Knowledge Creation

  • Asbjørn Rolstadås
  • Bjørnar Henriksen
  • David O’Sullivan
Chapter

Abstract

Knowledge production and capture includes all of the processes involved in the acquisition and development of knowledge. Knowledge integration/codification involves the conversion of knowledge into accessible and applicable formats. Knowledge transfer/use includes the movement of knowledge from its point of generation or codified form to the point of use. One of the reasons that knowledge is such a difficult concept is because this process is systemic and often discontinuous. Many cycles are occurring concurrently in businesses. These cycles feed on each other. Knowledge interacts with information to increase the space of possibilities and provide new information, which can then facilitate generation of even more new knowledge. The ability to share knowledge across national borders is an important reason behind the formation of multinational corporations. Improving knowledge creation is to a large extent a question of enabling these processes and removing barriers for sharing and transferring knowledge. Nonaka and Takeuchi have developed a model for organizational knowledge creation that emphasizes tacit and explicit knowledge in different modes. Knowledge transfer is the basis for most development projects and subsequent mobilization of tacit knowledge.

Keywords

Marketing 

References

  1. 1.
    Nonaka I, von Krogh G (2009) Tacit knowledge and knowledge conversion: controversy and advancement in organizational knowledge creation theory. Organ Sci 20(3):635–652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gupta AK, Govindarajan V (2000) Knowledge flows within multinational corporations. Strateg Manag J 21(4):473–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    McCann P, Mudambi R (2005) Analytical differences in the economics of geography: the case of the multinational firm. Environ Plann A 37(10):1857–1876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mudambi R, Navarra P (2004) Is knowledge power? Knowledge flows, subsidiary power and rent-seeking within MNEs. J Int Bus Stud 35(5):385–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Szulanski G (1996) Exploring internal stickiness: impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strateg Manage J 17(Winter Special Issue):27–43Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Forsgren M (1997) The advantage paradox of the multi-national corporation. In: Bjorkman I, Forsgren M (eds) The nature of the international firm: nordic contributions to international business research. Copenhagen DK, Copenhagen Business School Press, pp 69–85Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Allen T (1977) Managing the flow of technology: technology transfer and the dissemination of technological information within the R&D organization. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cohen WM, Levinthal DA (1990) Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Adm Sci Q 35(1):128–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bjorkman I, Barner-Rasmussen W, Li L (2004) Managing knowledge transfer in MNCS: the impact of headquarters control mechanisms. J Int Bus Stud 35:443–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Forsgren M, Johansson J, Sharma D (2000) Development of MNC centres of excellence. In: Holm U, Pedersen T (eds) The emergence and impact of MNC centres of excellence. Macmillan, London, pp 45–67Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Szulanski G (2003) Sticky knowledge: barriers to knowing in the firm. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nonaka I, Takeuchi H (1995) The knowledge creating company. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Reger G, Gerybadze A (1997) New coordination mechanisms and flexible lateral organization within transnational corporations—Discussion paper on international management and innovation, Discussion-paper 97-04, Stuttgart: Hohenheim University. Available at https://www.uni-hohenheim.de/ innovation/downloads-frei/discussion_papers/DIMI974.pdf. Accessed Nov 2009
  14. 14.
    Birkinshaw J, Hood N (1998) Multinational subsidiary evolution: capability and charter change in foreign-owned subsidiary companies. Acad Manag Rev 23(4):773–795Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Levitt B, March JG (1988) Organizational learning. Ann Rev Soc 14:319–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zander U, Kogut B (1995) Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation of organizational capabilities: an empirical test. Organ Sci 6(1):76–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hansen MT (1999) The search-transfer problem: the role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Adm Sci Q 4(1):82–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Grant RM (1996) Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments: organizational capability as knowledge integration. Organ Sci 7(4):375–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Spender JC (1996) Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm. Strateg Manage J 17(Winter Special Issue):45–62Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Thompson JD (1967) Organizations in actions: social science bases of administrative theory. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Berger P, Luckman T (1967) The social construction of reality. A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Penguin Press, HarmondsworthGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nonaka I, Konno N, Toyama R (2001) Emergence of “Ba”. A conceptual framework for the continuous and self-transcending process of knowledge creation. In: Nonaka I, Nishiguchi T (eds) Knowledge emergence: social, technical, and evolutionary dimensions of knowledge. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Maskell P, Bathelt H, Malmberg A (2006) Building global knowledge pipelines: the role of temporary clusters. Eur Plann Stud 14(8):997–1013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Røyrvik EA, Bygdås AL (2004) Knowledge hyperstories and context-sensitive knowledge enabling. In: Carlsen A, Klevand R, von Krogh G (eds) Living knowledge. The dynamics of professional service work. Macmillan, Palgrave, pp 184–203 Roth 2007Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 8(3):338–353MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Novák V (1989) Fuzzy sets and their applications. Adam Hilger, BristolMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Henriksen B, Røstad CC (2010) Evaluating and prioritizing projects—Setting targets. The business effect evaluation methodology BEEM. Int J Manag Projects Bus 3(2):275–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Leifer R, McDermott CM, O’Connor GC, Peters LS, Rice M, Veryzer RW (2000) Radical innovation: how mature companies can outsmart upstarts. Harward Business School Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Johnson B (2005) Design ideation: the conceptual sketch in the digital age. Des Stud 26(6):613–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Graham D, Bachmann T (2004) Ideation: the birth and death of ideas. Wiley, NYGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    IMS (2010) 2020 Roadmap on Innovation, Competence Development and Education 15 July 2010Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Stephan KD, Vedaraman S (2005) Globalizing manufacturing engineering education. Technol Soc Mag 24(3):16–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sobek DK (1997) Principles that shape product development systems: A Toyota-Chrysler comparison. PhD Thesis, The University of Michigan, Ann ArborGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kennedy MN (2010) Knowledge based product development—Understanding the true meaning of lean in product development. Presentation at the seminar “Knowledge based development forum 27th–28th Jan, Kongsberg, NorwayGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Asbjørn Rolstadås
    • 1
  • Bjørnar Henriksen
    • 2
  • David O’Sullivan
    • 3
  1. 1. Department of Production and QualityNorwegian University of Science and TechnologyTrondheimNorway
  2. 2.SINTEF Technology and SocietyTrondheimNorway
  3. 3.School of Engineering and InformaticsNational University of IrelandMoycullen Co. GalwayIreland

Personalised recommendations