INSIGHT
INTO INTRA-ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING AND KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
Mohammad
Rizwan Junaid
Pakistan
Institute of Management, Ministry of Industries, Govt. of Pakistan
E-mail: falsafi_28@yahoo.com
Submission: 06/10/2012
Accept: 08/11/2012
ABSTRACT
Intra-Organizational learning and
knowledge management has increasingly becomes a subject of extreme importance
as organizations round the globe are working on increasing their productive
efficiency through continuously working on their human and intellectual capital.
The core focus of this paper is to take into account the core issues that
hamper and accelerate the process of knowledge generation, codification,
retention and transfer within an organization. The role of social networking,
individual relationships, experiencing, multi-tasking are the focal areas that
have been taken into consideration while studying the knowledge management
process at different levels within an organization.
Key-words:
Organizational Learning, Knowledge
Management, Generation, Codification, Retention, Transfer
1.
Introduction
It is evident that an organization
keeps on learning and the pace is settled in the perspective of two notions change
and plans, whenever there is a technology shift or if an organization plans for
diversification (Senge, 1990) to ensure an edge in such a competitive market
place. Individual learning and organizational learning are two different
spheres, the culture advocates the possibility of organizational learning. The
intrinsic concept of organizational learning has been a concrete part of the
management literature but it gained the wide span recognition in the second
half of 1990s (Easterby-Smith, 1999); learning as a faculty belong to an
individual mind, the process of thinking and remebering (Prange, 1999) but when
it becomes a group activity with a clear sense of objectivity, then we call it
organizaitonal. This collective approach of learning , the connection of
individual and organizational learning is based upon a corelation between the
incomplete input from a member which is combined among memebers and get a
complete over view (Argyris, 1996), the concept of collective wisdom.
Intra-organizational learning is
purely an objective aspect of learning as it is initiated because of and
carried on because of and this because of as new knowledge is deposited in due
repositores with an aim to retain it for quiet sometime (Argote, 2000).
Eventhough learning seems objective when it comes to Organization but it is not
necessary that every learning is fruitful or to be used, the pro-active
learning leads to outcome that often are not accepted or appreciated by the
surroundings in which an organization operates, contrary to adaptive learning
that is reactionary mode of learning to accommodate internal and external environmental
changes while advanced or pro-active learning is higher or strategic/generative
learning (Argyris C. & Schön D,
1978; Fiol,1985; Dodgson, 1991). Experimental learning, is deducing meaning
from direct experience (Itin, 1999) although it produces results in the shorter
run but fails in the longer spell as repitition of the same does not allow to
look into the changes that had to be incorporated over time as the concept of change
accomodation describes. Organization and it subunits [departments] share/transfer
knowledge to one another and collective learning takes place, often through
experince and sometimes in speculative mode rather immitating the same act to
produce desired results, for instance a new tool is brought by one department
and being used, at the same time by involving people from other departments the
knowledge of the tool can be transferred, learning can be made easy by
involving people with expert on a porject or assignment. Overall, it can be
said that organizational learning is a process that undertakes all the
departments, division and stations across organization and in fact it is like
making all members learn and having itself transformed all the times (Mike
Pedler, 1991).
The core sub-processes relate to
roganizational learning are, creating, codifying, retaining and disseminating
knowledge across organization in order to have a uniform flow of knowledge,
keeping every one on board.Creating knowledge refers to the interaction of
group of employees within organization who are involved in a new task and gain
new dimensions of knowledge, once the task is accomplished and they may use
this knwledge to create value for the organization, in another way the
combination of individual knowledge may pave the way for a new knowledge sphere
which adds productive value for the organization. The core challenge being
faced by a firm is to generate knowledge from the source and make it available
where it is required (Ruggles, 1998; Fahey, 1998); Knowledge codification is to
transform individual and group knowledge in easy, understandable and usable
form and make it something of use for every one involved in organizational
functions and processes as documenting the knowledge. Retaining knowledge is to
link knowledge repositories in an objective manner as Knowledge is influenced
by external influences as well as internal influences; knowledge may become a
competitive advantage, but may also contribute to inertia. If a company is
bathed in the true spirit of learning (Senge, 1994), it will develop structures
and processes which create a balanced and complementary effort towards
combining knowledge acquisition from inside and outside of the firm. Disseminating
knowledge with in organization incorporates three broader ways as awareness,
understanding and action (Serrat, 2009) and these are combined to utlize
knowledge in achieving goal. Organizational learning is purely objective and it
is fairly stimulated by knowledge obsolense or the performance of specific
departments (technological automation, product diversification).
Measuring learning efficiency of an organization
coupled with assessment of chages in knowledge is an intricate task; as tacit
knowledge is difficult to be documented, difficult to be verbalized (Berry,
1984) and most of what is documented is related to experience, further more the
active knowledge repositories within an orgnization are humans and non-humans, these
non human repositories where captured knowledge is retained and stored must be
organized in an accesible manner as the focus of Organizaitonal learning is
based upon building organizationl capability (Armstrong,2000; Pettigrew,1991).
These non-human repositories are (Bacdayan, 1994) Organizational
routines—multi-actor, interlocking, reciprocally-triggered sequences of actions—
a major source of the reliability and speed of organizational performance.
The counter phase of measuring
learning within organization is to focus on individual and department’s performance
linked with experience, but it is even difficult to relate measurement of
learning with experience as there are scores of factors that affect individual
performance, as psychological and social (Koppes, 2007; O'Connor, 2006; Stringer,
2007; Mitchell, 2003; W.C. Borman, 2003; Locke, 1990; Latham, 2005; Kozlowski,
2003; Salas & Stagl, 2004; Van Vianen, 2001; Anderson, Ones, &
Sinangil, 2002; Schmidt, 1998; Leonard,
1998; Pfeffer, 1999) organizational
context and information technology (IT) applications (Soonhee Kim, 2010; Robertson, 2008) and other work place related
factors as mentioned by campbell (1990) that several performance parameters
that may have important implications for the job performance setting and should
be investigated by industrial and organizational psychologists. A variation in
human experience is multi-dimensional but the peculiarity is that, there has
always been a positive relationship between diversified human experience and organizational
performance. The sole aim is to focus upon intra-organizational learning
process that appears in two distinct spheres as inside a department,sub-unit,
strategic business unit or section and between/among departments, divisions,
sections, sub-units etc,.
2.
Review
of
related
literature
The Organizational learning process
actively takes place in two different dimensions as sequential {knowledge
creation, codification, retention, dissemination} and procedural that lies in
basic networks and their combination that occurs due to change in working
knowledge and experiences that undertake exploitation and exploration activities (Mary M. Crossan, 1999).The operational side
of the organization runs through the combination of Man-Machine-Task
(production, quality control, stores, packing,maintenanace etc) while the functional
side of the organization runs through the combination of Member-Task. The core
difference that is to be considered between these two orgnizational spheres is
that, in operations the dominanace is of machine, so the knowledge repository
is non-human i.e. [machines], the importance of Man is evenly parallel to
machine in a facilitating condition (Hartness, 1912; Wilson, 1995; Richard
Chase, 2001) but the output is based upon machine knowledge and performance.
While in functions the focal knowledge is in humans as the output is based upon
human and machine is in facilitating condition. It is difficult to frame the
learning sphere of any organization with a vital theoratical construct, since
that, an organization runs through the combination of functions and operations
and the knowledge repositories of these two factions run along side. The most
important and key element is the human factor (Drucker, 2002; Davenport, 1998;
Sveiby, 1997) in acquiring and maintaining functional (member-task) and
operational (member-tool-task) knowledges.
In member-task performance, the best
men (employees) are selected for the job and their interaction with in the
group and other allied groups increases organizational performance and
interactiveness as group based {project based} (Evensen, 2000); learning has
been named as problem based learning as
during the task reflecting and responding to problem (Barrows, 1988) intiates a
new mode of learning withiin the group and organization as well.
In member-tool-task a provision of
new knowledge seems dependent upon the technology being used by the performers.
It brings a sense of interaction among people, it is quiet possible that the
standings and behavior of an employee is different in his group as compared to
what he exposes in organization. The organizational layers of behavior and
interaction are different from departmental layers and tares. The core is
forming networks within departments, among departements, within organization
and among organizations. According to Miles and Snow (Miles, Snow, 1986),
networks - considered as forms of flexible work - also encourage cooperation
because of the informality which characterizes them. Informality of
interpersonal relationship brings people to share more knowledge in the
explicit form, which is usually hard to make explicit (Nonaka, Takeuchi, 1995).
It is noted that the chnages in the social positioning of a member in a group,
in a department and in an organization also affects the learning process within
organization. Organization, as a whole takes into account the collective goal
and the residing knowledge at this level is in its accumulated form, while at
departmental and individual level the shape of knowledge is different and it
appears in more of its individual or personal form.
There are lots of studies available
in Intra-organizational learning but our main aim is to look into those
sub-processes that are changed in accordance with the main processes, because
the new generation of knowledge management focuses upon down the line changes
that are presumeabily the outcome of Top Management’s involvement in the whole
process. The net work of knowledge management is getting wider and bigger and
loops are widen enough to envelope whole organization into their fold.
3.
Knowledge
Creation
It is evident that every organization
keeps its own pace and set of knowledge and this pace and set of knowledge is
influenced by the people who interact with each other, individual
characteristics of organizational members do effect the process of knowledge
creation as it is a balance between knowledge and knowing (Cook, 1999) and a
creative dance between knowledge and knowing. The issue of diversity is even
critical at this stage as an organizational knowledge is to undertake internal
and external factors at the same time and in fact the intrinsic understanding
of this area needs extensive focus (Ashby, 1956; E. Rullani, 1990) since that,
as long as market is rigid and conservative the prevailing knowledge base is
enough to cater the requirements of the corresponding market but the moment
market goes complex and segmented; product diversification becomes a critical
success factor that needs creation of new knowledge.
The role of diversity in intra-organizational
knowledge creation sustains the core value (March, 1991) and knowledge
diversity is proposed as the very source of organization innovation and
adaptability (Molani, 2003). It is evident that by every passing day organizations
seem more dependent on diverse groups; especialy in product innovation, problem
solving and efficiency increment (Dahlin, 2005) and prevailing scenario
advocates the possibility of better consequences if organization bring experts
to solve complex problems (Cagan, 2002). The challenge being faced by organizations
round the globe is to manage increasingly diverse workforce (Offerman, 1990;
Lyness, 1997) and in this very regard different studies have been undertaken to
understand the control of knowledge and having it communicated in a cost
effective mennaer to people from different backgrounds (Riordan, 2001;
Williams, 1998; Milliken, 1996).
The issue of demographic diversity
has it clarified that hetrogenous groups are more supportive (Cox, 1991) and
appear innovative (Jehn, 1999; O'Reilly, 1997) and their role in complex
problem solving is more effective (Kirchmeyer, 1992). Organizational groupings
are always task orineted and it has been observed that hetrogeneous groups
appear more creative and functional as compared to homogeneous groups and the
level of one another’s acceptance is higher in these groups. Diversly educated
and composed Top Management teams give corporation an edge (Pfau, 2005) and
they are more active and advanced as compared to their homogeneous counterparts
(Jackson, 1989; Hambrick DC, 1996; Daniel Henneke, 2007). In the very case of
new product development and product innovation projects, multifunctional
project teams speed up the project (Eisenhardt, 1995). These hetrogeneous
groups stimulate the process of divergent thinking and this diversity in
thinking bring about more objective discussions during group meetings that pave
the way towards solutions for complex problems. Rotating members across groups
bring new knowledge and share it with their co-workers (A Kane, 2005). In fact
rotation of group memebers and formation of ad-hoc project based groups and
returning of members back to their original groups generate a pool of knowledge
across organizations (Lushan Pan, 2010) and sharing of knowledge moderates the
context of new knowledge creation. Inter group relationship and multi-tasking,
keeping more than one group in a pool, gives opportunity to joint practices
within a team working model, where the principles of effective team working are
examined as well as the interaction of context, tasks, team roles and
processes; only if diverse individuals work together in teams in a context
where they can learn from the outcomes of their actions will bring the
possibility of successful innovation. (Abbott, 1992; Adler, 1990; Adler P. S.,
1993; Addleson, 1996), this interaction not only produces new sphere of
knowledge but even ignites communities of understanding that strengthens the Organizational
learning process further and farther (Agor, 1996).
