Adopt the viewpoint of a U.S. citizen and recall the contribution of knowledge exchanges (or lack thereof) to the major events of the last 6 years: incorrect estimates of the Al-Qaeda threat prior to the 9/11 attacks, failing to apprehend the culprit behind the anthrax events of 2001, inadequate response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Repeat investigations and comprehensive certifications by the U.S. General Accounting Office all report the same theme: more than sufficient knowledge existed to mitigate these events, but the knowledge was in a highly distributed and fragmented form across multiple departments, agencies, and the White House (Kean and Hamilton 2004; U.S. GAO 2003, 2004a, 2004b, 2006a, 2006b).


General Account Knowledge Exchange Complex Adaptive System Social Dilemma Federal Emergency Management Agency 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Alavi, M., and Leidner, D. “Review: Knowledge Management and Knowledge Management Systems: Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues,” MIS Quarterly (25:1), 2001, pp. 107–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, P. “Complexity Theory and Organization Science,” Organization Science (10:3), 1999, pp. 216–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Argote, L., and Ingram, P. “Knowledge Transfer: A Basis for Competitive Advantage in Firms,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes (82:1), 2000, pp. 150–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bray, D. “Exploration, Exploitation, and Knowledge Management Strategies in Multi-Tier Hierarchical Organizations Experiencing Environmental Turbulence,” in D. Sallach and M. Prietula (eds.), North American Association for Computational Social and Organizational Sciences, Notre Dame, IN, June 22–23, 2006.Google Scholar
  5. Carley, K., and Lin, Z. “A Theoretical Study of Organizational Performance Under Information Distortion,” Management Science (43:7), 1997, pp. 976–997.MATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Clippinger, J. (ed.). The Biology of Business: Decoding the Natural Laws of Enterprise, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2004.Google Scholar
  7. Cummings, J. “Work Groups, Structural Diversity, and Knowledge Sharing in a Global Organization,” Management Science (50:3), 2004, pp. 352–364.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. Daft, R., and Weick, K. “Toward a Model of Organizations as Interpretation Systems,” Academy of Management Review (9:2), 1984, pp. 284–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dawes, R., Orbell, J., Simmons, R., and Van De Kragt, A. “Organizing Groups for Collective Action,” American Political Science Review (80:4), 1986, pp. 1171–1185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Frey, S., and Iris, B. “Cooperation, Communication and Communitarianism: An Experimental Approach,” Journal of Political Philosophy (4:4), 1996, pp. 322–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Galbraith, J. “Designing the Innovating Organization,” Organizational Dynamics (10:3), 1982, pp. 4–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Heckscher, C., and Donnellson, A. (eds). The Post-Bureaucratic Organization: New Perspectives on Organizational Change, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 1994.Google Scholar
  13. Kling, R. “Cooperation, Coordination and Control in Computer-Supported Work,” Communications of the ACM (34:12), 1991, pp. 83–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kean, T., and Hamilton, L. The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, Washington, DC: U.S. General Printing Office, 2004.Google Scholar
  15. Kerr, R., Wolfe, T., Donegan, R., and Pappas, A. “A Holistic Vision for the Analytic Unit,” Studies in Intelligence (50:2), 2006, pp. 47–55.Google Scholar
  16. Kerr, R., Wolfe, T., Donegan, R., and Pappas, A. “Issues for the US Intelligence Community,” Studies in Intelligence (49:3), 2005, pp. 47–54.Google Scholar
  17. Nonaka, I. “A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation,” Organizational Science (5:1), 1994, pp. 14–37.Google Scholar
  18. Orbell, J., and Dawes, R. “A ‘Cognitive Miser’ Theory of Cooperators’ Advantage,” American Political Science Review (85:2), 1991, pp. 515–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ostrom, E., Dietz, T., Dolsak, N., Stern P., Stonich, S., and Weber, E. (eds.). The Drama of the Commons, Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2002.Google Scholar
  20. Singh, J. “Collaborative Networks as Determinants of Knowledge Diffusion Patterns,” Management Science (51:5), 2005, pp. 756–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. U.S. General Accounting Office. Department of Homeland Security: Formidable Information and Technology Management Challenge Requires Institutional Approach, GAO-04-702, 2004a.Google Scholar
  22. U.S. General Accounting Office. Katrina: GAO’s Preliminary Observations Regarding Preparedness, Response, and Recovery, GAO-06-442T, 2006a.Google Scholar
  23. U.S. General Accounting Office. More Comprehensive National Strategy Needed to Help Achieve U.S. Goals and Overcome Challenges, GAO-06-953T, 2006b.Google Scholar
  24. U.S. General Accounting Office. Public Health Response to Anthrax Incidents of 2001, GAO-04-152, 2003.Google Scholar
  25. U.S. General Accounting Office. 9/11 Commission Report: Reorganization, Transformation, and Information Sharing, GAO-04-1033T, 2004b.Google Scholar
  26. U.S. National Intelligence Council. Global Trends 2015: A Dialogue About the Future with Nongovernment Experts, NIC 2000-02, 2000.Google Scholar
  27. U.S. National Intelligence Council. SARS: Down But Still a Threat, NIC ICA 2003-09, 2003.Google Scholar
  28. Wade-Benzoni, K., Tenbrunsel, A., and Mazerman, M. “Egocentric Interpretations of Fairness in Asymmetric, Environmental Social Dilemmas: Explaining Harvesting Behavior and the Role of Communication,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes (67:2), 1996, pp. 111–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Federation for Information Processing 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Bray
    • 1
  1. 1.Emory UniversityAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations