the use of a well-established survey and the documentation of

methodological considerations throughout the research process. The use of independent

seminal research and an expert panel during the study helped to control bias and increase

reliability.

I reduced threats to external reliability by maintaining a reflexive journal in

NVivo software and documenting the rationale for the methods considered and for the

methods employed. Methodological decisions and my role as one of the instruments

were recorded (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). The journal provided an audit trail for future

researchers who wish to replicate or evaluate the research qualities (Patton, 2002).

Additionally, the journal served to capture insights as the study evolved.

Threats to internal reliability for qualitative method were reduced by using both

audio recordings and field notes to allow other researchers to assess the data.

Additionally, an expert panel of knowledge researchers reviewed the coded data to judge

the reliability of my analysis. My bias was controlled in the analysis stage by techniques

such as coding checks (Miles & Huberman, 1994).

The threat to reliability of quantitative data was reduced through alpha

coefficients. The reliability of the survey instrument was estimated by means of

Cronbach’s alpha coefficients, which in most cases provide a suitable measure of

reliability since significant measurement error normally can be connected to the sampling

content (Nunnally, 1967, p. 211). Previous tests on the said instrument confirmed

reliability.

Page 92: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!71

Ethical Protection of Research Participants

The study included several ethical dilemmas that are typical in organizational

research. The intended purpose of the study; the anticipated methods used; and issues

related to confidentiality, anonymity, and the volunteer nature of the study were reviewed

with the participating organization and individual participants. The data collected will

remain permanently confidential, and results were written to protect the firm participants.

Procedures were administered in accordance with the human subjects guideline and

included protective strategies such as debriefing participants (Mirvis & Seashore, 1979).

All procedures required by the Graduate School of Business and Organizational

Leadership Human Subjects Process were followed.

Population

Site Selection

The context of the study was transformational change. Therefore, I intentionally

chose a site that was undergoing a self-proclaimed transformational change effort.

Because the research focused on knowledge creation at the collective level during

transformational change efforts, ensuring that the selected site was at a relatively early

point in time versus at the very beginning or end of a transformation was important.

Because it was not a critical incident study, I needed a reasonable amount of time to

capture the perceptions of organizational change from the stakeholders. Equally

important was the concern that too much time not elapse so that the effect would not

diminish. With the aforementioned factors in mind, an SBU named Division F met the

criteria.

Page 93: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!72

Several factors were considered when choosing the site for the study. First, the

firm had to allow me to collect survey data from informed sources, as well as observe the

phenomena required for all components of the study. Second, the site had to be a large

enough business unit within the firm with enough data available to inform the study.

Third, the participant site had to provide access to a representative sample of its

management team and informed sources throughout the research. Fourth, the site had to

be in the midst of a self-proclaimed transformation effort.

Site Description

The firm studied met the criteria set out in the previous section. The firm is in the

building supplies wholesaling industry and will be referred to as Organization W. As of

January 31, 2010, the company had 19 branches with 400 employees across Mid-Atlantic

United States.

Sample Population

The sample included organizational members representing the firm. A targeted

sample of informed individuals was employed for qualitative data collection, including

those with knowledge of the organization’s strategic direction as well as those

knowledgeable about operations practices. Scholars have argued the importance of

utilizing organizational members in this cross-section (Bryant, 2005; O’Cathain, Murphy,

& Nicholl, 2008; Yin, 2003).

Participants for the focus groups represented a cross-section of the firm and

included representatives from each functional area and business unit within each site.

Participants for in-depth interviews included senior management team members and

Page 94: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!73

selected informed sources within the firm. A broader representation of the firm will be

made by drawing on survey responses. A power analysis was conducted determine

sample size for given effect size. With an alpha set at 0.1, the required sample size was 70

which was well below 83 used.

A purposeful sample with senior management and selected informed sources

allowed for an examination of the nature of organizational knowledge through in-depth

interviews and focus group. To qualify as an informed source required close working

knowledge not only of change processes in the organization but also of strategic

direction. Selections were confirmed with the director of Business Change along with

other key players such as a member of the executive team, manager at the functional

area and business unit level, or other leaders. In all, 22 participants participated in focus

groups and interviews. The 3 interviewees were selected because of their specific leadership

role in the process. Interviews were an hour long and conformed to a generic interview

format. Field notes and voice recordings were used to capture data.

I did not review or analyze data during the collection phase. The survey was

administered first, followed by the focus groups, interviews, and observations.

Document reviews were ongoing. Table 8 outlines the different approaches.

Page 95: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!74

Table 8

Organization Action Survey: Item Breakout

Preliminary Mapping and Site Access

Before formal field work began, I performed an initial mapping of the research

site. In the initial contact, I became familiar with the physical and social structure of the

firm and probed for feasibility and access to the site. The goal of this process was to

ensure that all ethical considerations had been met, to develop rapport with members of

the site, and to introduce the researcher to the preliminary contextual element of the firm.

Data Collection Procedures

The data-gathering portion of the mixed method approach was qualitative to

include (a) focus groups, (b) in-depth interviews, (c) document review, (d) observation,

and (e) survey administration. The use of multiple data-gathering methods not only

strengthens the grounding of research by triangulation of evidence, but also increases the

rigor of evidence gathering and increases its breadth and depth (Denzin & Lincoln,

Scale No. Focus

Likert Assessment of daily practices and processes: Measures

performance and learning actions of subsystems

Rank order Perceived importance to firm’s success: Top three

actions relative to functional prerequisites

Forced choice Placement of Performance/Learning in current action of

firm: Orientation towards social actions of performance

and learning

Page 96: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!75

2008). Additionally, multiple data-gathering methods illuminated the characteristics of

knowledge by permitting the gathering of organization-specific assertions about the

transformation effort or nature of work (document review) to gather perceptional data

about a firm’s actions (surveys). The intent was to obtain consensus and to gain insight

and sense making about change effort (focus group) and to reaffirm or elaborate on

perceptions from senior management (interviews).

Mixed method designs move beyond triangulation by enabling the integration of

findings and by making connections to gain a more comprehensive insight into the

phenomena of interest (Caracelli & Greene, 1997; O’Cathain et al., 2008; Woolley,

2009). The convergence of multiple data sources enabled me to respond not only to the

primary research question (see Table 9) but also about the nature of the firm’s structure

and the subquestions guiding the study (see Table 10).

Table 9

Approach to Primary Question

Primary question Data gathering Data analysis

What is the firm’s transformational

process and what measure do firm

leaders take to ensure employees’

understanding of the process?

Focus groups, in-

depth interviews,

documents

Content analysis of the

transcripts and published

documents, notes

Page 97: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!76

Table 10

Approach to Subquestions

Results were categorized into the seven primary characteristics that represent the

nature of knowledge structure concerning organizational change as noted in Chapter 2

and used by Gorman (2004): (a) the focus of the knowledge structure (internally vs.

externally), (b) the dominant core toward inquiry (suppressed vs. evoked inquiry), (c)

the elements contributing to the reduction of equivocality and inquiry, (d) action

orientation (performing vs. learning), (e) the structure actions (accommodate varied

results etc.), (f) the response to threatening conditions in external environment, and (g)

the perspective change (outcome vs. opportunities; Gorman, 2004).

Subquestion Data gathering Data analysis

How do firm leaders convert

implicit knowledge held by

employees into articulated

knowledge during organizational

change and transformation?

Focus groups, in-depth

interviews, documents,

meeting notes

Content analysis of

the transcript and

consensus maps to

formulate a

composite map

How does the knowledge structure

reflect on the firm’s performance

during organizational change and

transformation?

Surveys, observation,

in-depth interviews,

documents

Descriptive statistics

and content analysis

Page 98: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!77

Data Analysis

The data analysis process was designed to allow for analysis within and across the

quantitative data in a way that ensures reasonable levels of trustworthiness, validity, and

reliability. Strauss (1987) noted that there is no standard sequence for analysis; therefore,

each research project has its own process. Critical elements considered in the design of

this analysis include data availability, accessibility, and requirements; the nature of the

data; and interpretations by the researcher.

The data analysis took place in three phases, following Miles and Huberman’s

(1994) coding continuum (see Figure 3). First, the qualitative data were initially

analyzed. An analysis of the quantitative data followed by gathering descriptive statistics

for items both individually and in aggregate, as well as through analyzing observational

information about organizational activities. Analysis of both qualitative and quantitative

results involved coding the three sources of information (focus group, interview, and

document review). The process concluded with an analysis of themes across datasets and

a synthesis of the results with the document review and survey output. Figure 3

illustrates the three-step analysis process.

Page 99: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!78

!

Figure 3. Qualitative analysis process. From Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, by M. B. Miles and A. M. Huberman, 1994, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Copyright 2000 by Sage Publications. Adapted with permission.

Interpretation of Data

The data analysis methods concluded with a final interpretation based on the

meta-knowledge structure concerning organizational change. Context-specific elements,

as well as a firm’s approach to change, were considered. Figure 3 depicted the analysis

process in relation to the study’s conceptual framework. The arrows indicate directions

of the analytical steps, as well as the relationships between the theoretical constructs

guiding the study.

Summary

Several researchers and practitioners in the field of knowledge acquisition,

transfer, development, and leveraging have used different approaches of inquiry to

seek answers to the question of organizational knowledge creation. No researcher

had previously addressed the specific research questions set forth in the current study

Components Procedures Outcomes

Data Reductions

Data Display

Conclusions &Verification

CodingCategorisation

AbstractionComparison

DimensionalisationIntegration

Interpretation

Description

Explanation/Interpretation

Page 100: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!79

(see Chapter 1) of leveraging organizational knowledge creation during

transformational change. Current literature (see Chapter 2) confirmed the interest in

the area of research to understand the identification, creation, management, and

leveraging of organizational knowledge for organizational benefits.

The research methodology was driven by the research objective and questions.

The nature of the research validated a single case design (Yin, 2003). Several knowledge

management scholars have applied the case study approach to an examination of

organizational knowledge as well as a mixed methodologies approach to inquiry. In

addition, the focus on a single location allowed for the in-depth analysis for the inquiry.

The issue of biases and prejudices due to personal experiences of the researcher is well

documented. However, if a researcher can remain blind to the status of the participant,

the experiences can be critical to the merit of the study (Cone & Foster, 2006).

The methodology followed the recommendation of Yin (1994) and had four

stages: (a) design the case study; (b) conduct the case study; (c) analyze the case study

evidence; and (d) develop the conclusions, recommendations, and implications. To

understand the existing and emerging knowledge structures, data were gathered using

focus groups and interviews to obtain personal-level schemas and personal-level scripts

of the organization (Stake, 1995; Yin, 2003). To understand an organization’s action, data

collection included four sources: surveys, observations, documents reviews, and

interviews (Stake, 1995; Yin, 2003). Results were categorized following the seven pillars

of knowledge. Data from the multiple sources were triangulated to reduce bias.

Page 101: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!80

The design included an examination of both expressed ideas and actions as

perceived by each member to gain insight into the nature of each firm’s knowledge

structure concerning organizational change using NVivo software as an aid (Singleton &

Straits, 2005). To increase the credibility of the study, I used instruments used in similar

research to conduct the study. I received approval to use the OAS instrument.

The data analysis took place in three phases: (a) preparing descriptive statistics

and analyzing observational data concerning original organizational action, (b) analyzing

qualitative data using content analysis, and (c) interpreting the findings. The process

concluded with an analysis of themes across datasets and a synthesis of the results with

the document review and survey output.

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS

The purpose of the current study was to investigate the nature of a firm’s

knowledge structure during transformation. As previously noted in Chapter 1, the focus

of the study was on what employees need to know to carry out their work effectively

during organizational shift. Consistent with Chapter 3, data gathering for the study

included observing meetings, reviewing documents, administering surveys, conducting

focus groups, and conducting follow-up interviews within the affected division of

Organization W.

The chapter is organized into three primary sections. The first section includes a

description of the process by which data were collected and recorded. The second section

Page 102: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!81

presents the unedited results of the data or cumulative findings. The data provided relates to

knowledge capture during the implementation of a change process and the role played by

organizational leaders and employees in the said knowledge capture process. The final

section shows the integration of the qualitative and quantitative results in a manner that

responds to each research question. Consistent with the objectives in Chapters 1 and 4,

results were categorized and viewed through the lens of seven primary characteristics that

represent the nature of knowledge structure concerning organizational change (pillars of

knowledge) discussed in Chapter 2 and used by Gorman (2004).

Page 103: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!82

Table 11

Pillars of Knowledge

Yin (1988) defined the case study research method as an empirical inquiry that

involves investigating a phenomenon in a real-life context using multiple sources of evidence

and aims at answering the how and why questions where the investigator has little or no control.

I used the case study research method to (a) determine the process used by the organization

studied to capture knowledge held by individuals during transformation and (b) determine

how the knowledge is shared and distributed throughout the firm. The study also involved

examining the knowledge structure of the firm. Various source and approaches were used to

gather data from the field. This chapter includes tables that logically organize the findings of

the study.

Data Generation, Gathering, and Recording Processes

The research involved exploring the knowledge capture process at Division F,

mainly through four sources: document reviews, focus groups, interviews, and surveys.