Social Networking and informal
relationships seem even very helpful and developmental in new knowledge
creation within Organization (Hansen, 1996) as in order to maintain a
sustainable competititve advantage a firm is in need to produce innovative applications through
combination and recombination of existing knowledge (Kogut, 1992) company’s own
knowledge generating capabilities bear more fruit than relying on external
sources as News letter, training programmes, workshops, videographic
presentations, peer-subordinate sessions, knowledge circles etc.
The importance of inerpersonal
networks for organizations is the core insight of economic sociology and organization
theory. A number of studies show the relevalnce of key network concepts, such
as tie strength (Granovetter, 1973), closure (Coleman, 1988) and structural
holes (Burt, 1992), to a variety of collective and individual outcomes in organizational
contexts, such as promotion and rewards, turnover, learning and knowledge sharing
and innovation (Burt, 1992; Hansen 1999; Krackhardt and Porter, 1985; Obstfld,
2005; Podolny and Baron, 1997), and the knowledge transfer is facilitated by
the intensive social interaction of organizational actors (Andrew C Inkpen,
2005) and these actors generate new knowledge during the course of their
interaction.
In a variety of relevant contexts
{rational working groups or teams and meetings} the idea exchange and knowledge
sharing becomes an prominent aspect of group interaction (Antoszkiewicz, 1992; Galegher,
1990) while the brainstorming session in groups pave the way for generating new
ideas as compared to isolated brain storming (Mullen, 1991), another study by
Paulus and Young suggested that brainstorming sessions accelaerate the idea
exchange process within a group and these sessions are the fundamental means to
bring creativity and innovation in an organization, (Yang, 2000). The
opportunity of interaction not only generates new knowledge but refine and
reform the existing knowledge as experience sharing sessions excells the
participants/group members to share in the light of empirical evidence and the
core basis for these empirical evidence is experience.
In this very
connection the Man-tool basis task in
an organizationn generates new spheres of knowledge as in Business Process
Re-Engineering {BPR}, the core focus is technological automation and when the
technology is automated and new technology is brought
in then organizational memebers who used to produce the same product with
obsolete technology try to find a link between the old and new technology and
this link justifies the changes which they find from old to new, they even
generate new knowledge as the focal point of bringing new thechnology is by far
bringnging new knowledge and mechanism in an organization (Carr, 2003)
In short, it can be said that past
and recent studies emphasized the people phenomena in knowledge creation and significantly
emphasize over the intra-orgsanizaitonal social networkig, groups, teams and
people gathering as the prime source of bringing in novel ideas and new
knowledge in an organization. Human being are considered as the source which
not only generates knowledge but even exemplifies the usage and reformation
upto desired and demanded extent.
Problems
and Significant Factors affecting knowledge CREATION process
1. Environemtal and Organizational context in which knowledge
creation takes place, is needed to be taken into account in order to develop a
holistic framework for knowledge creation (Christine W. Soo, 2002)
2. Provision of resources required for problem solving as
knowledge fundamentals, knowledge networks values and functional/operational
systems (Jaana Woiceshyn, 2008)
3. Principal role of organizational hierarchy and the concerned
problem relevant to organizational routines and practices (Raybaut, 2004)
4. Limitations in knowledge creation hampers the flow of
sustainable advantage (Bhatt, 2000)
4.
Knowledge
Codification
In fact, codification of knowledge
can reduce the costs of knowledge acquisition. In its true sense, codification
reduces the costs and improves the reliability of information storage and
recall and through codification; knowledge is becoming more like a commodity
that paves the way for knowledge description in the very right perspective of
objective contents and intellectual property and eventually it leads to
economize the cost of knowledge acquisition (Simon, 1982). The due steps in
codification are encircled within the fold of applied technology in order to
not only gain the process economization but even hold the time frame at fast
track. Devenport and Prusak consider codification as a process with the help of
which knowledge becomes portable, re-usable and trnasferable,(Davenport T. H.,
1998). Unfortunately, the step of knowledge codification has not had been very
well described, understood and naratted in knowledge management studies. There
is therefore a need to explore and understand better the process of knowledge
codification as a vehicle for affecting the transfer of knowledge with in organization.
While applying the term codification to knowledge, conversely, KM reviewers
such as Davenport and Prusak (1998) and Ruggles (1997) give the impression to
shine over the social dimensions to knowledge codification which trail from the
generation, usage and elucidation of the codes required to communicate
knowledge. Furthermore, the collected works on communities of practice proposes
that alike knowledge bases and “shared histories of learning” (Wenger, 1998) tie
practitioners in informal relationships which, according to Wenger and Snyder
(2000), are the model platform for sharing and disseminating finest practices
across the organization.
The role of information and
communication technologies cannot be undermined or overlooked when we discuss
them in knowledge codification and by every passing day the due importance is
touching new heights, the same has had been the core topic of different Research
studies (Boland Jr. and Tenkasi, 1995; Alavi, 1999; Scarbrough et al., 1999;
Swan et al., 1999a; Robertson et al., 2000). Information technology facilitates
the process of development of non-human repositories, while intra-group communication
is most significant a tool to establish human repositories in an organization.
The core of knowledge codification
is to convert this codified knowledge into application which is the intrinsic
function of the whole process to gain competititve advantage and this
externalization of knowledge is needed for sharing (Choo, 1998) among groups
within organizations, due to the inherent nature of continuous refinement in
KM, transformations are never constant. Thus the ratio of input and output in
every phase of knowledge transformation is inelastic and non-linear (Datta,
2010) and continuously in need of revision, amendments and changes. Inter-group
relationship with reference to knowledge exchange is very strong and creative
as every group comes across a new set of knowledge and their day to day
interaction provides them ample chances to share with one another and put the
new knowledge into practice and use knowledge to solve critical and complex
problems (Cassi, 2007) and carry the same forward as a continuous process.
Problems
and Significant Factors affecting knowledge CODIFICATION process
1. Cost-benefit analysis of codification with respect to tacit
and explicit knowledge as tacit knowledge is difficult to be codified in its
true and applied sense. (Robin Cowan, 2000)
2. Compatibility of codification with intra organizational
knowledge tranfer, innovation, classification and communication (Lundh-Snis,
2010)
3. Maintain Standardization in tacit experiences and explicit
procedural knowledge (Zollo, 1998)
4. Studying and keep in mind the role of practicing communities
of workers who are keen about the difference between tacit and codified
explicit knowledge. (B. Ancori, 2000)
5.
Knowledge
Retention
The fundamental issue in Knowledge
retention is to get down to the repositories where knowledge is embeded (Levitt, 1988), organizational members’
insight and experiences generate knowledge, Such insights and experiences
either exemplified in individuals or implanted in organizations as processes or
practices. The process of knowledge codification and dissemination is dependent
upon knowledge retention or ‘knowledge categorization’ as the intra-organizational
learning seems reliant on features of individual memory (Hastie, 1984; Johnson, 1987) when member-member &
member-task [functional] tasks are derived, same as in member-tool-task
[operational] relationship.
We need to look into the core
division of an organization in order to understand the intrinsic knowledge
repositories that not only keep organizational knowledge but are the core sources
for organizational learning. Intra-organizational linkages are formed through
these sources when we discuss Business Process Re-Engineering (BPR) and
Business Process Improvement (BPI).
Every
organization is a combination of certain functional and operational
departments, services based organizations [consultants, lawyers, Training] are
dominantly functional organizations where operational departments provide back
up to functional departments on the other hand Manufacturing Organizations
[Construction, product based manufacturing etc.] incorporate the complex
operational processes to generate output and functional departments in these organizations
are providing back up to the core operational departments. Manufacturing
organizations are based upon operations which derive member-tool-task
relationship and the Knowledge repositories are most of the time are non-human
and flow of knowledge in the organization is limited to the sphere of
technology in-use and the process of knowledge creation, codification is linked
with the Business Process Re-Engineering {technological automation} while the
Service based organizations are functional and their knowledge repositories are
human and the process of knowledge creation and codification seems linked with
members’ knowledge and they work upon Business Process Improvement. We further
strengthen our standpoint with reference to knowledge areas and types in these
organizations that would exemplify the repositories of knowledge in these
organizations as:
Table
1: Comparison of Manufacturing & Service Organizations
Member-Tool-Task
Relationship |
Human Resource Management |
Production |
|
Finance and Accounts |
Supply Chain Management |
|
Administration |
Quality Control |
|
Marketing and Sales |
Packing and Packaging |
|
Training and Development |
Delivery |
|
Stores |
After Sales Technical
support |
|
Customer Services |
Trouble Shooting |
|
Documentation |
Data Base Management |
|
|
Maintenance |
Service Organization |
Human Resource Management |
Data Base Management |
Member-Task, Member-Member
Relationship |
Finance and Accounts |
Maintenance |
|
Administration |
|
|
Marketing
and Sales |
|
|
Training
and Development |
|
|
Customer
Services |
|
|
Documentation |
|
Table
2: Organization & Knowledge Type
Organization Type |
Organization Type |
Manufacturing |
Services |
Knowledge
Area |
Knowledge
Area |
Production/Manufacturing |
Training & Development |
Knowledge
Type |
Knowledge
Type |
Machines |
Training Trends |
Process of Production |
New Courses Development |
Trouble Shooting |
Consumer Behavior |
Safety Procedures |
Customer Relationship |
Floor Lay out |
Impression Management |
Raw Materials |
Personal Effectiveness |
Time and Motion Framework |
Self Academic Up-gradation |
Job Description |
|
It would be a challenging task to
define and measure knowledge, especially at intra-organizational level of
analysis as (Hargadon, 2002) most of the time, Researchers focus upon the
cognitions of organizational members (McGrath, 2001; Huff, 2002) to ascertain organizational
knowledge. According to the framework of McGrath and Argote, (Argote L., 1993)
knowledge is embedded in the three basic elements of organizations—members,
tools, and tasks—and the various sub-networks formed by combining or crossing
the basic elements. As described earlier that human repositories are the most
significant one that not only store knowledge but by the passage of time revise
it and incorporate it with required and due changes and amendments. Intellectual
capital (IC), the knowledge assets, has become one of the most-sought after
business management subjects; it correspondingly regulates success or failure
of modern enterprises. Furthermore, many researchers regard intellectual
capital as an asset that generates a company’s modest advantage and productive
value (Dong et al, 2010). It must be kept in mind that knowledge retention is
fundamentally focusing upon those specific areas of knowledge that is at risk
of departure and loss (Holsapple, 2002; Snyder, 2000; Snyder C. &., 1998)
and the core of intra-organizational learning is to have this knowledge
codified pro-actively before it is wasted or hand washed. Floating knowledge
repositores are even stronger in an organization and members joining new groups
and coming back to their mother groups leaves a knowledge gap and this gap is
to be filled through continuous knowledge upgradation keeping corresponding
memebers on board.
Problems
and Significant Factors affecting knowledge RETENTION process
1. Organization’s
structures and working systems are necessary to be taken into close
consideration as these two vary from organization to organization (Lam, 1997)
2. Implications
on Human Resource Management practices to knowledge transfer and expertise
retention in case of tacit knowledge (Fish, 2000)
3. The
flow of human capital and organization’s physical expansion and amount of new knowledge production (Madsen, 2002)
4. Develop
a clear relation, balance and harmony among knowledge based resources,
activities and return on investment (ROI) (McManus, 2003)
5.
Knowledge
Transfer
Movement of members between groups
is a fundamental way of intra-organizational knowledge transfer (Rothwell,
1978; Allen, 1977), studies show that sub units posses implicit (specialized)
knowledge and their interaction provides ample opportunity in transfering this
knowledge from one unit to another (Huber, 1991), inter-unit link and network
enables unites to learn from one another and paves the way towards accessing
required knowledge (Hansen M. T., 1999) as this networking establishes a shared
social context which links different units to one another (Gresov, 1993) and
their linkage dilutes the self-centric perception and reduces the notion of
individuality and swift knowledge transfer starts taking place that leads to organizational
learning and this learning network difuses the hindrane of conventional
hierarchicahl structure.