The survey was administered to 83 participants ranging from decision makers to

Pillars Interpretations

1. The focus of the knowledge structure Internally vs. externally

2. The dominant core towards inquiry suppressed vs. evoked inquiry

3. The elements contributing to the reduction of equivocality

and inquiry

Specific elements impeding inquiry

4. Action orientation performing vs. learning

5. The structure actions

6. The response to threatening conditions in external

environment

Offensive/defensive etc.

7. The perspective change Outcome vs. opportunities

Page 104: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!83

knowledge experts. Participants ranged from company executives to hourly workers that

were stakeholders in the process. Focus groups included managers from various

functional areas; three each from human resources and acquisitions, two from finance, six

from sales, and eight from the information technology departments. Twenty-one

documents were reviewed—four strategic documents, seven procedural documents, and

10 feedback and working documents—that addressed knowledge capture activities during

the transformational process. In addition, sanitized data containing 217 lessons learned

and 52 support logs were obtained from the information systems department in Microsoft

Excel format and loaded into NVivo for analysis.

Data Tracking System

The NVivo software was used to track, organize, and store data extracted from the

review process while at the study site. Sanitized data presented in the descriptive

statistics were in Microsoft Excel format. The survey was administered through Survey

Monkey.

After descriptive statistics were completed, content analysis was performed on

documents (lessons learned results, procedural documents, and meeting notes) to seek

emerged general patterns and themes. The empirical materials collected from the

document review process were analyzed using the constant comparative method for sense

making. After receiving lesson-learned data from the information technology

department, I used NVivo to assist in managing, shaping, and understanding the data. I

stored the data in tables to facilitate open coding, which incorporated the use of word

frequency queries to identify key words. Several rounds of coding followed for sense

Page 105: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!84

making and preliminary grouping. The next step was to use matrix coding (axial coding)

to derive key themes from the data. Because I worked with preexisting categorizations

(seven pillars of knowledge creation), I matched the emerged themes to the categories.

Next, I reviewed other documents and meeting notes, after which I coded common

emerging themes from data obtained into existing categories.

Content analysis formed the basis of assessing focus groups. One focus group

consisted of the same department and occupation. The subsequent three focus groups

included employees from mixed occupations and departments. From such a mix, I was

able to get more lively answers. The focus groups interviews were conducted face-to-

face using a digital recorder.

Three interviews were conducted to confirm gaps in the data. I used the interview

process to fill the gaps in the data. Because the interviewees were accessible, I was able

to meet with each of them for the purpose of sharing initial coding, which aided in

interpreting the data. Conducting document review, I created relations and data set

structures and at the same time tracked issues and insights that came into view as the

analysis proceeded. I was able to arrive at new insights, bring to light patterns, recognize

themes, and match to the existing categories. Each interview transcript was also

segmented and coded. After collecting survey results, the collection of field data took

place; additional coding was performed in NVivo, in which data were indexed to

facilitate handling (organizing, searching, and storing) and analysis.

Prior to starting the research, I developed a field study plan using the NVivo

software. I had a laptop throughout the research process, which allowed me to take notes

Page 106: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!85

and track discussions with personnel at the study site. The notes contained mainly

information relating to the research process, possible documents required for review,

observations, and the survey administration process. Upon engagement with the program

manager (point of contact), I requested initial documents and had preliminary discussions

about the process and the objectives of the study. As I collected documents in the field, I

used the built-in cataloging function to reference materials within NVivo.

In addressing the concerns of data collection and triangulation, I collected detailed

notes from authorized individuals who provided access to or actual documentation. In

addition, the focus groups included the use of an audio recording device. The data were

triangulated by collecting information from participants with different roles in the

organization. The implementation of four methods of data collection to carry out the

study helped to triangulate the data through multiple source corroboration.

Analysis of Relevant Research Data

Descriptive Statistics

The demographics of the responses were as follows. Out of the 62 respondents,

72.1% were male, and 27.9% of the responses were female. Table 12 summarizes the

responses by ethnicity.

Table 12

Results: Responses by Ethnicity

Response (%) Response (n)

Asian 1.6 1

Black/African American 1.6 1

Hispanic/Latino 0.0 0

Page 107: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!86

Most of the respondents were White/Caucasian, and a few respondents were

Asian and African American. Table 13 summarizes the respondents by educational

attainment.

Table 13

Levels of Educational Attainment

Almost 62% of the respondents had 4 years or more of college education. Table 14

summarizes the respondents by ages.

Table 14

Results: Age Distributions of the Respondents

Native American 0.0 0

White/Caucasian 91.9 57

Other 4.8 3

Answer options Response (%) Response (n)

Less than high school /some high school 0.0 0

High school degree or equivalent 22.6 14

Some college 9.7 6

2-year college degree 6.5 4

4-year college degree 59.7 37

Master’s degree 1.6 1

Doctoral degree 0.0 0

Other 0.0 0

Categories of ages Response (%) Response (n)

Under 21 years 0.0 0

21 to 30 years 11.3 7

31 to 40 years 25.8 16

Page 108: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!87

The typical ages for the respondents were between 31 and 60 years of age,

inclusive. Table 15 shows the number of years the respondents spent at the organization.

Table 15

Number of Years at Organization

Table 16 characterizes the department with which respondents were affiliated.

The departmental affiliation was mainly administration, support staff, and other

(warehouse, showrooms, sales, etc.)

Table 16

Results: Departmental Affiliation

41 to 50 years 38.7 24

51 to 60 years 21.0 13

61 years or more 3.2 2

Options Strongly agree Agree Undecided Disagree Response (%) Response (n)

< 1 year 0 0 0 0 0.0 0

1 year to less than 3 years 2 0 1 0 4.8 3

3 years to less than 5 years 2 8 2 0 19.4 12

5 years to less than 10 years 2 7 1 0 16.1 10

10 years to less than 15

years

2 11 4 1 29.0 18

15 years or more 4 12 1 2 30.6 19

Options Response (%) Response (n)

Executive management 16.1 10

Administration 22.6 14

Engineering 3.2 2

Support staff 30.6 19

Other 27.4 17

Page 109: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!88

Table 17 summarizes the status of the position of the respondent within their

organization. More than 40% self-identified as department/middle management with

32.3% as full-time hourly employees.

Table 17

Results Status of Position Within the Firm

Table 18 summarizes the number of people the respondents supervise. Twenty-

three (37.1%) respondents had no supervisory responsibilities, and the remaining

respondents had some supervisory responsibilities.

Table 18

Results: Number of People Supervised

Options Response (%) Response (n)

A. Part time hourly 0.0 0

B. Full time hourly 32.3 20

C. Front line supervisor 8.1 5

D. Department/middle management 40.3 25

E. Senior management 8.1 5

F. President / owner 0.0 0

G. Other 11.3 7

Options Response (%) Response (n)

No supervisory capacity 37.1 23

1-4 people 30.6 19

5-10 people 19.4 12

11-20 people 9.7 6

More than 20 people 3.2 2

Page 110: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!89

Table 19 summarizes the number of employees in the respondents’ department.

More than 72% of respondents had five or more employees in their department.

Table 19

Results: Number of Employees in Department

The survey questionnaires took approximately 30 minutes to complete. Eighty-

three of 230 individuals replied to the request for participation. The nonresponse rate was

64% (147 participants). Of the 83 surveys distributed, 62 participants (74.7%)

responded.

Consistent with my objectives in Chapter 4, the survey responses were classified

into four primary sections (adapting, goal, learning, and culture; see Table 20) and further

classified in to learners and performers categories. Based on the results from the Likert

and ranking scales, insights into the learning and performing orientation of a firm were

ranked. Additionally, a forced choice scale was used to collect demographic data (see

Table 20).

Options Response (%) Response (n)

> 5 employees 27.4 17

5-10 employees 25.8 16

11-20 employees 24.2 15

More than 20 employees 22.6 14

Page 111: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!90

Table 20

Results: OAS Ranking

(continued)

Organizational learning

variables Survey items

Me

an

S

D

Factor 7

Maintaining cultural patterns

(Culture: learning)

Reinforcing flexibility and growth: valuing individual and

firm development; viewing mistakes as learning

opportunities; critically reviewing current

4.2

0

0.

79

Factor 2

Adapting to environment

(Adapting: performing)

Reactive external interfacing: Responding to intense

industry competition or technological changes; reacting to

governmental agencies or consumer's requests; adopting

new industry standards; market-driven approach

4.0

5

0.

78

Factor 4

Attaining goals

(Goals: performing)

Production focus prioritizing: Establishing clear

performance goals; consistently meeting deadlines;

maintaining accountability for, achieving goals; having an

achievable mission; producing well-established products;

emphasizing accurate planning to minimize the unexpected.

4.0

3

0.

67

Factor 8

Maintaining cultural patterns

(Culture: performing)

Establishing performance standards: rewarding

performance achievement; maintaining established

standards; emphasizing systemic equity over flexibility;

ensuring consistent values to guide daily activity;

minimizing risk-taking and norm deviancy; reinforcing

rule-bound reward punishment-based systems

3.9

7

0.

84

Factor 6

Integration and coordination

(Integrating: performing)

Communicating and coordinating effective actions:

Implementing changes to make people more effective;

holding leaders responsible for decision making; ensuring

fair and equitable allocations of resources; enforcing

formal/hierarchical communication structure; creating

3.8

0

0.

82

rigorous role responsibilities.

Page 112: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!91

Table 20. Results: OAS Ranking (continued)

The following data were obtained through surveys and are presented in eight main

categories.

Focus of knowledge. From the survey, 58 respondents (93.6%) agreed that

knowledge sharing is a core value of the organization. Fifty-five respondents (89%)

agreed that managers support knowledge and information sharing across units and teams.

Thirty-two (53.6%) believed in the ability of the organizational knowledge structure to

support knowledge sharing at the individual level.

Structure of the dominant core toward inquiry. The survey results indicated a

pattern of cyclical knowledge management: questioning, collecting, analyzing, and taking

action. Fifty (81%) respondents agreed the organization deliberately reflect upon and

Organizational learning

Variable Survey Items

Mea

n SD

Factor 3

Attaining goals

(Goals: learning)

Reflective planning: Reflecting on priorities and goal-

oriented actions, critically examining criteria for success,

focusing on new knowledge and innovation, creating goals

for research and development; emphasizing plausible

readiness over planned change approach.

3.72 0.8

7

Factor 1

Adapting to environment

(Adapting: learning)

Proactive external interfacing: Seeking out information to

meet unanticipated customer needs or emerging market;

proactively gathering data to anticipate consumer or

industry trends; tracking competitors, strategic group

configurations, customer or supply chain satisfaction.

3.69 0.8

0

Factor 5

Integration and coordination

(Integrating: learning)

Network idea sharing: Taking opportunities for developing

knowledge, skills, and abilities; sharing new insights;

collaborating and networking; using situational approaches

to resource allocation and communication.

3.60 0.8

4

Page 113: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!92

responded to external information. Eighty-one percent of respondent agree that the

organization uses ideas and suggestions from its employees. Forty-five (73%)

respondents agreed that there are established ways to share new operations and processes

throughout the organization, and 54 (87%) responded positively to a suggestion that the

organization believes in continuous change.

Element contributing to suppressing inquiry. Fifty-three (85.5%) respondents

agreed that leaders support quick and accurate communication among all employees.

Focus of action orientation. The information obtained from the survey

questionnaires that addressed Research Question 3 were as follows. Ninety-seven percent of

respondent agreed or strongly agreed that people in the organization believe evaluating

what customers say is critical to reaching organizational goals. The result of developing a

culture of learning was the highest score factor of the eight categories with a mean score of 4.2

out of a possible 5. A culture of learning means reinforcing flexibility and growth, valuing

individual and firm development, and viewing mistakes as learning opportunities. The

next four factors were the performance factors followed by three learning factors. The

least associated factor to the firm under study was knowledge sharing—network idea

sharing; taking opportunities for developing knowledge, skills, and abilities; sharing new

insights; collaborating and networking; and using situational approaches to resource

allocation and communication (see Table 20)

Structure of actions. This section is a follow-up to the previous section. Thirty-

two (52%) respondents agreed or strongly agreed that organizational structure encourages

and facilitates the sharing of individual knowledge (e.g., easy access to appropriate

Page 114: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!93

internal resources, time for consideration and discussion). Another 27 (43.5%) somewhat

agreed. Forty-three (72.4%) confirmed the organization established workgroups,

networks, and other collaborative arrangements to help the employees adapt and change.

The response to threatening conditions in external environments. The

response to this component was as follows. Fifty (80.7%) respondents acknowledged

that the organization deliberately reflected upon and evaluated external information,

whereas 46 (74%) shared this information. Fifty (80.7%) predicted changes in the

industry.

Perspective on change. Fifty-four (86%) believed that continuous change is

necessary.

Document Review

The study included a review of the content of the organization’s documents that

relate to the seven pillars of knowledge. The document review was conducted on site at

Organization W to gain an understanding of (a) the firm’s knowledge structure, (b) how

the firm created knowledge internally, and (c) how the firm translated its strategic

direction or decisions into specific actions within the organization. Management has

policies and processes in place that ensure documentation on mission critical processes.

Table 21 provides a summary of the content analysis.

Page 115: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!94

Table 21

Document Review Summary

(continued)

7 pillars of knowledge Documents Findings and themes

Focus of knowledge Lessons learned, meeting notes,

support phone call log, meeting

observations, human resources job

description

Systemic but point in time retrieval,

collection and processing (measuring

knowledge), focus both internally and

externally

Structure of the

dominant core toward

inquiry

Training documents, meeting notes,

functional area updates

Evidence of appreciative inquiry rewarding

inquiry: defined as going the extra mile,

relentless focus on customer service, mid-

level managers have an integral role

Element contributing

to suppressing inquiry

Lessons learned, meeting notes,

support phone call log

Strong promotion of continuous

improvement and cyclical learning, open

communications encouraged, time

Focus of action

orientation

Marketing research documents,

training course schedules, training

documents, human resources

benefits, policy documents

Performance-driven organization but strong

commitment to develop from within

The structure of these

actions

CEO presentations, incentive

processing documents, CEO memos

and monthly communications

What, how, why, and who; strategy is to

hang on to knowledge workers

The response to

threatening conditions

in external

environments

Published annual and quarterly

reports, project strategic document,

CEO memos, and monthly

communications

Senior management strategy aligns internal

capability to deal with threats, seek to

acquire companies to deal with threats

Page 116: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!95

Table 21. Document Review Summary (continued)

By using the results of the survey as a guide, the content analysis of the

documents provided some results to the how questions. I was able to extract meaning

from the documents that allowed additional insights into the primary characteristics that

represent the nature of the firm’s knowledge structure. The findings of the document

review were as follows.

Focus of knowledge. To examine the organization’s knowledge focus, the

analysis included several document sources. Results of the analysis of the lesson learned

data resulted in a theme of steadfast focus on the customer and the external environment.

Twenty-four percent of all lessons learned concerns were directly customer related, and

another 30% concerned service delivery. This theme persisted when coding results from

the meeting notes and support phone log. Observational notes from the project team

meetings highlighted strong concerns for the customer experience during implementation.

In addition, comparing lessons learned data from three sequential rounds of

implementation indicated a possible adaptation to new knowledge received.

Structure of the dominant core toward inquiry. Inquiry involves a cyclical

process of questioning, evaluating, interpreting, and implementing. The documents

highlighted multiple sources of customer feedback channels, including online marketing

surveys, store-front surveys and channels, one-on-one feedback, and a live customer

7 pillars of knowledge Documents Findings and themes

Perspective on change Published annual and quarterly

reports, lessons learned

documents, CEO memos and

monthly communications

High tolerance for disagreement (loosely

coupled knowledge structure),

accommodate varying opinions and more

flexibility in taking action

Page 117: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!96

support call center. The training documents indicated a deliberate and systemic approach.

Less was shown of a structured internal process.

Element contributing to suppressing inquiry. The documents used to examine

the suppression of inquiry were the support phone log and lessons learned feedback

documents. Although there was no evidence to support a deliberate suppression of

inquiry by the management, the issue of time commitment to the quality of the inquiry

was brought up. Additionally, the inability to share knowledge easily with external

consultants indicated a type of suppressant.

Focus of action orientation. Evidence (marketing research documents, training

course schedules, training documents, human resources benefits, policy documents) supported

the survey findings that Division F of Organization W is a performance-driven

organization with a commitment to developing the capabilities of employees as a

competitive advantage. Policies and procedural documents disclosed significant effort

toward identifying SMEs and embedding them throughout the process.

Structure of actions orientation. Evidence of the structure can be demonstrated

in mandatory training for all associates as customer-facing salespeople, even for back-

office associates who may never face customers. The policy documents lent support to a

systemic approach for all associates to represent the company. In one example, the

company used the theme “Going the extra mile” as a perpetual campaign to be

relentlessly focused on the customer. Training courses, online training, reward systems,

business and marketing intelligence procedures and mandatory policy requirements were

designed to support the objective. Weeks leading up to the implementation weekend, a

Page 118: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!97

war room created with specialists and SMEs all working in one large room. Analysts at

the work site identified and monitored SMEs and knowledge workers. If a knowledge

worker through experience recognizes any abnormalities (internalization), he or she

shares the concern with the analyst on ground (socialization). The analyst documents the

concern, which is cued up to the war room (externalization). The documented issue is

assigned, evaluated, and analyzed, and necessary changes are made (combination).

The response to threatening conditions in external environments. Evidence in

the documents showed the company studied to be proactive and aggressive when

responding to the threat of the external environment. During the period of the study, the

company was aggressively making acquisitions to capture market share during an

economically challenging time in their markets of operations. Company leaders were

also retraining and retooling their employees to adapt to new markets.

Perspective on change. Forty-seven percent of all documents collected had a

theme of change. Evidence in the published annual and quarterly reports, lessons learned

documents, CEO memos, and monthly communications pointed to a company that accepts

change as a way of doing business. However, the document review indicated that a key

component of the knowledge strategy in the organization is to hold onto knowledge workers.

Focus Groups

The focus groups were designed to be flexible and to extract answers to the

research questions while allowing participants to provide information they thought important

to the topic under study. Group sessions lasted an average of 45 minutes, depending on the

duration of discussion with the experts. The information obtained through the focus groups

Page 119: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!98

and interviews corroborated with the other two sources. As noted in Chapter 3, I used the

lens of the 7 pillars of knowledge to examine the site under study. Findings of the focus

groups were categorized in the following groupings.

Focus of knowledge. A firm’s knowledge focus describes actions associated with

knowledge retrieval and how firms maintain, control, and create criteria for judgment,

selection, and legitimization of action (Powell, 1991; Schein, 1987; Walsh & Ungson,

1991; Weick, 1995). The consensus from the focus groups was that although there is

general room for improvement formalizing (organizing, indexing, and making available)

a knowledge management process, knowledge retrieval for the company happens in

various ways, both formal and informal. One manager stated, “Formally, knowledge

transfer meetings are common, along with systematic training sessions and structured on-

boarding processes.” Another manager noted, “There is a need for better organization,

indexing, and availability of archived documents such as requirements and business

briefs and cases located on network resources.”

Another manager further explained, “Informally, there is a robust culture of

knowledge sharing and collegial collaboration.” The assertion was made that much of

the informal knowledge maintenance currently taking place might be better handled via

more formal processes. To confirm the sentiments of one focus group, one manager

suggested that the criteria for judgment and legitimization of action come from multiple

sources, both formal and informal.

Structure of the dominant core toward inquiry. Inquiry involves a cyclical

process of questioning, predicting, data collection, data analysis, and action (Collinson et

Page 120: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!99

al., 2006). The consensus of the firm’s knowledge structure toward inquiry is that there is

a deliberate and systemic effort by the company to acquire knowledge. According to one

manager, “The Company’s business integration process contains a cyclical and evolving

set of steps to accomplish its goals of profitably and efficiently.” Another participant

noted, “The Company conducts a site assessment with the management of the perspective

group to be integrated with. Through conversation and direct questioning business

process is gathered.” Corroborating the sentiments of the previous manager, another

asserted, “The integration group conducts roundtable type analysis to incorporate the

insight of the team’s experience and knowledge. Out of this collaboration, a custom

action plan is compiled and set into motion.”

Other managers explained,

Cyclical inquiry processes are regularly taking place in the groups within our

company. Questioning and predicting took place primarily in form of

requirements gathering and workshopping. Data collection and analysis typically

formed part of the design process, both functional and technical. Action followed

in the form of build, testing and production of software components.

One manager summarized it best:

Business process inquiry often occurs more informally, although some structured

workshopping takes place, especially with the support of third-party process

designers. Inquiry and prediction typically happen at mid- to senior-level

management, followed by collection and analysis by the associated workgroups,

arriving at management-directed action.

Page 121: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!100

Element contributing to suppressing inquiry. Continuous improvement is an

ideal of organizational learning (Collinson et al., 2006). Inquiry can be useful to an

organization knowledge structure by promoting continuous and cyclical learning. In a

follow-up on the previous section, one manager confirmed, “The firm under study

deliberately promotes and encourages inquiry. Notwithstanding, some themes still

emerged from the inquiry.” One manager stated, “The primary suppressant at work in the

organization is not systemic per se, but an insufficiency, both actual and perceived, of

available time.” The consensus was that managers agreed that inquiry and other forms of

knowledge retrieval, being by their nature time-intensive, are restricted by the barrier of a

required investment of work hours that the likely knowledge consumer may not be

willing or able to make. In such cases, the potential inquirer may instead replicate the

knowledge (or a new version of it) by redundant research or process design. Another

participant explained, “Naturally, the time shortage is only cosmetically non-systemic,

since it can be mitigated by systemic change, e.g., addition of resources.”

Focus of action orientation. As stated in Chapter 2, an organizational

knowledge structure could also be affected by the actions of organization leaders.

Corroborating the findings from the surveys, the consensus of the firm under study was

fundamentally an aggressive performance-based organization. One participant

summarized the consensus of the focus groups by commenting,

It is not atypical in large organizations for some elements of leadership to impede

the movement of knowledge and alter the knowledge structure for purposes not

consistent with organizational aims. At our company, this is not the case. Rather,

Page 122: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!101

there is a culture of leadership’s embracing and sponsoring knowledge

maintenance and utilization.

The structure of these actions. In further corroborating the findings from the

survey, one participant noted,

Invariably, my experience, expansion, and utilization of knowledge, insofar as it

is directed and persisted by leadership, have followed directly from perceived

pragmatic imperatives. Leadership identifies an organizational need pertaining to

knowledge utilization, and in seeking resolution of the immediate need, actively

directs the gathering, maintenance, and dissemination of knowledge in the larger

context.

Another participant further noted, “In addition, leadership at all levels, including

workgroup leadership structures, participates in purposive knowledge nurture and

distribution.”

The response to threatening conditions in external environments. The

response to this component was as follows. One manager stated,

Threatening external conditions have certainly played a part in organizational

events over the past several years of the company’s history, as economic

conditions worsened and major downward adjustments in workforce occurred.

Response to external threats has been measured but aggressive. Knowledge

management in such circumstances becomes more a matter of conservation than

expansion.

Page 123: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!102

Another manager corroborated by noting, “The key effort must be, and has been,

retention of essential knowledge resources in the face of budgetary restrictions.” Another

participant acknowledged,

To sacrifice long-term knowledge continuity in the interest of short-term savings

is always a temptation. Inevitably our company, like any organization, has taken

losses in this area, but they have been mitigated by leadership’s awareness and

factoring in of this hazard.

Perspective on change. As stated in Chapter 2, some environment events might

have an impact on and be a factor in an organizational knowledge structure. The

response to the company’s perspective on change can be summarized by the feedback

from one manager’s statement, “Change taken as a whole, in both internal and external

environments, is addressed and managed head-on within the organization. The Business

Change Programme group has been tasked with the maintenance of knowledge necessary

for effective change.” Another participant confirmed, “As organizational change

proliferates, there is a strong effort to precede and prepare for it through a structured

effort directed at maintaining knowledge consistency and reliability.”

Interviews

I interviewed three managers, two from the Acquisitions Department and one from

Human Resources. Two managers from the Acquisitions Department answered questions

related to implementing a change process, and a manager in the Training Department

responded to the questions about employees adapting to change. The three interviews were

Page 124: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!103

intended to fill the gap in the data collected from the focus groups, meeting notes, and

document reviews.

In addition to confirming the data received from previous sections, four important

statements were documented. One key manager stated,

The company’s ability to adapt to a changing environment can be readily seen in

its reaction to the new lead law in California. The company is changing its view

of what materials and products need to be used in their plumbing products. Once

the state passed law forbidding any lead content in plumbing products, the

company as a whole had to react to the existing product already in the

warehouses. The company devised a plan governed by its corporate office and

regional management to proactively remove lead based products from all

warehouses in California which was not an enforcement of the law.

In another example of the company’s perspective on change, a senior manager

noted that one of the challenges that employees of Division F, a member of the Industrial

Group, have encountered is the need to deliver product to customers as soon as it arrives

from the supplier.

“In many cases, delivering one route delivery may require a second shipment to

the customer before the initial delivery is returned. The increased reaction time of

Division F to deliver to the customer puts a wrinkle in the ticket and billing flow

process but is a testament to the commitment of the company to adapt the process

to accommodate the speed and agility required in the current business climate.

Page 125: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!104

This type of adjustment is in direct response to increased pressures to attract and

maintain industrial customers.”

In addressing a follow-up question on the coding that showed an uneven balance

of informal versus formal knowledge, one senior manager noted,

We do realize there are opportunities there. What we discovered was that people

sometimes assume that their leaders are primarily concerned with operational

efficiency and financial results. That presents a problem when trying to talk about the

real issues. Whatever shapes a new system takes, we realized that we need to be

much more present in the branches with our staff than we have been in the past. The

voices of our customer and people on the front line were sometimes not very clear, so

we make decisions that often do not work well for our front-line staff, our customers,

or our vendors. We have been moved to say that if we want to be customer-centered,

we need to incorporate the voices of our consumers, vendor, frontline people, back-

office support staff, and management team in the design work that we are doing, in

making decisions, and in shaping the discussion.