All the organizational units are
interlinked with one another being the part of an organization but their active
part, place and prminance in overall processing captiones their abilities to
acquire and absorb new knowledge, rather acquire new knowledge from external
sources and transfer it accordingly to other units (Tsai, 2001), this units
enjoys central position and due to its central positioning it emits and absorb
knowledge at the same time.
This positioning often creates an
imbalance in the process of knowledge transfer as the central unit needs
specific resources for gaining external knowledge and innovativeness but this
new knowledge cannot be disseminated to other units if proper relationship is
not there and unevenness of different
units hamper the desired level needed to accept new knowledge (Szulanski, 1996). It is for sure that central
unit(s) in an organization bring(s) innvoation, new knowledge and ideas into organization
and become(s) starmark for other
units; since that, because of their unique positioning, there are ample chances
to come across new knowledge areas and by developing a socialized network
intra-organizaitonal knowledge ransfer can generate more economic value and
strengths (Coleman J. S., 1990) on lasting basis.
The
corresponding relationship among groups appear in two different facets as routine-task relationship and project-task relationship; in routine-task relationship, the intra-organizational
social networking is beneficial as it allows memebers to share and transfer knowledge
easily to one another on individual and group basis (Leavitt, 1951) but, on the
other hand the project-task relationship
seems intense and rapid and opens an opportunity for involved group memebers
towards innovation and new knowledge generation while this knowledge transfer
canot take place in a centralized manner, as this knowledge is experiential in
nature and every involved member passes through certain process, right from the
project commencement till termination and this knowledge transfer process takes
place in a de-centralized manner as specialized knowledge is the matter of
concern here (Heise, 1951), organization and network
level qualifications differentially impact organizational
knowledge transfer (Raymond Van Wijk, 2008) and member-member communication is more
concerned in this case (Andreas Schotter, 2009).
Collective
capability of an organization has been emphasized so much so far, but, the
notion of individuality is even a matter or related concern as discussed above,
the core reason is that when we talk of implicit
knowledge then collectivism has no place here and specialized knowledge
rests always within an individual, that is why intra-organizational knowledge
transfer needs to give attention to individuals (Grant, 1996), individual uniformity
(Felin, 2007) and individual behavior (Gupta, 1991), in another study it was
focussed that individual motivation, capability and opportunity are the key considerable
factors (Argote , 2003) in intra-organizational knowledge transfer process and
in the case of implicit knowledge it is something must be comprehended at the
first place. In addition to it, the prioir experience and gained knowledge also
affects the knowledge transfer process when we talk of individual; the
experience gained in a task generates new knowledge (Cohen, 1990) and this
knowledge helps individual in preforming same or similar task with more
efficeincy and precision as it relates basically to member-task relationship.
As discussed
earlier similarity in units helps the knowledge trasfer process (Darr, 2000)
within an organization, as compared to diss-similar groups as both the group
memebers passes through certain or same experiences in different context and
conditions and this similarity of repeated experience enables them to learn
form one another experiences.
Problems
and Significant Factors affecting knowledge TRANSFER process
6.
Conclusion
Intra-Organizational
knowledge management has become a subject of sheer importance and increasing
competitiveness, operating cost issues, mergers, uncertainities, emerging risk
factors have made it even more core, central and significant. The commodity of
kings in this 21st century is not land, capital or assets but
knowledge and the fast track progress pace can only be ascertained if knowledge
generation, codification, retention and transfer is undertaken in a very well
knitted, documented and systematized manner.
Existing
issues and questions
Knowledge is
recognized as an initial and critical source of power that derives an organization
and appears rare in the general working envronment (Hackney, 2005) so should
the process of knowledge transfer be kept secret (Desouza, 2005) from
shareholders, all employees etc., it difuses the level of optimism in knowledge
generation and trnasfer process.
A sense of
competition among different sub units has become a major challenge in managing
intra-organizational knowledge and its trasnfer (Kogut B. a., 1993), especially
when a large organization possesses sub units in different locations with
unique strategic distinctiveness and roles.
For the
better utility and usage of knowledge (Drucker P. , 1993), the process of
categorization of knowledge is extremely important in order to understand the
capability and operationalization of it, while most of the companies are not
functionaly categorizing knowledge and it derails the codification process at
intra-organizational knowledge manageemnt level.
The process
of extracting knowledge from the knowledge workers (Kreiner, 2002) is
indipensible when we discuss tacit knowledge but the documented system of
collecting this knowledge is in its very initial phases that pictures the
knowledge loss.
Refrences
A KANE, L. A. (2005). Knowledge transfer between groups via
personnel rotation: Effects of social identity and knowledge quality. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes Volume: 96, Issue: 1, 56-71.
ABBOTT, J. a. (1992). Assessing the Appropriateness of
Self-Managed Learning. Journal of Management Development, Vol. 11, no. 1,
50-60.
ADDLESON, M. (1996). Resolving the spirit and substance of
organizational learning. Special issue of Journal of Organizational Change
Management .
ADLER, P. S. (1990). Shared learning. Management Science,
Vol 36, No. 8, 938-57.
ADLER, P. S. (1993). Designed for Learning: A tale of two
auto plants. Sloan Management Review, Spring, 85-94.
AGOR, H. (1996). Brain skill management. Review of Public
Personnel Administration, Vol. 16, No. 3, 14-22.
ALAVI, M. (1999). Knowledge Management and KNowledge
Management Systems. Journal of AIS, vol 1, no. 1.
ALLEN, T. J. (1977). Managing the Flow of Technology:
Technology Transfer and The Dissemination of Technological witin R & D
Organizations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
ANDERSON, N., ONES, D., & SINANGIL, H. &. (2002).
Personnel psychology. In Handbook of industrial, work and organizational
psychology, Volume 1. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Ltd.
ANDREAS SCHOTTER, N. B. (2009). Intra-organizational
knowledge exchange: An examination of reverse capability transfer in
multinational corporations. Journal of Intellectual Capital Volume: 10,
Issue: 1, 149-164.
ANDREW, C., INKPEN, E. W. (2005). Social capital, networks,
and knowledge transfer. Academy of Management Review Volume: 30, Issue: 1,
146-165.
ANTOSZKIEWICZ, J. D. (1992). Brainstorming—Experiences from
two thousand teams. Organization Development Journal,, 33–38.