A fourth factor emerged from the interviews that could be relevant when

examining elements that contribute toward suppressing inquiry. External consultants had

a substantial role in the implementation process.

Because of the structured process followed by established consulting firms like

the ones associated with the project, there were limited accesses allowed by the

project team. If there was a concern to be raised, it had to be channeled and

filtered through the chain-of-command, placing a limitation on inquiry that could

be considered a suppressant.

Page 126: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!105

Integrating the Qualitative and Quantitative Results

In this section I respond directly to the questions researched. Question 1 was as

follows: What is the firm’s transformational process and what measure do firm leaders

take to ensure employees’ understanding of the process? According to the published

documents, the firm’s transformational process is called the Business Change Programme

(BCP) with an objective to shifting the business model from a function-based to a

process-based style of operation. “This shift is done in concert with implementing an

ERP system,” affirmed a participant in Focus Group 2. Analysis of the document review,

focus groups, and interviews disclosed description of the transformation process as

described in Table 22.

Table 22

Transformation as Defined

Areas affected by transformation Definition

The technology New user interface

New printers/forms

New controls/security

New desktop view

The customers New customer number

New financing and credit arrangements

New format correspondence

Inventory management Less manual ordering

Automatic replenishment

New booking-in/returns/transfer procedures

New methods of stock counting/adjustments

Visibility of previous inaccessible data

The employees New roles and performance measures

New policies and procedures

Page 127: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!106

Cross-source analysis showed that firm leaders take a structured approach to

ensure employees’ understanding of the process, which includes awareness campaigns,

direct communication from the senior management, and establishing a business readiness

process. The strategic project documents defined the business readiness process as a

pragmatic and robust process to track, monitor and report on the key activities that must

be undertaken to ensure the business is ready and able to implement the BCP. Focus

groups revealed the business readiness process was driven and owned by the business and

not the project team or IT. Business readiness has three key components: (a) change

readiness, (b) business plan scorecard, and (c) business plan.

The focus of change readiness is on understanding and assessing the level of

business engagement to the change process. For example, Understanding what is

changing and why. Additional focus was placed on assessing associates’ capacity

(required skills and knowledge) to operate in the new operating environment. The

effectiveness of leadership communication was also assessed.

New levels of authority

New ways of working

The managers New reports/key performance indicators (KPIs)

New business rules

Increased training

Staff and customer queries

Greater visibility of exceptions and performance

Products New product codes

Areas affected by transformation Definition

The technology New user interface

New printers/forms

New controls/security

New desktop view

Page 128: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!107

The scorecard tracks the level of business readiness across the business. The

implementation team responds to the scorecard, an action plan is develop based on the

outcome of the scorecards. The business readiness plan is the action plan for the business

and is a process that identifies the activities associated with the transition and

implementation of things that the organization needs to do, when they need to do it, and

who is accountable for actioning the activities.

As previously mentioned, the business readiness team consists of mid-level

managers from all areas of the business. Additionally, key knowledge workers were

identified by their peers to serve as SMEs. The SMEs were also embedded on the project

teams. Training teams and the development of training documents also played a pivotal

role in employee awareness.

Question 2 was as follows: How do firm leaders convert implicit knowledge held

by employees into articulated knowledge during organizational change and

transformation? Firm leaders used two different strategies to collect implicit data. One

approach was to set up formal channels, for example, a lessons learned system and a support

call center soliciting voluntary conversion. As stated in a focus group,

Cyclical inquiry processes are regularly taking place in the groups within the

company. Questioning and predicting took place primarily in the form of

requirements gathering and workshopping. Data collection and analysis typically

formed part of the design process, both functional and technical. Action followed

in the form of build, testing, and production of software components.

Page 129: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!108

Another approach by firm leaders was to initiate a process of identifying knowledge

workers and providing the right incentives to join the project team. Through socialization,

the implicit knowledge held by the knowledge workers is externalized.

Question 3 was as follows: How does the knowledge structure reflect on the

firm’s performance during organizational change and transformation? The survey

disclosed that although knowledge sharing is highly valued in the firm studied, a formal

network idea sharing process has not been developed. There is a strong informal culture for

sharing new insights, taking opportunities to develop knowledge, collaborating and

networking, and using situational approaches to communicate and allocate resources.

Division F respondents addressed the pride factor several times in the focus groups.

By embedding the mid-level managers and knowledge workers into the

transformation process and project teams, the informal knowledge-sharing process seemed

effective. As shown by the survey sample, the firm has the fortune of having an experienced

workforce, which allows the informal process to work. Firm leaders have recognized the

need to establish a formal channel as they transform to the new state.

Summary

Chapter 4 included an analysis of the findings of survey questionnaire, focus

groups, extensive document reviews, and the follow-up interviews. The data provided

discussion points for Chapter 5. Chapter 4 included the unedited data and analysis of the

results of the findings. The final section contained a summary of the results by

addressing each research question. The findings indicated that the firm’s transformation

change process will be comprehensive. Changes will be experienced by the technology,

Page 130: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!109

Division F’s customers, inventory management, employees, and managers. Firm leaders

have implemented a robust process to ensure that employees understand the process.

Although there is some evidence of formal knowledge processes, the conversion and

dissemination of implicit knowledge remains mostly an informal process.

Chapter 5 includes highlights addressing a critical area concerning establishing a

formal knowledge documenting process during and after the transformation is completed.

In addition, the chapter contains the conclusion of the study and proposed

recommendations. The chapter also includes the implication of the study for knowledge

management in organization.

Page 131: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!110

Page 132: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!111

CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Chapter 5 includes a restatement of the purpose of the study and a reflection of

the results of the survey questionnaires, the focus groups, and the extensive document

reviews as they related to the research questions. I will also discuss convergence and

divergence of insights drawn from the literature review, the study, the methodology, and

the analysis of the data. The issue of concern is that the leaders of companies

experiencing transformation are having difficulty determining where to focus business

efforts to protect, develop, and deploy the knowledge resource for effectiveness. The

purpose of the study was to investigate the nature of a firm’s knowledge structure by

focusing on what employees need to know to carry out their work effectively. The

objectives of the research were to (a) understand a company’s transformational process

and the role that firm leaders and employees play in the process and (b) determine

knowledge capture, conversion, and dissemination during the process. This chapter

contains the results from testing the research questions and the implications drawn from a

review of the literature. The order of presentation of the chapter is as follows: summary

of findings, interpretation of findings, recommendations based on previous and current

findings, reflection of the researcher’s experience with research process, impact of the

study on social change, and recommendation for future research. Discussions include the

general research conclusions and implications of the research findings.

Summary of Findings

Chapter 1 proposed that to create and leverage knowledge effectively during

change, a firm needs to have a successful adaptation to the new environment by their

Page 133: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!112

workers complemented by knowledgeable individuals capable of managing in an

increasingly complex process-oriented environment. Additionally, the identification,

articulation, and codification of new knowledge are a prerequisite for such success

(Gorman, 2004). Findings indicated the transformation process as defined by the firm is

a shift in the business model from a function-based to a process-based style of operation

while implementing an ERP system. Because the original organization structure was a

decentralized conglomerate operating model, a shift to a centralized model was deemed

significant. Firm leaders have implemented a deliberate plan to ensure employees

understand the process. Firm leaders adopted a multipronged communication strategy to

engage their employees in the transformation process. Some components included

selling benefits of the transformation, communicating step-by-step updates of the process,

changing attitudes by selling the idea of a net positive net outcome, reinforcing the

emphasis on quality, providing hands-on training, guaranteeing endorsement of

influencers by embedding in the project, and developing process monitoring and change

management to ease worker anxiety and resistance. Mid-level managers played a pivotal

role in implementing the efforts of senior management among employees.

Although there was some evidence of formal knowledge processes, the

conversion and dissemination of implicit knowledge remains mostly an informal process.

However, the design of the project implementation strategy enabled knowledge creation.

The company benefited from having experienced knowledge workers. Knowledge

experts, also referred to as SMEs, were strategically embedded in project teams with

consultants and specialists. Additionally, knowledge workers were identified through a

Page 134: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!113

peer referral process. During implementation, members of the project team shadowed

knowledge workers and observed and documented issues and metrics. The externalized

data were sent to a centrally located war room, where the data were evaluated,

synthesized, and implemented by the project team. Some evidence indicates new explicit

knowledge was adopted to change existing operational processes.

Overall, leaders of the firm were optimistic about the ability of the firm to meet

changes in its external environment through continued high-performing and exceptional

customer service. Internal change was perceived to be a necessity to shift to the new

business model and was designed to optimize the response to external influences.

Restructuring efforts for operational efficiency were perceived to enhance a product or

service rather than purely to benefit shareholder wealth. The updated missions were seen

as credible due to the rate of expansion through same store growth and acquisition to take

advantage of scale. Although skepticism regarding the transformation effort (an effort to

break the old mentality without revolt) is evident, the effort was generally deemed

genuine in its intent. The nature of work was perceived to change significantly with the

transformation effort and implementation of the ERP system.

Examining Division F’s knowledge structure through the lens of Gorman’s (2004)

seven primary pillars of organizational change, the following was discovered: (a) an

externally focused knowledge structure that ties all strategies to customer satisfaction; (b)

a dominant core that evokes rather than suppresses inquiry; (c) loosely coupled elements

that contributed to a culture of informal inquiry; (d) an action orientation focused on

performing with some learning; (e) structuring actions that reflected a rich variety of

Page 135: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!114

inquiry though somewhat uncoordinated; (f) aggressive attributes in response to

threatening conditions in the external environment; and (g) embracement of change as a

reality of the industry, therefore viewing change as an opportunity rather than an outcome

to enhance adaptive capacity. While exploring the firm’s knowledge structure, I did

uncover another dynamic in play. Although the culture of the firm (informal knowledge

sharing) was transferred into the team directly responsible for the transformation, this

was not always the same with consultants. External project consultants also participated

in the project teams, but also brought in their knowledge structure. Although some

evidence exists of two-way knowledge sharing, the formal process used by consultants

prohibited informal exchange and therefore suppressed inquiry.

Specific Findings of the Study

The data relevant to the findings in the study came mainly from the survey

questionnaires, focus groups, document reviews, and interviews. The data analysis took

place in three phases: (a) preparation of descriptive statistics and analysis of

observational data concerning original organizational action, (b) analysis of the

qualitative data using content analysis, and (c) a combination of results in a structured

manner to interpret the findings.

The results of the survey showed that 74.7% of potential participants responded to

the distributed surveys. Fifty-eight respondents (93.6%) agreed knowledge sharing is a

core value of the organization. Fifty-five respondents (89%) agreed that managers

support knowledge and information sharing across units and teams. Fifty-three

respondents (85.5%) agreed that leaders support quick and accurate communication

Page 136: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!115

among all employees. Thirty-two (52%) agreed or strongly agreed that organizational

structure encourages and facilitates sharing knowledge at an individual level (e.g., easy

access to appropriate internal resources, time for consideration and discussion). Another

27 respondents (43.5%) somewhat agreed. Forty-three (72.4%) respondents confirmed

the organization establishes workgroups, networks, and other collaborative arrangements

to help the organization adapt and change.

The survey results reflected the nature of Division F within Organization W.

Fifty-four respondents (86%) believed that continuous change is necessary. Ninety-seven

percent of respondents agreed or strongly agreed the people in the organization believe

that evaluating what customers say is critical to reaching the organizational goals.

Eighty-one percent of respondents agreed the organizational leader deliberately reflect

upon and respond to external information. More than 80% of respondents acknowledged

that the organizational leaders deliberately reflect upon and evaluate external information,

while 74% shared this information. More than 80% predicted changes in the industry,

and 81% of respondents agreed that the organizational leaders use ideas and suggestions

from employees.

The results of developing a culture of learning was the highest score factor of the

eight categories, with a mean score of 4.2 out of a possible 5. A culture of learning

means “reinforcing flexibility and growth: valuing individual and firm development;

viewing mistakes as learning opportunities” (Johnson, 2000, p. 103); see also Gorman,

2004. The next four factors were the performance factors followed by the three learning

factors, suggesting a firm structure that leans toward performance but values learning.

Page 137: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!116

Analysis of the document review, focus groups, and interviews corroborated the

survey results concerning knowledge structure. In addition, these methods of inquiry

clarified more specifically the transformational change experienced within Division F.

The change was universally believed to be comprehensive and transformative.

Documents confirmed that the change will affect the technology, customers, inventory

management, employees, and managers.

Cross-source analysis showed that firm leaders take a structured approach to

ensure employees’ understanding of the process. The process includes awareness

campaigns, direct communication from senior management, and establishing a business

readiness process.

The documents defined the business readiness process as “a pragmatic and robust

process to track, monitor, and report on key activities that must be undertaken to ensure

the business is ready and able to implement the BCP.” Focus groups revealed the

business readiness process was driven and owned by the business organizational leaders

and not the project team or IT.