ARGOTE, L. &. (1993). Group processes in organizations:
Continuity and change. International Review of Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, 8,, 333–389.
ARGOTE, L. &. (2000). Repositories of knowledge about
productivity and timeliness in franchise organizations:Individual structure and
technological, in G Dosi, R.Nelson & S. Winter (eds), Nature and Dynamics
of Organizational Capabilities. Oxford: Oxford Univesity press.
ARGOTE, L. B. (2003). Introduction to the special issue on
managing knowledge in organizations: Creating, retaining, and transferring
knowledge. Management Sci. 49(4), v-viii.
ARGYRIS, C. &. (1978). Organizational Learning.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
ARGYRIS, C. a. (1996). Organisational learning II: Theory,
method and practice. Reading, Mass: Addison Wesley.
ARMSTRONG, M. (2000). The name has changed but has the game
remained the same? Employee Relations, Vol. 22 No. 6,, 576-89.
ASHBY, W. (1956). An Introduction to Cybernetics. Part
Two: Variety. London: Methuen.
B. ANCORI, A. B. (2000). The economics of knowledge: the
debate about codification and tacit knowledge. Cambridge Journal of
Economics 9 (2), 255-287.
B. ANCORI, A. B. (2000). The economics of knowledge: the
debate about codification and tacit knowledge. Cambridge Journal of
Economics 9 (2), 255-287.
BACDAYAN, M. D. (1994). Organizational Routines Are Stored as
Procedural Memory: Evidence from a Laboratory Study. Organization
Science1994 vol. 5 no. 4.
BARROWS, H. (1988). The Tutorial Process. Springfield,
Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press.
BERRY, D. &. (1984). On the relatiojship between task
performance and associated verbalizable knowledge. The Quarterly Journal of
Experimental Psychology (36 A), 209-31.
BHTT, G. D. (2000). Information dynamics, learning and knowledge
creation in organizations. The Learning Organisation: vol 1 issue 2,
89-99.
BOLAND Jr., R. J. (1995). Perspective Making and Perspective
Taking in Communities of Knowing. Organization Science, vol. 6, no. 4,
350-372.
BURT, R. S. (1992). Structural Holes: The Social Structure
of Competition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
CAGAN, J. &. (2002). Creating breakthrough products:
Innovation from product planning to program approval. Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
CAMPBELL, J. P. (1990). Modeling the performance prediction
problem in industrial and organizational psychology. In Handbook of
Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 687-732). Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.
CARR, N. (2003). IT doesn’t matter. Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 81 No. 5, 41-9.
CASSI, S. B. (2007). Re-Inventing the Wheel: Knowledge
Integration in Fast-changing Environments. KITeS Working Papers 209,
Universita' Bocconi, Milano, Italy.
CHOO, C. W. (1998). The Knowing Organization: How
Organizations Use Information to Construct Meaning, Create Knowledge, and Make
Decisions. New York: Oxford University Press.
CHRISTINE, W., SOO, D. M. (2002). The Process of Knowledge
Creation in Organizations. SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=376080 or
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.376080.
COHEN, W. D. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective
on learning and innovation. Administrative Sciences Quarterly 35,
128–152.
COLEMAN, J. (1988). Social Capital in Creation of Human
Capital. The American Journal of Sociology 94, 95-120.
COLEMAN, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
COOK, S. &. (1999). Bridging Epistemologies: The
Generative Dance between Organizational Knowledge and Organizational Knowing. Organization
Science, (10:4), 381-400.
COX, T. L. (1991). Effects of ethnic group cultural
differences on cooperative and competitive behavior on a group task. Academy
of Management Journal, 34, 827-847.
DANIEL HENNEKE, C. L. (2007). Interdisciplinary Heterogeneity
as a Catalyst for Product Innovativeness of Entrepreneurial Teams. Creativity
and Innovation Management Vol: 16, Issue: 2, 121–132.
DARR, E. D. (2000). An investigation of dimensions of
knowledge Transfer. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
(82), 28-44.
DATTA, P. (2010). From Knowledge Codification To Application:
An Agent Perspective. Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, Vol. 11, No.
4.
DAVENPORT, T. H. (1998). Working knowledge: How
organizations manage what they know. . Boston, Mass: Harvard Business
School Press.
DAVENPORT, T. P. (1998). Working Knowledge: How
Organizations Manage What They Know. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School
Press.
DENISE, J., MCMANUS, L. T. (2003). Assessing the Business
Value of knowledge retention projects: Result of four case studies. Wake
Forest University Publications, 1-7.
DESOUZA, K. a. (2005). Securing knowledge in organizations:
lessons from the defence and intelligence sectors. International Journal of
Information Management 25(1), 85–98.
DISTERER, G. (2001). Individual and social barriers to
knowledge transfer. Proceedings of the 34th Annual Hawaii International
Conference .
DODGSON, M. (1991). Technology, learning, technology strategy
and competitive pressures. British Journal of Management, 2/3, 132-149.
DRUCKER, P. (1993). The Ecological Vision: Reflections on
the American Condition. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
DRUCKER, P. (2002). The Effective Executive. New
York.: Harper Business.
E. RULLANI, B. D. (1990). Management e le Macchine. Mulino.
EASTERBY-SMITH, M. B. (1999). Organizational Learning and
the Learning Organization. London: Sage Publications.
EISENHARDT, K. M. (1995). Accelerating adaptive processes:
product innovation in the global computer industry. Administrative Science
Quarterly , 40, 84-110.
EVENSEN, D. A. (2000). Problem-Based Learning: A Research
Perspective on Learning Interactions. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
FAHEY, L. A. (1998). The eleven deadliest sins of knowledge
management. California Management Review 40(3):, 265-276.
FELIN, T. W. (2007). The knowledge-based view, nested
heterogeneity, and new value creation:Philosophical considerations on the locus
of knowledge. Acad. of Management Rev. 32(1), 195-218.
FIOL, C. &. (1985). Organizational Learning. Acadamy of
Management Review, 10:4, 803-813.
FISH, S. B. (2000). The transfer of knowledge and the
retention of expertise: the continuing need for global assignments. Journal
of Knowledge Management Vol. 4 Iss: 2, 125 - 137.
FREY, M. O. (2000). Motivation, Knowledge Transfer and
Organizational forms. Organization Science: vol 11, issue 5, 538-550.
GALEGHER, J. K. (1990). Intellectual teamwork: Social and
technologica lbases for cooperative work. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
GRANT, R. (1996). Grant, R. 1996. Toward a knowledge-based
theory of the firm. Strategic Management J. 17 109-122. Strategic Management
J. 17 , 109-122.
GRENOVETTER, M. (1973). The Strength of weak Ties. The
American Journal of Sociology 78(6), 1360-1380.
GRESOV, C. &. (1993). The context of interunit influence
attempts. Administrative Science Quarterly 38, 252-276.
GUPTA, A. A. (1991). Knowledge Flows and the Structure of
Control within Multinational Corporations. Academy of Management Review,
18(4), 768-792.
HACKNEY, R. D. (2005). Cooperation or competition: Knowledge
sharing processes in interorganisational networks. In Second international
conference on knowledge management. Charlotte, North Carolina.
HAMBRICK DC, C. S.-J. (1996). The influence of TMT
heterogeneity on firm’s competitive moves. Administrative Sciences Quarterly
41, 659-684.
HANSEN, M. (1996). Knowledge Integration in Organizations. Ph.D.
Dissertation,Graduate School of Business, Stanford University, 2.
HANSEN, M. T. (1999). The search-transfer problem: The role
of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organizational subunits. Administrative
Science Quarterly 44, 82-111.
HARGADON, A. F. (2002). Action and possibility: Reconciling
duel perspectives of knowledge in organizations. Organ. Science. 13(3),
290-300.
HARTNESS, J. (1912). The Human Factor in Works Management.
New York and London: McGraw-Hill.
HASTIE, R. P. (1984). Social Memory. In Handbook of Social
Cognition (pp. 151-212). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
HEISE, G. A. (1951). Problem-solving by small groups using
various communications nets. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, (46),
327-351.
HOLSAPPLE, C. A. (2002). Knowledge Management: A
Three-Fold Framework.
HUBER, G. P. (1991). Organizational learning: The
contributing Processes and the Literature. Organization Science: 2, 88-125.
HUFF, A. S. (2002). Mapping strategic knowledge.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
ITIN, C. M. (1999). Reasserting the Philosophy of
Experiential Education as a Vehicle for Change in the 21st Century. The
Journal of Experiential Education:22(2), 91-98.
JAANA WOICESHYN, L. F. (2008). Value creation in
knowledge-based firms: Aligning problems and resources. Academy Of
Management Perspectives Volume: 22, Issue: 2, 85-99.
JACKSON, K. A. (1989). Top management and innovations in
banking: Does the composition of the top team make a difference? Strategic
Management Journal Volume 10, Issue S1, 107–124.
JEHN, K. N. (1999). Why differences make a difference: A
field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in work groups. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 44, 741-763.
JOHNSON, M. H. (1987). Human Learning and Memory. Psycholoy
(Annual review): 38, 631-68.
KIRCHMEYER, C. &. (1992). Multicultural groups: Their
performance and reactions with construcitve conflicts. Group &
Organization Management, 17, 153-170.
KOGUT, B. &. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative
capabilities and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3, 3,
383-397.
KOGUT, B. a. (1993). Knowledge of the firm and the
evolutionary theory of the multinational corporation. Journal of
International Business Studies, 34(6),, 516-529.
KOPPES, L. (2007). Historical perspectives in industrial
and organizational psychology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
KOZLOWSKI, S. &. (2003). Work groups and teams in
organizations. In Handbook of Psychology (12) (pp. 333–75).
KREINER, K. (2002). Tacit knowledge management: the role of
Artifacts. Journal ofKnowledge Management, 6(2), 112 – 123.
KRISTINA B. DAHLIN, L. R. (2005). Team diversity and
information use. 3.
LAM, A. ( 1997). Embedded Firms, Embedded Knowledge: Problems
of Collaboration and Knowledge Transfer in Global Cooperative Ventures. Organization
Studies vol. 18 no. 6 , 973-996 .
LATHAM, G. &. (2005). Work motivation theory and research
at the dawn of the twenty-first century. Annual Review of Psychology, 56,
485–516.
LEAVITT, H. J. (1951). Some effects of certain communication
patterns on group performance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
(46), 38-50.
LEONARD, D. S. (1998). The role of tacit knowledge in group
innovation. California Management Review, Vol. 40 No.3, 112-32.
LEVITT, B. a. (1988). Organizational learning. Annual
Review of Sociology (14), 319-40.
LOCKE, E. &. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task
performance. . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
LUNDH-SNIS, C. S. (2010). Innovation through knowledge
codification. Journal of Information Technology, 83-97.
LUSHAN PAN, Z.-M. W. (2010). Knowledge transfer via personnel
mobility: The effect of knowledge about the distribution of information. Social
Behavior and Personality Volume: 38, Issue: 10, 1391-1400.
LYNESS, K. &. (1997). Above the glass ceiling? A
comparison of matched samples. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82,
359-375.
MARCH, J. (1991). Explorations and Exploitation in
organizational learning. Organization Science 2.
MARY, M., CROSSAN, H. W. (1999). An Organizational Learning
Framework: From Intuition to Institution. The Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 24, No. 3, 522-537.
MCGRATH, R. (2001). Exploratory learning, innovative capacity
and managerial oversight. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 118-141.
MIKE PEDLER, J. B. (1991). The Learning Company: a
Strategy for Sustainable Developmen. McGraw-Hill.
MILES R. E., S. C. (1986). Organizations: New Concepts for
New Forms. California Management Review, 28, 62-73.
MILLIKEN, F. &. (1996). Searching for common threads:
Understanding the multiple effects of diversity in organizational groups. Academy
of Management Review, 21, , 402-433.
MITCHELL, T. D. (2003). Motivation:. In Handbook of
Psychology, Vol. 12. NewYork.
MOLANI, M. B. (2003). The Richness of Diversity in Knowledge
Creation:An Interdisciplinary Overview. Journal of Universal Computer
Science, vol. 9, no. 6.
MULLEN, B. J. (1991). Productivity loss in brainstorming
groups: A meta analytic Integration. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 12,
3–23.
NONAKA I., T. H. (1995). The Knowledge Creating Company.