Firm leaders used two different strategies to collect implicit data. One approach

was to set up formal channels, for example, a lessons learned system and a support call

center soliciting voluntary conversion. There was evidence of cyclical inquiry processes

in play at Division F. Questioning and predicting took place primarily in the form of

requirements gathering and workshopping. Data collection and analysis typically formed

part of the design process -both functional and technical. Action followed in the form of

building, testing, and producing software components.

Page 138: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!117

Another approach by firm leaders was to initiate a process of identifying

knowledge workers and providing the right incentives to join the project team. Through

socialization, the implicit knowledge held by knowledge workers is externalized. Focus

groups and interview results expounded on the finding that although knowledge sharing

is highly valued in Division F, a formal network of idea sharing has not been developed.

However, there is a strong informal culture for sharing new insights, taking opportunities

to develop knowledge, collaborating and networking, and using situational approaches to

communicate and allocate resources.

By embedding mid-level managers and knowledge workers into the

transformation process and project teams, the informal knowledge sharing process

seemed effective. As displayed by the survey sample, the firm has the fortune of having

an experienced workforce as a most valuable asset, which allows the informal process of

knowledge transaction to work. Firm leaders, however, have recognized the need to

establish a formal knowledge management infrastructure as they transform to the new

state.

Recommendations From Previous Studies and From the Current Study

The area of knowledge creation in organizations has been well documented. As

noted in Chapter 1, the challenge for leaders of companies experiencing transformation is

determining where to focus business efforts to protect, develop, and deploy the

knowledge resource for effectiveness. In a study on the effect of collective learning

during such a period of transformation, Gottemoeller (2011) discovered that “a sequential

application of exploration and exploitation, with a period of intensive importation of new

Page 139: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!118

information followed by a period of sustained exploitation, can result in a large growth in

collective capability in a very short time” (p. 198). Accomplishing the goal of effectively

creating and leveraging knowledge during such a period can determine the fate of the

organization. However, I agree with Wallace (2010), who noted, “Managing the process

of converting fragmented ideas or parts of previous concepts into new ways of doing

business can be challenging for an organization” (p. 198). Several recommendations

would enhance the firm’s knowledge creation process.

Recommendations

There is general agreement that the facilitation of knowledge creation within a

company involves both purposefully planned activities that originate and are directed by

management and emergent activities that are the unplanned results of deliberate actions

by management. Although strong evidence exists that senior leaders in Organization W

have been actively enabling knowledge creation, a deliberate and coordinated effort

should be pursued for sustained knowledge capture that complements the intended

structure. As such, organization leaders should develop a knowledge strategy.

Organization W’s focus on the external environment seems to be in line with the

findings of some researchers. Mauchet (2011) noted that by focusing on these external

subsystems, both product and market innovativeness should show improvement. Core

strategies for organization are built around customer satisfaction.

As revealed in the results, the transformation process has produced some

knowledge creation, though primarily informal. To take advantage of the opportunity,

senior management should aim at further enhancing the knowledge-creation potential of

Page 140: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!119

the company. I agree with Pandit (2011) that during times of change, leaders should

make particular efforts to manage the distribution of information where relevant, which

calls for a deliberate clear knowledge vision from senior leaders. By having a clear

knowledge vision, company leaders may help their community of knowledge workers in

three ways: (a) articulating and (b) justifying the concepts they create, (c) and

legitimizing the process.

The research findings credited senior management with mobilizing key

knowledge workers to champion the process, which resulted in broader buy-in and

participation. However, greater focus should be on aligning the efforts of these

knowledge champions to the knowledge vision and structure.

Wallace (2010) clearly highlighted the difficulty managing these fragmented

ideas. Gordon (2000), Howard (1989), and Kim et al. (2003) made the argument for

knowledge mapping based on the premise that although retaining knowledge experts in

an organization should be a priority, it is even more important to transfer the experts’

knowledge into a condition that is useful to management and people who remain loyal to

organization. In his research, Dzekashu (2009) always supported a systemic approach to

resolving an issue.

The organization should consider this option of graphically depicting what, when,

where, and how knowledge is applied in a web of cause and effect relationships (Gordon,

2000; Howard, 1989; Kim et al., 2003). This knowledge web, portrayed in a knowledge

map, consists of ascendant knowledge (as cause) and descendent knowledge (as effect).

The map displays the characteristics of current business processes because it is developed

Page 141: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!120

based on these practices. Because the knowledge map displays players, sources, flows,

constraints, and leaks of knowledge within an organization and represents a navigation

aid for both tacit and explicit knowledge (Gordon, 2000), the local knowledge captured

can be globalized in a systemic way and can get the knowledge to the people in whose

hands it is useful. “Managing the relationship then becomes about managing the

combination and connection of ideas while the managing of ideas is about managing the

flow of that output through the organization” (Wallace, 2010, p. 5).

Impact of the Study on Social Change

The results of the study could help leaders of organizations and corporations

develop a reliable process to cultivate the creation of organizational knowledge. For

many years, researchers from all spectra of knowledge management have implored the

leaders of modern corporations to consider knowledge creation as a source of competitive

advantage (Crook et al., 2008; Jeroen Kraaijenbrink & Groen, 2010; McIvor, 2009; Von

Krogh, Ichijo, & Nonaka, 2000). The premise of this strategy is twofold. First, the

strategy brings to light and prioritizes the needs of knowledge workers, and second, the

strategy facilitates the construction of a learning infrastructure needed to meet the

challenges of the information economy. The window during transformation change offers

a unique opportunity to initiate or enhance a knowledge management process.

Additionally, knowledge and learning as a core strategy can be beneficial for both top

managers and individual workers.

Page 142: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!121

Experiences During the Conduct of the Study

Upon approval of the study by Argosy University, Washington DC, I plan to share

the study with the leadership team at the organization studied and with fellow

researchers. The research was exposed to several areas of study for future research.

Seeing the dynamics of the organization in action from the inside through the lens of a

researcher was a chance of the lifetime. This experience may embolden future research

in the area of interest.

Conclusions

The results of the study provided empirical support for Nonaka and Toyama’s

(2005) OKC theory. By examining how Division F, a subsidiary of Organization W,

extracting knowledge from sources accessible to people, and how that knowledge is

stored into knowledge systems, the current research could help business efforts protect,

develop, and deploy knowledge resources. Additionally, the current research contributes

to existing empirical findings in the area of knowledge creation.

Using a case study approach to inquiry, I applied a mixed methodology of

qualitative and quantitative analysis to investigate the knowledge creation phenomenon at

Organization W while the organization experienced transformational change. To get the

desired results for the inquiry, three questions were used to extract relevant responses.

Research Question 1 asked what is the firm’s transformational process and what

measure do firm leaders take to ensure employees’ understanding of the process. The

results showed that Division F is undergoing a structural change that affects change in all

areas of business. The impetus of the change was the implementation of an ERP system.

Page 143: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!122

Company leaders have taken several deliberate measures to enable understanding

of the process. Some included awareness campaigns, direct communication from the

senior management, and establishing a business readiness process. Other measures

included recruiting knowledge experts and knowledge workers to champion the change

initiative, disseminate information, and serve as SMEs on project teams.

Research Question 2 asked how firm leaders convert implicit knowledge held by

employees into articulated knowledge during organizational change and transformation?

The study showed that Organization W had a strong culture of informal knowledge

sharing. In a process of identifying (through peers) and providing incentives, firm

leaders were able to embed these workers into project teams. Through socialization,

knowledge was captured. Challenges still exist in formalizing a sustaining way of

knowledge capture.

Research Question 3 asked how the knowledge structure reflects on the firm’s

performance during organizational change and transformation? Gorman’s (2004) pillars

of knowledge framework revealed seven basic knowledge structure characteristics for

Division F in Organization W: (a) an externally focused knowledge structure that ties all

strategies to customer satisfaction; (b) a dominant core that evokes rather than suppresses

inquiry; (c) loosely coupled elements that contributed to a culture of informal inquiry; (d)

action orientation focused on performing but some learning; (e) structuring actions that

reflected a rich variety of inquiry, but somewhat uncoordinated; (f) aggressive attributes

counteract threatening conditions in external environments; and (g) embracing change as

Page 144: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!123

a reality of the distribution and logistics industry and therefore viewing change as an

opportunity to enhance adaptive capacity, rather than as an outcome.

In an industry and a culture where change is constant, Division F’s approach to

the transformation was embraced as an opportunity to gain market share through better

customer satisfaction. The experienced and knowledgeable workforce combined with an

aggressive, performance-driven organization reflected positively on the prospects for

transformation success.

Future Research

This section addresses recommendations for action and for future research.

Future research should continue the approach of examining organizational knowledge

creation from the inside but research should be expanded to span multiple knowledge

structures within an organization. Action research methodology could also prove useful

to track real-time data and provide more depth to understanding the knowledge creation

phenomenon from a longitudinal perspective.

Future research could be extended to include more sites across a range of

industries and to include multiple sites within a particular industry. Future research

should continue by examining the complexities of combining collective-level knowledge

structures and taking into consideration additional factors such as external consultants’

knowledge structure and the subsequent impact during transformational periods.

Page 145: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!124

REFERENCES

Albert, S., & Anderson, M. H. (2010). The practice of theory borrowing in organizational studies: Current issues and future directions. Journal of Management Inquiry, 19, 34-46.

Ardichvili, A., & Won Yoon, S. (2009). Designing integrative knowledge management systems: Theoretical considerations and practical applications. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 11, 307.

Argote, L., McEvily, B., & Reagans, R. (2003). Managing knowledge in organizations: An integrative framework and review of emerging themes. Management Science, 49, 571.

Awad, E. M., & Ghaziri, H. M. (2007). Knowledge management (2nd ed.). New Delhi, IN: Dorlin Kindersly.

Babbie, E. (1995). The practice of social research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Baird, F. E. (2008). Philosophic classics: From Plato to Derrida (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. (Original work published 1961)

Baker, G., & Maddux, H. (2005). Enhancing organizational performance: Facilitating the critical transition to a process view of management. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 70(4), 43-48.

Barnes, C. A., Camburn, E., Sanders, B., & Sebastian, J. (2010). Developing instructional leaders: Using mixed methods to explore the black box of planned change in principals' professional practice. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46, 241-279.

Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17, 99-120.

Becerra-Fernandez, I., & Sabherwal, R. (2001). A contingency perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems, Organizational Knowledge Management, 18, 23-55.

Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. New York, NY: Doubleday.

Bonifacio, M., & Molani, A. (2003). The richness of diversity in knowledge creation: An interdisciplinary overview. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 9, 491-500.

Page 146: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!125

Bornemann, M., & Sammer, M. (2003). Assessment methodology to prioritize knowledge management related activities. Measuring Business Excellence, 7(2), 21.

Bryant, S. E. (2005). The impact of peer mentoring on organizational knowledge creation and sharing: An empirical study in a software firm. Group and Organization Management, 30, 319-338.

Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1966). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.

Canary, H. E. (2010). Structuring activity theory: An integrative approach to policy knowledge. Communication Theory, 20, 21-49.

Caracelli, V. J., & Greene, J. C. (1997). Crafting mixed-method evaluation design. In J. C. Greene & V. J. Caracelli (Eds.), Advances in mixed-method evaluation: The challenges and benefits of integrating diverse paradigms. New directions for program evaluation (Vol. 74, pp. 19-32). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Carson, W., III. (2005). Successful implementation of enterprise resource planning software: A Delphi study (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.

Chang, D., Lee, M. T. C., Cheng, K. T., & Marek-Sadowska, M. (1998). Functional scan chain testing. Design, automation and test in Europe. Design, Automation and Test in Europe, 2, 278-283.

Chen, A. N. K., & Edgington, T. M. (2005). Assessing value in organizational knowledge creation: Considerations for knowledge workers. MIS Quarterly, 29, 279-309.

Ciulla, J. (1996). Leadership and the problem of bogus empowerment (Kellogg Leadership Studies Project: Ethics & Leadership Project Working Papers).

Coase, R. (1937). The nature of the firm. Economica, 4(16), 386-405.

Coghlan, D., & Brannick, T. (2005). Doing action research in your own organization (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cole, M. S., & Bruch, H. (2006). Organizational identity strength, identification, and commitment and their relationships to turnover intention: Does organizational hierarchy matter. Journal of Organizational Behavior.

Page 147: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!126

Collinson, V., Cook, T. F., & Conley, S. (2006). Organizational learning in schools and school systems: Improving learning, teaching, and leading. Theory Into Practice, 45(2), 107-116.

Cone, J. D., & Foster, S. L. (2006). Dissertations and theses from start to finish: Psychology and related fields (2nd ed.). Rockville, MD: United Book Press.

Cooperrider, D., & Srivastva, S. (1987). Appreciative inquiry in organizational life. In Woodman & Pasmore (Eds.), Research on organizational change and development (Vol. 1, pp. 129-169). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Gutmann, M., & Hanson, W. (2003). Advanced mixed methods research designs. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 209-240). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Davenport. (2005). Why does knowledge management still matter. Rex. T+D, 59, 18-25.

Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (2000). Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they know. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Davenport, T., & Voelpel, S. (2001). The rise of knowledge towards attention management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 5, 212-221.

Davenport, T. H., Thomas, R. J., & Cantrell, S. (2002). The mysterious art and science of knowledge-worker performance. MIT Sloan Management Review, 44, 23-30.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2008). Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dewson, A. (2007, September). The investment column: Organization W has been building on a solid base. The Independent, 17, 1. Retrieved October 15, 2007, from http://news.independent.co.uk/business/analysis_and_features/article2976704.ece

Dolfsma, W. (2008). Knowledge economies: Innovation, organization and location. London, England: Routledge.

Dzekashu, W. G. (2009). Integration of quality management into the tacit knowledge capture process. Dissertation Abstracts International, 70(04), 188A. (UMI No. 3355037)

Page 148: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!127

Eltantawy, R. (2008). Supply management contribution to channel performance: A top management perspective. Management Research News, 31(3), 152.

Fahey, L., & Prusak, L. (1998). The eleven deadliest sins of knowledge management. California Management Review, 40(3), 265-276.

Fliaster, A., & Spiess, J. (2008). Knowledge mobilization through social ties: the cost-benefit analysis. Schmalenbach Business Review, 60, 99-118.

Florence, A. R. (2008). Contractor knowledge transfer as perceived by defense federal civilians in Washington. Dissertation Abstracts International, 69(8), 32. (UMI No. 3324088)

Foss, N. J. (1996). More critical comments on knowledge-based theories of the firm: More critical comments on knowledge-based theories of the firm. Organization Science, 7, 519-523.

Foss, N., & Pedersen, T. (2001). Building a MNC knowledge structure: the role of knowledge sources, complementarities and organizational context. Paper presented at the LINK Conference, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Friesl, M., Sackmann, S. A., & Kremser, S. (2011). Knowledge sharing in new organizational entities: The impact of hierarchy, organizational context, micro-politics and suspicion. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 18, 72-81.

Fullerton, J. R. (2010). Transformative learning in college students: A mixed methods study (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.

Geertz, C. (1974). The interpretation of cultures. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Goldkuhl, G., & Braf, E. (2001). Contextual knowledge analysis--understanding knowledge and its relations to action and communication. Proceedings of 2nd European Conference on Knowledge Management, IEDC-Bled School of Management, Slovenia.

Gorman, M. D. (2004). Creating organizational knowledge during transformational change: A multi-site case study using an action theory approach. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, George Washington University, Washington DC.

Page 149: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!128

Gottemoeller, M. E. (2011). Exploitation and exploration as collective learning strategies in a complex environment: A case study of a Chinese manufacturing enterprise. Dissertation Abstracts, 198. (UMI No. AAT 3397681)

Ha`kanson, L. (2007). Creating knowledge: the power and logic of articulation. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16, 51-88.

Hamel, G., & Prahalad, C. H. (1994). Competing for the future. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Heisig, P., Mertins, K., & Vorbeck, J. (2001). Knowledge management: Concepts and Best practices in Europe. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

Hsinchun, C., & Mihail C. R. (2009). Mapping nanotechnology innovations and knowledge (Vol. 2). New York, NY: Springer.

Hunte-Cox, D. E. (2004). Executive succession planning and the organizational learning capacity (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3111403)

Imai, K., Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1985). Managing the new product development process: How Japanese companies learn and unlearn. In K. B. Clark, R. H. Hayes, & C. Lorenz (Eds.), The uneasy alliance. Managing the productivity-technology dilemma (pp. 337-375). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Jensen, R. J., & Szulanski, G. (2007). Template use and the effectiveness of knowledge transfer. Management Science, 53, 1716.

Johnson, C. G. (2000). A theoretical model of organizational learning and performing action systems: The development and initial validation of the duality of a Parsonian action frame of reference through confirmatory factor analysis. Masters Abstracts International. (UMI No. 9973084)

Jones, M. C., & Price, R. L. (2004). Organizational knowledge sharing in ERP implementation: Lessons from industry. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 16(20), 21.

King, A., & Zeithaml, C. (2003). Measuring organizational knowledge: A conceptual and methodology framework. Strategic Management Journal, 24, 763-772.

Klein, G., Moon, B., & Hoffman, R. F. (2006). Making sense of sensemaking I: alternative perspectives. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 21(4), 70-73.

Page 150: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!129

Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1996). What firms do: Coordination, identity, and learning. Organization Science, 7, 502-518.

Langlois R., & Foss, N. (1999). Capabilities and governance: the rebirth of production in the theory of economic organization. Kyklos, 52, 201-218.

Leibold, M., Probst, G., & Gibbert, M. (2005). Strategic management in the knowledge economy: New approaches and business applications. Erlangen, NY: Wiley.

Leonard, D., & Swap, W. (2004). Deep smarts: How to cultivate and transfer enduring business wisdom. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Li, S., & Change, W. (2009). Exploiting and transferring presentational knowledge assets in R&D organizations. Expert Systems with Applications, 36, 766-777.

Lincoln, & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Luechauer, D. (2000). Applying appreciative inquiry instead of problem-solving techniques to facilitate change (Management Development Forum, 2). Retrieved October 8, 2009, http://www.esc.edu/ESConline/Across_ESC/Forumjournal.nsf/web+view/5A8D486A2C5F9B0E852568FD00561F17?opendocument

Lumberg, C. (1991). Organizational learning and organization culture. Presented at the Eastern Academy of Management Conference, Hartford, CT.

Lyles, M. A., & Schwenk, C. R. (1992). Top management, strategy, and organizational knowledge structures. Journal of Management Studies, 29, 155-174.

Malhotra, A., Gosain, S., & El Sawy, O. A. (2005). Absorptive capacity configurations in supply chains: Gearing for partner-enabled market knowledge creation. MIS Quarterly, 29, 145-187.

Malhotra, Y. (2002). Why knowledge management systems fail? Enablers and constraints of knowledge management in human enterprises. In C. W. Holsapple (Ed.), Handbook on knowledge management. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag.

March, J., & Simon, H. (1958). Organizations. New York, NY: Wiley.

Massey, & Montoya-Weiss, M. M. (2006). Unraveling the temporal fabric of knowledge conversion: A model of media selection and use. MIS Quarterly, 30, 99-114.

Mauchet, M. (2011). Managers' perceptions of organizational learning and organizational innovativeness in a global healthcare organization (Doctoral

Page 151: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!130

dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. AAT 3448977)

McIvor, R. (2009). How the transaction cost and resource-based theories of the firm inform outsourcing evaluation. Journal of Operations Management, 27, 45-63.

McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (1997). Research in education: A conceptual introduction (4th ed.). Don Mills, ON: Longman.

McQuade, T. J. (2006). Science and markets as adaptive classifying systems. In E. Krecké, C. Krecké, & K. Koppl (Eds.), Cognition and economics (p. 77). London, England: Emerald Group.

Meng, W., Zhang, D., & Liu, W. (2007). Multi-level DEA approach in research evaluation. Canterbury, England: Kent Business School.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mintzberg, H., & Waters, J. A. (1983). The mind of the strategist(s). In S. Srivasta (Ed.), The executive mind (pp. 58-83). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Mirvis, P. H., & Seashore, S. E. (1979). Being ethical in organizational research. American Psychologist, 17(34), 766-780.

Morroni, M. (1992). Production process and technical change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Nickols, F. W. (2000). The knowledge in knowledge management. In J. W. Cortada & J. A. Woods (Eds.), The knowledge management yearbook 2000-2001 (pp. 12-21). Boston, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Nonaka, I. (1988a). Creating order out of chaos: self-renewal in Japanese firms. California Management Review, 15(3), 57-73.

Nonaka, I. (1988b). Toward middle-up-down management: Accelerating information creation. Sloan Management Review, 29(3), 9-18.

Nonaka, I. (1990). Redundant, overlapping organization: A Japanese approach to managing the innovation process. California Management Review, 32(3), 27-38.

Page 152: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!131

Nonaka, I. (1991a). The knowledge creating company. Harvard Business Review, 69(6), 96-104.

Nonaka, I. (1991b). Managing the firm as an information creation process. In J. R. Meindl, R. L. Cardy, & S. M. Puffer (Eds.), Advances in information processing in organizations (pp. 239-275). Greewich, CT: JAI Press.

Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organizational Science, 5, 14-37.

Nonaka, I., Byosiere, P., Borucki, C. C., & Konno, N. (1994). Organizational knowledge creation theory: A first comprehensive test. International Business Review, 3, 337-351.

Nonaka, I., & Kenney, M. (1991). Towards a new theory of innovation management: A case study comparing Canon, Inc. and Apple Computer, Inc. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 8, 67-83.

Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. London, England: Oxford University Press.

Nonaka, I., & Toyama, R. (2005). The theory of the knowledge-creating firm: subjectivity, objectivity and synthesis. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14, 419-436.

Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., & Byosière, P. (2001). A theory of organizational knowledge creation: Understanding the dynamic process of creating knowledge. In M. Dierkes, A. B. Antel, J. Child, & I. Nonaka (Eds.), Handbook of organizational learning and knowledge (pp. 491-517). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., & Konno, N. (2000). SECI, Ba, and leadership: A unified model of dynamic knowledge creation. Long Range Planning, 33, 5-34.

Nonaka, I., & von Krogh, G. (2009). Tacit knowledge and knowledge conversion: Controversy and advancement in organizational knowledge creation theory. Organization Science, 23, 635-652.

Nonaka, I., von Krogh, G., & Voelpel, S. (2006). Organizational knowledge creation theory: Evolutionary paths and future advances. Organization Studies, 1179-1208.

Nunnally, J. C. (1967). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Page 153: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!132

O'Cathain, A., Murphy, E., & Nicholl J. (2008). The quality of mixed methods studies in health services research. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 13(2), 92-98.

O'Donnell, D. (2004). Theory and method on intellectual capital creation: Addressing communicative action through relative methodics. O'donnell, David,theory and Method on Intellectual Capital Creation: Addressing Communicative Action Journal of Intellectual Capital, 5(2), 294-311.

O'Donnell, D., Henriksen, L., & Voelpel, S. (2006). Becoming critical on intellectual capital. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 7.

Ojasalo, K. (2009). Business and design competences in service innovation and development. The Business Review, 13, 216-222.

Orlikowski, J. W., & Hufman, J. D. (1997). An improvisational model of change management: The case of groupware technologies. The Sloan Management Review, 38(2), 11-21.

Ortiz Laverde, A. M., Baragano, A. F., & Sarriegui Dominguez, J. M. (2003). Knowledge processes: On overview of the principal models. In Knowledge Management Summer School - KMSS 2003 (pp. 1-6). San Sebastian, Spain.

Paladino, M., Bates, H., & da Silveira, G. (2001). Using a customer-focused approach to improve quality across the value chain: The case of Siderar. Total Quality Management, 13, 671-683.

Pandit, G. (2011). Critical reflection in collective knowledge creation: A mixed-method case study of middle managers' reflection and interaction in a public organization (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertation and Theses database. (UMI No. 3426943)

Parac, J. F., Meindl, C., & Stubbart, C. (1996). Cognition within and between organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Parson, T., Bales, R. F., & Shiles, E. A. (1953). Working papers in theory of action. New York, NY: Free Press.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Penrose, E. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Page 154: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!133

Picot, A., Borenlanger, C., & Rohrl, H. (1997). Organizational of electronic markets: Contributions from the new institutional economics. The Information Society, 13, 107-123.

Polanyi, M. (1962). Tacit knowing: It’s bearing on some problems of philosophy. Reviews of Modern Physics, 34, 601-616.

Probst, G., Raub, S., & Romhardt, K. (2002). Managing knowledge: Building blocks for success. Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Pruzak, L. (1997). Knowledge in organizations. Boston, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Rao, T., Earls, T. W., & Sanchez, G. (2007). International collaboration in transorganizational systems development: The challenges of global insourcing. Journal of Global Information Technology Management, 10(3), 52-70.

Sanchez, R. (2006). Integrating design into strategic management processes. Design Management Review, 17(4), 10-19.

Sarkis, J., & Sundarraj, R. P. (2003). Managing large-scale global enterprise resource planning systems: A case study at Texas Instruments. International Journal of Information Management, 23, 431-443.

Schneider, S. C., & Angelmar, R. (1993). Cognition in organizational analysis: Who's minding the store? Organization Studies, 3, 347-374.

Schopenhauer, A. (1966). The world as will and representation. Dover, England: Dover.

Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Schwandt, D. (1997). Integrating strategy and organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Advances in Strategic Management, 14, 357-359.

Seely Brown, J. (1991). Research that reinvents the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 69, 102-111.

Seely Brown, J. (2002). Research that reinvents the corporation. Harvard Business Review on Knowledge Management, 80(8), 105-114.

Sharkie, R. (2003). Knowledge creation and its place in the development of sustainable competitive advantage. Journal of Knowledge Management, 7, 20-31.

Page 155: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!134

Singleton, R., & Straits, B. (2005). Approaches to social research (4th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Snowden, D. J., & Boone, M. (2007). A leader's framework for decision making. Harvard Business Review, 69-76.