New york: Oxford University Press.
O'CONNOR, M. (2006). A review of factors affecting individual
performance in team environments: Theories and implications for library
management. Library Management, Vol. 27 Iss: 3, 135 - 143.
OFFERMAN, L. &. (1990). Organizations of the future:
Changes and challenges. American Psychologist, 45,, 95-108.
O'REILLY, C. W. (1997). Group demography and innovation:
Does diversity help? Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
PETTIGREW, A. a. (1991). Managing Change for Competitive
Success. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
PFAU, M. L. (2005). Developing Diversity: Lessons from Top
Teams. Strategy+Business Issue 41.
PFEFFER, J. S. (1999). Knowing ‘what’ to do is not enough:
turning knowledge into action. California Management Review, Vol. 42 No.1,
85.
PORTER, K. D. (1985). When Friends Leave: A Structural
Analysis of Relationship between turnovers and Stayers' attitude. Administrative
Sciences Quarterly 30(2), 242-261.
PRANGE, C. (1999). Organizational learning – desperately
seeking theory? London: Sage Publications.
RAYBAUT, N. L. (2004). Knowledge Creation Facing Hierarchy:
the Dynamics of groups inside the Firm. Journal of Artificial Societies and
Social Simulation vol. 7, no. 2.
RAYMOND VAN WIJK, J. J. (2008). Inter- and
Intra-Organizational Knowledge Transfer: A Meta-Analytic Review and Assessment
of its Antecedents and Consequences. Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 45,
Issue 4, 830-853.
RICHARD CHASE, F. R. (2001). Operations Management for
Competitive Advantage,. ISBN 0072506369.
RIORDAN, C. (2001). Relational demography within groups:
Past developments, contradictions, and new directions.
ROBERTSON, J. (2008). Uniting people and ideas at Perkins
Eastman. Knowledge Management Review, Vol. 10 No.6, 10-13.
ROBIN COWAN, P. A. (2000). The Explicit Economics of
Knowledge: Codifcation and Tacitness. Industrial and Corporate Change, 9 (2),
211-253.
ROTHWELL, R. (1978). Some problems of technology transfer
into industry: Examples from Textile Machinery Sector. IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management, (EM-25), 15, 20.
RUGGLES, R. (1998). The state of the notion: Knowledge
management in practice. California Management Review 40(3):, 80-89.
RUGGLES, R. L. (1997). Tools for knowledge management: An
introduction In: R. Ruggles (ed.). Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.
SALAS, E., & STAGL, K. &. (2004). 25 years of team
effectiveness in organizations. International Review of Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 19 , 47–91.
SCARBROUGH, H. J. (1999). Knowledge Management: A Literature
Review Issues in People Management. Institute of Personnel and Decelopment.
SCHMIDT, F. &. (1998). The validity and utility of
selection methods in personnel psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 124,
262–74.
SENGE, P. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art &
Practice of the Learning Organization. London: Random House.
SENGE, P. (1994). The fifth discipline: The art and
practice of the learning organization. New York: Currency Doubleday.
SERRAT, M. O. (2009). Disseminating KNowledge Products. Knowledge
Solutions:43.
SIMON, H. (1982). Programs as factors of production", in
Models of Bounded Rationality. Behavioral Economics and Business
Organization, vol.2.
SNYDER, C. &. (1998). The process of knowledge
harvesting: The key to knowledge management. Business Information
Management: Adaptive Futures. 8th Annual BIT Conference, 43 .
SNYDER, C. A. (2000). Corporate memory management: A
knowledge management process model. International Journal of Technology
Management, Spring.
SOONHEE KIM, H. L. (2010). Factors affecting employee
knowledge acquisition and application capabilities. Asia-Pacific Journal of
Business Administration, Vol. 2 Iss: 2, 133 - 152.
STRINGER, D. J. (2007). 5 Factors That Affect Your Employee’s
Productivity. National Business Research Institute.
SVEIBY, K. E. (1997). The New Organizational Wealth.
Managing & Measuring Knowledge-Based Assets. San Francisco:
Berret-Koehler Publishers Inc.
SWAN, J. S. (1999a). Knowledge management and
innovation:networks and networking. Journal of Knowledge Management vol. 3,
no. 3,, 262-275.
SZULANSKI, G. (1996). Exploring stickiness: impediments to
the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal
17, 27-43.
T., H. M. (1999). The Search-Transfer Problem: The role of
weak ties in Sharing Knowledge across organizaiton subunits. dministrative
Sciences Quarterly 44(1), 82-111.
TAMMY L., MADSEN, E. M. (2002). The dynamics of knowledge
flows: human capital mobility, knowledge retention and change. Journal of
Knowledge Management, Vol. 6 Iss: 2, 164 - 176.
TSAI, W. (2001). Knowledge Transfer in Inraorganizational
Networks: Effect of Network Position and Absorptive Capacity on Business Unit
Innovation and Performance. Academy of Management Journal vol:44, issue 8,
996-1004.
TSAI, W. (2001). Knowledge Transfer in Intraorganizational
Networks: Effects of Network Position and Absorptive Capacity on Business Unit
Innovation and Performance. The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44, No.
5, 996-1004.
VAN VIANEN, A. &. (2001). Personality in teams: Its
relationship to social cohesion, task cohesion, and team performance. European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology10(2), 97–120.
BORMAN, W.C., D. I. (2003). Motivation. In Industrial
Organizational Psychology, ed. W.C. (pp. 225–54). New York: Wiley.
WENGER, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning,
meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
WENGER, E. C. (2000). Communities of practice: The
organizational frontier. Harvard Business Review, 139-145.
WILLIAMS, K. Y. (1998). The complexity of diversity: A
review of forty years of Research. Greenwich, CT: JAI.
WILSON, J. M. (1995). An historical perspective on Operations
Management. Production and Inventory Management Journal.
YANG, P. B.-C. (2000). Idea Generation in Groups:A Basis for
Creativity in Organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
ProcessesVol. 82, No. 1,, 76–87.
ZOLLO, H. S. (1998). The Impact of Knowledge Codification,
Experience Trajectories and Integration Strategies on the Performance of
Corporate Acquisitions. THE WHARTON FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS CENTER : working
paper series.