Spender, J. C. (1996). Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 45-62.

Stake, R. (1995). The art of case research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Storey, J., Emberson, C. A., Godsell, J., & Harrison. (2006). Supply chain management: theory, practice and future challenges. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 26, 754-774.

Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Svieby, K. E. (1997). The new organization wealth & measuring knowledge-based assets. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Trinkle, S. I. (2005). The nature of tacit knowledge and the nature of the expert: Tacit knowledge retention at the Tennessee Valley Authority. Dissertation Abstracts International, 66(8), 1. (UMI No. 3185679)

Tsoukas, H. (1996). The firm as a distributed knowledge system: A constructionist approach. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 11-25.

Uzama, A. (2009). Critical review of market entry selection and expansion into Japan's market. Journal of Global Marketing, 22(4), 279.

Vincent, C. (2006). Leadership in knowledge society: An examination of the relationship between perceptions of leadership and knowledge management actions using a social action theory approach (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3218612)

Voelpel, S., & Streb, C. (2006). Sticky knowledge: Barriers to knowing in the firm by G. Szulanski. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 5.

Von Krogh, G., Ichijo, K., & Nonaka, I. (2000). Enabling knowledge creation. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Page 156: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!135

Von Krogh, G., Roos, J., & Slocum, K. (1994). An essay on corporate epistemology. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 53-71.

Wallace, R. (2010). The relationship of organizational learning to knowledge management and its impact on innovation (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. AAT 3440053)

Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Weick, K. E. (1987). Organizational culture as a source of high reliability. California Management Review, 29, 112-127.

Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Williamson, O. E. (1971). The vertical integration of production: Market failure considerations. American Economic Review, 61, 112-123.

Williamson, O. E. (1981). The economics of organization: The transaction cost approach. The American Journal of Sociology, 87, 548-577.

Williamson, O. E., & Masten, S. E. (Eds.). (1999). The economics of transaction costs. NorthHampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

Woolley, C. M. (2009). Meeting the mixed methods challenge of integration in a sociological study of structure and agency. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3, 7-25.

Yeganeh, H., & Su, Z. (2006). Conceptual foundations of cultural management research. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 6, 361-376.

Yin, R. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research, design and methods (3rd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Yin, R., & Moore, G. (1987). The use of advanced technologies in special education: The use of advanced technologies in special education. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 60.

Yoo, K., Suh, & Kim, K. (2007). Knowledge flow. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(3), 104.

Page 157: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!136

Youngdahl, W., & Ramaswamy, K. (2008). Offshoring of service and knowledge work. Journal of Operations Management, 26, 212-221.

Page 158: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!137

APPENDICES

Page 159: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!138

APPENDIX A

Summary of Theories of Organizational Knowledge and Knowledge Creation

Page 160: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!139

(continued)

Author Theory about the nature of knowledge Theory about how knowledge is created

Polanyi (1962)

Two dimensions of knowledge: tacit (unarticulated, personal, intuitive, difficult to communicate, context specific, core to prior knowledge base); explicit (able to articulate, observable, transmittable in formal system, codified).

NA .

.

Habermas (1971)

Types of knowledge: technical, practical, and emancipatory. Knowledge as an outcome or result of learning

Based on Plato's dimensions of knowledge (fact-base and belief base)

Winter (1987)

Dimensions of knowledge: Tacit (complex, not observable, not teachable); explicit (simple, observable, teachable).

Stresses the prominence of learning. The role played by routines in organizational evolution is similar to that of genes in biology—routines are dynamic processes by which behavioral patterns are formed and market results are jointly arrived at over a period of time (Nelson & Winter, 1982). .

March (1991); Levinthal & March (1993)

Knowledge taxonomy: Distinguishes knowledge that is newly created versus knowledge that is based on recombination of existing knowledge.

Rational-economic-transaction cost approach: Describes the dual search process of the firm: exploration and exploitation; emphasis on acquisition and performance actions.

Kogut & Zander (1992)

Knowledge taxonomy: Distinguishes knowledge that is newly created versus that which is reproduction; direct relationship between tacitness and transferability of knowledge. Three forms of knowledge: information, know-how, and innovation.

Rational-economic-competency-based: Focuses on codification, replication, and transferring of knowledge. Emphasis on ability to imitate and on product innovation.

Sackmann (1992)

Knowledge taxonomy: There are cognitive structural devices that at the collective level form four types of cultural knowledge: (a) dictionary— commonly held descriptions, the context or "what" of a situation; (b) directory— commonly held practices, the "how" of things and events, (c) recipe—based on judgment, the "should" or recommendations of certain activities, (d) axiomatic—the reason for or explanation of the ultimate causes seen to by underlying a particular event, the "why" of an event.

Social construction: Emphasizes the reciprocal relationship between the type of knowledge and cultural assumptions. Cultural knowledge is commonly held cognitions that the collective may not be aware of.

Nonaka (1994)

Knowledge taxonomy: Four types of knowledge: (a) conceptual, (b) systematized, (c) operational, (d) systemic.

Rational-economic-transaction cost-emphasizing conversion: Knowledge is created through the conversion from tacit to explicit, beginning with the individual and moving through spiral to the collective. There are four conversion modes. Learning occurs only at the individual level.

Page 161: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!140

Summary of Theories of Organizational Knowledge and Knowledge Creation (continued)

(continued)

Author Theory about the nature of knowledge Theory about how knowledge is created

Von Krogh, Roos, & Slocum (1994)

Knowledge taxonomy: Makes distinction between newly created and recreated knowledge through understanding what is knowledge, how it is developed, and what the conditions are for creating the new or recreated knowledge.

Social construction: Heuristic approach focusing on how and why firms know. Knowledge is created through self-referential process. Uses autopoeisis as theoretical lens. Describes a firm's corporate epistemology.

Crossan & Bontis (1998)

Knowledge spectrum: Conversion of knowledge from tacit at individual level to explicit at the organizational level.

Rational-economic conversion model: Transformation from tacit to explicit with consideration for management practice, learning processes, and scheme associated with action. Focuses on knowledge transfer classification based on tacitness and level (individual, group, organization).

Inkpen & Dinur (1998)

Knowledge continuum: Knowledge should be viewed as a kind of spectrum containing at either end a knowledge type: at one end, explicit (the kind of knowledge embedded in particular products and activities); and at the other, tacit (the kind of knowledge arrived at via experience, employed by and embedded in particular cognitive and institutional routines) (p. 456). Organizations have a range of types of knowledge and carriers of knowledge (p. 457). Uses Spender's typology to classify empirical findings and link knowledge management processes with types of knowledge.

Conversion from individual to organizational knowledge: the formation of knowledge in an organization seen as a process in which what individuals know is amplified and becomes part of an organization's knowledge base (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). Specific processes are present at each level (individual—interpreting and sense making; group—integrating; firm—institutionalizing (Inkpen & Crossan, 1995).

Davenport, Long, & Beers (1998)

Socialization knowledge. Redefining knowledge as amalgamation of experience and information.

Economic knowledge management perspective: Identifies factors to help create, share, and use knowledge efficiently; creates knowledge repositories, "lessons learned"; improves knowledge access; builds awareness and cultural receptivity; and manages knowledge as an asset. Identifies factors that lead to successful knowledge management; e.g., flexible knowledge structures, knowledge-friendly culture, channels for knowledge transfer.

Zack (1999) Knowledge types: (1) Declarative knowledge (describing something), (2) procedural knowledge (how something occurs), and (3) causal knowledge (why something occurs), as well as general and specific knowledge.

Resource-based view of firm: Knowledge management architectures. Five stages for creating and distributing knowledge: acquisition, refinement, storage and retrieval, distribution, and presentation.

Tsoukas (1996)

Knowledge continuum: Knowledge that is tacit and knowledge that is explicit are mutually made up. Tacit is the necessary component of all knowledge and therefore exists to some degree with all knowledge, e.g., collective mind (Roberts, 1993).

Social construction: Knowledge as an emergent phenomenon.

Page 162: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!141

Page 163: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!142

Summary of Theories of Organizational Knowledge and Knowledge Creation (continued) Author Theory about the nature of knowledge Theory about how knowledge is created

Spender (1996)

Knowledge taxonomy: Four kinds of knowledge: (1) conscious knowledge (explicit, possessed by individuals), (2) objectified knowledge (explicit, possessed by the firm), (3) automatic knowledge (preconscious, possessed by the individual), and (4) collective knowledge (knowledge that is very much dependent on context). Knowledge can be articulated explicitly or manifested implicitly.

Social construction: Knowledge creation through social process. Learning occurs at the level of either the individual or the organization and may result from acquisition, sharing, and/or socialization via activities of the collective.

Schwandt (1997)

Knowledge continuum: Variance in knowledge depends on the level of action and the degree to which it is connected to the desired outcomes of the learning system (adapt via learning) and the performance system (adapt via performance).

Social construction: Knowledge creation occurs through dynamic interaction with the social action system (involving social and cultural exchanges) and is dependent upon the types of information obtained, structures that enable/inhibit the sharing of the information, and ways the culture makes sense of and assigns meaning to new information.

Seely-Brown & Duguid (1991); Seely-Brown (1998)

Collective-level knowledge: Focused on "how" knowledge is produced and shared at the collective level. Social nature of knowledge: internally generated, produced, and shared by the collective.

Social construction: Knowledge creation is a social phenomenon. Emphasis on "know-how" and "know-what" of knowledge. Knowledge can be internally generated when individuals work in closely connected groups termed "communities of practice."

Garud (1997) Nicholls-Nixon (1997)

Synthesis and critique of knowledge research: (a) "know-how"—understanding of the generative process; (b) "know-why"—understanding of the underlying concepts, assumptions, principles; (c) "know-what"—understanding of the kinds of phenomena worth pursuing; (d) "know-where"--understanding of the action and of who is doing what; (e) "know-when"—understanding of timing, e.g., industry foresight, and (0 "know-who"—understanding who the different actors are in the exchange. Associated with each type of knowledge is a learning process and further delineation in how each is created, stored, and used within the system. Linked to literature in cognitive sciences.

Hargadon & Fanelli (2002)

Knowledge in an organization seen as the result of continuous and recursive interconnected action; as both action and potential; and as both the genesis of change and a constraining force acting on it.

Page 164: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!143

(continued) Table 1. Summary of Theories of Organizational Knowledge and Knowledge Creation (continued)

Akgun, Lynn, & Byrne (2003)

Reciprocal interactions involving acquisition, dissemination, and implementation of information and knowledge; sense making; memory; cognition; unlearning; intellectual capacity; improvisational activity; and emotional factors; all of which are tied together by the culture of the organization.

Author Theory about the nature of knowledge Theory about how knowledge is created

Li & Kettinger, (2006)

The evolutionary aspect of knowledge/ rests on a problem-solving paradigm/

New knowledge is developed via the integration of knowledge elements of subproblems

Canary (2010)

Structurating activity theory: a synthesis of structuration theory with cultural-historical activity theory (CHAT). New knowledge is developed via the integration of knowledge elements of subproblems.

Building knowledge is a process that can be seen as communicative.

Page 165: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!144

APPENDIX B

Organization Action Survey

Page 166: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!145

!

Page 167: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!146

!

Page 168: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!147

!

Page 169: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!148

!

Page 170: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!149

!

Page 171: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!150

!

Page 172: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!151

!

Page 173: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!152

!

Page 174: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!153

APPENDIX C

Focus Group Script

Page 175: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!154

I am a doctoral candidate at The Argosy University in the Organizational Leadership Program. For the past 5 years, I have worked for with our company as a manager while researching knowledge management.

Purpose of Study As part of my doctoral studies, I am required to complete a research-

based study within an organization. Organization W has been kind enough to agree to support my research as part of their ongoing research efforts to better understand the organization and its various change and development initiatives.

My study will gather information from organizational members through focus groups, interviews, and document review relative to perceptions about organizational actions and stated strategic direction and decisions as Organization W adapts to its changing market. Specifically, the study focuses on Organization W transformation process for Division F as it moves from its traditional stand-alone process to the ERP process. The purpose of the study is two-fold: (1) to understand how {your company} as viewed by participants of the study, creates organizational knowledge about the change process; and (2) how this knowledge is shared throughout the organization

In order to build this understanding, I will be conducting this interview today. It will last approximately 30 minutes. Before we start, I want to make sure that you know that all of the aspects of this research project are completely confidential and that anonymity of participants will be maintained. The following elements have been carefully designed in this process: (a) all interview data has been designed to limit personal information and will be coded to remove identifying information; (b) data that could reveal a subject's identity will be stored in files accessible only to the researcher; (c) anonymity of the subjects will be preserved; (d) data will be reported in aggregate form and in cases where data cannot be aggregated, any information that could indirectly identify the subjects will be removed. In addition, if there are any publications beyond the dissertation publication, the organization will be notified and given the right to review any publication prior to release to ensure that the organization remains anonymous if the organization so chooses.

Lastly, I would like your permission to tape-record this session to ensure that I accurately capture your insights and to allow me to focus on what you're saying. I will give you back the tape and a copy of the transcript for your review.

Are there any questions regarding my study? Let me set up the scenario for you. You've just been given an assignment to do an expose show like the TV program

"48 Hours." Your assignment is to create a documentary about (your companyts efforts to move from a decentralized business model with semi-autonoumous sub-groups to a Centralized Business model using ERP; e.g., what was happening (at that phase of the

Page 176: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!155

project) relative to the strategic transformation. The focus of this documentary is on how a "self sustained sub-sidiary" "rapidly tranforms to a part of a larger operation."

Step 1: Individual notes and thoughts (5 minutes). Researcher: I've provided some paper if you need to write down some ideas. Please keep in mind that this is based on your experience of what is currently happening (not what should be happening). As you're constructing this story line, remember to delineate some of the different dimensions of the story: what, why, when, where, who, and how.

Step 2: Beginning the story line (15 minutes) After the respondent takes the time allotted to think through and/or write some notes on the story, the researcher turns on the tape recorder and asks the participant to begin telling the story. If necessary, probes will be used e.g., can you tell me more; can you make that more concrete for me please; can you say that another way.

Step 3: Dimensionalizing the story (15 minutes) Researcher: Considering the story that you've just told.... ■▪ Can you describe how the firm translated its strategic direction or decisions

into specific actions within the organization? ■▪ Can you identify how the firm created knowledge internally about this

process? ■▪ Can you describe how this is shared and/or understood throughout the firm?

Page 177: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!156

APPENDIX D

Interview Questions

Page 178: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!157

Researcher: Considering the story that you've just told....

■▪ Can you describe how the firm is currently translating its strategic direction

or decisions into specific actions within the organization?

■▪ Can you identify how the firm is creating knowledge internally about

this process?

■▪ Can you describe how this is shared and/or understood throughout the firm?

Page 179: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!158

APPENDIX E

Permission to Conduct Research

Page 180: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!159

From: Oldham, Carole Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 3:25 AMTo: Chitturi, Ravi [Wolseley] - 0018 Wolseley Cc: Beasley, Andrew G [Wolseley] - 0018 Wolseley; Jones, Oliver E [Ferguson] - 0018 HQSubject: RE: Doctoral Study Introduction

Ravi – thanks for the note and yes I can confirm that Oliver has Rod’s authorisation to carry out this research as part of his Doctoral Study, I am acting as Oliver’s primary point of contact within the I & P team for exactly this type of authorisation

I can also confirm that we too have a clear expectation (as does Oliver) that this is a case of “both parties gain” i.e. Oliver does the work and gets access to material and conclusions that he can pursue for his thesis, Wolseley and the programme get the benefit of his findings

Oliver – we’ve talked this through but I’m assuming you are comfortable with the concept of your delivering a formal report of findings to us (the programme) for our use at the end of your research period ?

Thanks Carole

Carole Oldham Director of Business Change Deployment

www.wolseley.com

!

Oliver – I can confirm approval for you to progress with the next phase of your research as outlined in your email below

Regards

Carole Oldham Director of Governance & Management Services

From: Jones, Oliver E - 0018 HQ Sent: 21 September 2010 17:55 To: Oldham, Carole Subject: Formal Aproval Request to Perform Study

Oliver E Jones

Page 181: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!160

6231 Burbage Acres Dr Suffolk, VA 23435 585.704.1931

Carole Oldham

Director of Governance and Management Services

Wolseley plc

September 21, 2010

Dear Madam,

I am currently pursuing a Doctoral Study in Organizational Leadership at Argosy University in Washington DC. My dissertation focuses on how organizations manage knowledge held by individuals during transformation period. Given that fact Wolseley/Ferguson is formally undertaking a change management strategy, this must be an issue of concern to the organization. Since some Frishkorn locations completed the ERP migration, the study will be focused on this area of the company.

These Ferguson locations was selected for the study because of the uniqueness of the organization and its success in a time when many competitors continue to perform poorly. This success in a sense can be attributed to the ability of the organization to recycle its critical knowledge as such achieving operational continuity. Protecting these knowledge assets of the organization is even more critical to improve on organizational performance and the bottom-line.

I plan on administering a survey to about 60 employees (including HQ employees affiliated with the implementation) and on conducting interviews with about 3 management level employees. To protect the confidentiality of the respondents, the survey will be administered by a third party. However, I will conduct the interviews personally in order to obtain the specific information that could support the intended study. In addition, I welcome the opportunity to review any available archival records or documents, in order to validate the information obtained through surveys.

In the event that you grant positive consideration to my request, I tentatively plan on beginning the data-gathering process by Monday, October 16, 2010, and anticipate completing the process within a two-week timeframe. During the entire process, I intend to be minimally disruptive to the participants’ work day.

Once the data is collected, consolidated, and analyzed, I shall provide a copy to your office to ensure the integrity of the information. This information will then be

Page 182: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!161

incorporated into a doctoral research paper. It is my wish that upon the release of the final report, that might gain insight on the implementation of quality management in a succession planning program.

Since this study will involve employees affiliated with the business change under your supervision, I hereby request your approval to engage in the study. Your emailed response will be represent a “Letter of Cooperation”. Your response will remain confidential and be discarded at the end of the process. I welcome the opportunity to discuss the planned data collection with you, and am available to answer any questions you might have relating to this matter. I can be reached either by email at [email protected] or via phone at +1.585.704.1931.

Thanks in advance for your cooperation.

Sincerely Oliver E Jones, Doctoral Candidate

Page 183: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!162

APPENDIX F

IRB Approval to Conduct Research

Page 184: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!163

!

Page 185: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!164

APPENDIX G

Permission to Use Survey Instruments

Page 186: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!165

Date: January 11, 2011 To: Oliver JonesFrom: Dr. Margaret Gorman, Assistant

Professor of Human & Organizational Learning; [email protected],

202-425-7111

Re: Permission to use Schwandt's OLSM

This letter is to confirm that Oliver Jones has received permission to use Dr. Schwandt's

Organizational Learning Survey (OLSM) per the following agreement:

• You will use the survey only for your dissertation research; it will not be be resold or

used with any compensated management activity or curriculum development projects

• You will include a copyright statement on all copies of the survey • You will send 2 copies of your completed dissertation to GWU (one for our ELP and one

for our library); along with any subsequent reports or article

• You will send 1 copy of a clean-data set to GWU-ELP attention Drs. Schwandt & Gorman

• We will be notified prior to any submissions for publication or referred journals, and will

make sure to include appropriate footnotes or acknowledgements to use of the

instrument

• Drs.Schwandt or Gorman to be considered as examiners or reviewers for final

dissertation defense, or atleast review of document before final dissertation defense

approval to ensure accuracy of information and representation.

Best Wishes for a successful dissertation process.

Please sign and fax back to: 703-726-3730, att: Dr. Gorman

George Washington University's Executive Leadership Doctoral Program, 44983 Knoll Square

Drive, suite 147, Ashburn, VA 20147. 703-726-8396,

I!

Page 187: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!166

APPENDIX H

Formal Letter to Potential Research

Page 188: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!167

[Subject: ****** Formal Letter to Potential Research Participant***** Oliver JonesImportance: HighSensitivity: Confidential

Dear Potential Research Participant:

This letter is to solicit your participation in a research study. I am a fellow associate at Ferguson Enterprise. I also am a Doctoral degree candidate at Argosy University/ Washington DC in the Organization Leadership program specializing in Knowledge Management. This study is part of the research requirement for the completion of the degree program

I plan to conduct a case study on the following topic:

Knowledge Creation in Organizational Transformation: Case Study Analyzing Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Implementation

I have identified your organization as being involved in a Business Change (Shift from E21 to SAP), and would like to understand the role knowledge management (how insights and experiences were adopted) played in the process.

This study will examine your processes (information / training / communication etc) during implementation. Your identity and the information you provide about your specific case and organization will be kept confidential.

If you think you will be a potential participant for this study, and are willing to participate in a survey or an interview within the next few weeks, please contact me as soon as possible. My contact information is noted below. Participants will also qualify for a drawing to win a $50 gift certificate to Olive Gardens or Red Lobster. Your consideration to participate in this study is greatly appreciated (just simply respond to the email). I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Should you have any question about the authenticity to the request, please feel free to contact Carole Oldham (E: : [email protected])

Sincerely,

Oliver Jones, Doctoral Candidate Argosy University/ Washington DC Email: Oliver. Jones@xxxxxxxx,comDaytime Phone: +1 (757) 696-4362 Evening Phone: +1 (585) 704-1931

Mailing Address: Oliver Jones 6231 Burbage Acres Drive Suffolk, VA 23434

[Type a

Page 189: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!168

APPENDIX I

Site Research Plan

Page 190: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!169

!

Page 191: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!170

APPENDIX J

Survey Results

Page 192: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!171

Strongly

agree AgreeUndecide

d DisagreeStrongly disagree

Total Responden

ts

1 Membersofyourorganiza2onshareexternalinforma2on(informa2onfromoutsideyourorganiza2on)

9.7% (6) 64.5% (40)

17.7% (11)

8.1% (5) 0% (0) 62

2 Yourorganiza2onpredictsthechangesoccurringintheindustry?

14.5% (9) 66.1% (41)

16.1% (10)

3.2% (2) 0% (0) 62

3 Yourorganiza2oncon2nuouslytrackhowyourcompe2torsimprovetheirproducts,servicesandopera2ons?

11.3% (7) 58.1% (36)

19.4% (12)

11.3% (11)

0% (0) 62

4 Yourorganiza2ondeliberatelyreflectuponandevaluateexternalinforma2on?

19.4% (12)

61.3% (38)

14.5% (9)

4.8% (3) 0% (0) 62

5 Yourorganiza2onprovidesopportuni2esforemployeestodeveloptheirknowledge,skills,andcapabili2es?

25.8% (18)

59.7% (37)

9.7% (6) 4.8% (3) 0% (0) 62

6 Yourorganiza2on'sleaderssupportquickandaccuratecommunica2onamongallemployees?

33.9% (21)

51.6% (32)

4.8% (3) 9.7% (6) 0% (0) 62

7 Yourorganiza2onhassetgoalsforresearchinganddevelopingnewproductsand/orservices?

12.9% (8) 48.4%(30)

27.4% (17)

9.7% (6) 0% (0) 62

8 Membersoftheorganiza2oneffec2velyusetheorganiza2onalstructures(e.g.,chainofcommand,personalnetworks)whensharingideasandinnova2ons?

17.7% (11)

53.2% (33)

24.2% (15)

4.8% (3) 0% (0) 62

9 Yourorganiza2onusesideasandsugges2onsfromitsemployees?

14.5% (9) 66.1% (41)

17.7% (11)

1.6% (1) 0% (0) 62

10 Thisorganiza2onbelievesthatcon2nuouschangeisnecessary.

38.7% (24)

48.4% (30)

6.5% (4) 4.8% (3) 1.6% (1) 62

11 Thereareestablishedwaystosharenewopera2onalprocessesandproceduresthroughouttheorganiza2on.

16.1% (10)

56.5% (35)

14.5% (9)

12.9% (8)

0% (0) 62

Page 193: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!172

12 Peopleinthisorganiza2onbelievethatevalua2ngwhatcustomerssayiscri2caltoreachingorganiza2onalgoals.

48.4% (30)

48.4% (30)

1.6% (1) 1.6% (1) 0% (0) 62

Strongly

agree AgreeUndecide

d DisagreeStrongly disagree

Total Responden

ts

13 This organization has established work groups, networks, and other collaborative arrangements to help the organization adapt and change.

12.9% (8) 56.5% (35)

19.4% (12)

11.3% (7)

0% (0) 62

14 This organization has a strong culture of shared values that support individual and organizational development.

25.8% (16)

53.2% (33)

14.5% (9)

4.8% (3) 1.6% (1) 62

15 This organization has clear goals for individual and organizational development.

9.7% (6) 58.1% (36)

19.4% (12)

9.7% (6) 3.2% (2) 62

16 To what extent does your organizational structure encourage and facilitate the sharing of knowledge between individuals (e.g. easy access to appropriate internal resources, time for consideration and discussion of information)?

14.5% (9) 37.1% (23)

43.5% (27)

4.8% (3) 0% (0) 62

17 To what extent do you feel free to offer up information in response to internal requests surrounding specific issues (e.g. focus on team solutions to issues)?

26.2% (16)

42.6% (26)

26.2% (26)

3.3% (2) 1.6% (1) 61

18 To what extent are you willing to offer up information in response to internal requests surrounding specific issues (e.g. focus on team solutions to issues)?

30.6% (19)

50.0% (31)

14.5% (9)

3.2% (2) 1.6% (1) 62

Page 194: KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …

!173

19 Managers in your organization support sharing of knowledge and information across teams and units?

22.6% (14)

66.1% (41)

4.8% (3) 6.5% (4) 0% (0) 62

20 The core values of your organization support and encourage the sharing of information and knowledge within the organization?

22.6% (14)

70.0%(44)

3.2% (2) 3.2% (2) 0% (0) 62

21 Whichofthefollowingcategoriesbestdescribesthedepartmentwhereyoucurrentlywork

16.1% (10)

22.6%(14)

3.2% (2) 30.6%(19)

27.4% (17) 62