A resource based view of organizational knowledge management systems

Journal of Knowledge ManagementEmerald Article: A resource-based view of organizational knowledge management systemsPeter Meso, Robert Smith

Article information:

To cite this document: Peter Meso, Robert Smith, (2000),"A resource-based view of organizational knowledge management systems", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 4 Iss: 3 pp. 224 - 234

Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13673270010350020

Downloaded on: 07-12-2012

References: This document contains references to 27 other documents

Citations: This document has been cited by 47 other documents

To copy this document: [email protected]

This document has been downloaded 5858 times since 2005. *

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by UNIVERSITY OF THE ARTS LONDON For Authors: If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service. Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comWith over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

A resource-based viewof organizationalknowledge managementsystems

Peter Meso and

Robert Smith

Introduction

The resource-based view (RBV) of the firm

defines a strategic asset as one that is rare,

valuable, imperfectly imitable and non-

substitutable. An asset should meet all

conditions concurrently to qualify as a strategic

asset (Peteraf, 1993; Michalisn et al., 1997;

Wernerfelt, 1984). With the advent of

knowledge management (KM), intellectual

capital is gaining increasing recognition as the

only true strategic asset (Hamel, 1998). This

has led to a proliferation of organizational

knowledge management systems (OKMS), for

managing intellectual capital. However,

according to the resource-based view, tangible

assets are not strategic because they can be

acquired or imitated. Thus this paper addresses

the question: `̀ Are OKMS strategic assets

within the context of the resource-based view?''

The answer to this question is pertinent in

enabling the firm to determine whether it is

strategically wise to capture and share its

knowledge via an OKMS. Should it be that an

OKMS eliminates the intangibility of tacit

knowledge, it may not be strategically wise to

invest the firm's knowledge in an OKMS.

Doing so would render the otherwise strategic

asset non-strategic, easily acquired or

replicated by competitors, and hence dilute

the sustainable competitive advantage of the

firm. Alternatively, should it be that an

OKMS enables a firm to leverage the strategic

value of its knowledge, it would be advisable

to invest the firm's knowledge in such an

OKMS (Peteraf, 1993; Michalisn et al., 1997;

Wernerfelt, 1984).

The first part of the paper defines strategic

assets, while the second part reviews KM.

The third part defines OKMS, presenting the

common views of such systems and analyzing

how each view influences the strategic value

of the OKMS.

Strategic assets

The resource-based view holds that the

resources a firm holds can determine the

firm's sustainable success in a given market. It

specifies that there are two types of assets,

strategic and non-strategic. Non-strategic

assets do not contribute to the long-term

success of the firm. Sustainable competitive

success results only from strategic assets

(Figure 1). Four conditions jointly define the

The authors

Peter Meso and Robert Smith are both Professors in the

Department of Management and Information Systems,

Kent State University, Kent, Ohio, USA.

Keywords

Knowledge management,

Knowledge management systems, Explicit knowledge,

Tacit knowledge, Competitive advantage,

Organizational learning

Abstract

With the advent of knowledge management, intellectual

capital is gaining increasing recognition as the only true

strategic asset. This has led to a proliferation of

organizational knowledge management systems (OKMS),

for managing intellectual capital. This article addresses

the question: `̀ Are OKMS strategic assets within the

context of the resource-based view?'' Two views of OKMS

emerge ± the technical and the socio-technical view. An

analysis of OKMS from each perspective is presented and

their resultant implications on the competitive position of

the firm explained. The findings indicate that, for a firm to

reap long-term strategic benefit from OKMS, it should

adapt the broader socio-technical view when developing,

implementing and managing its OKMS. This suggests that

firms need to consider not only the technology but also

the organizational infrastructure, the organizational

culture and the people who form the OKMS, and the

knowledge that is to be processed by these OKMS.

Electronic access

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is

available at

http://www.emerald-library.com

224

Journal of Knowledge Management

Volume 4 . Number 3 . 2000 . pp. 224±234

# MCB University Press . ISSN 1367-3270

characteristics of a strategic asset ± valuable,

rare, imperfectly imitable, and non-

substitutable. A resource is valuable if it

allows the firm to exploit the opportunities in

the market or thwart competitive threats. If it

is owned by a very small number of all the

firms in the industry, then it is rare. It is

imperfectly imitable if it can be sustained for

long periods of time without competitors

replicating or acquiring it. Finally, it is non-

substitutable if it has no strategic equivalents.

Because all tangible assets can either be

imitated or acquired, they are not strategic.

Therefore, a further quality for strategic assets

is that they are intangible. The resource-based

view also operates under two assumptions:

that ex-ante conditions to competition exist

and that the ex-post conditions to competition

can be maintained (Wernerfelt, 1984;

Michalisn et al., 1997; Peteraf, 1993).

Knowledge management

KM is the process of capturing the collective

expertise and intelligence in an organization

and using them to foster innovation through

continued organizational learning (Nonaka,

1991; Quinn et al., 1996; Davenport et al.,

1998). According to Nonaka, two types of

knowledge reside in any organization ± tacit

and explicit knowledge. Tacit knowledge

consists of mental models, beliefs and

persuasions of each individual employee that

are so ingrained as to be taken for granted. It

resides within the individual and is difficult to

express in words. Every employee has a

wealth of tacit knowledge deeply rooted in

his/her actions, and his/her commitment to `̀ a

particular craft or profession, a particular

technology, a product market, or the activities

of a work group or team'' (Nonaka, 1991). In

most organizations, tacit knowledge is rarely

shared or communicated. Therefore, it is

often lost when the individual possessing it

leaves the organization. Tacit knowledge can

also be seen as that knowledge which resides

in the culture of the organization (Figure 2).

An example is self-motivated creativity, which

refers to the will, motivation, and adaptability

for success exhibited by employees working

within certain corporate cultures. It is difficult

to identify the precise cause of care-why. But

literature on KM acknowledges that high

levels of care-why significantly enhance the

overall performance of the firm (Davenport et

al., 1998). Other examples include

organizational tacit knowledge, which

comprises such knowledge as causal

ambiguity ± the inexplicable chemistry of

resources that provides sustainable

competitive advantage to a firm (Michalisn et

al., 1997), and cultural tacit, which is the

inexplicable knowledge resident in the

corporate culture (Michalisn et al., 1997).

Explicit knowledge is knowledge that can be

codified. Because it is easily shared and

communicated, most organizations have

Figure 1 Relationship of strategic assets to sustainable competitive advantage

225

View of organizational knowledge management systems

Peter Meso and Robert Smith


Volume 4 . Number 3 . 2000 . 224±234

captured this knowledge in ordered

repositories, systems, or operating

technologies of the firm, thus making it

available to all the members of the

organizations. There are three types of

explicit knowledge resident in any

organization ± cognitive knowledge, advanced

systems skills, and systems understanding

(Figure 2). Cognitive knowledge, also termed

`̀ know-what'', is the `̀ basic mastery of a

discipline that professionals achieve through

extensive training and certification'' (Quinn et

al., 1996). Advanced skills or `̀ know-how''

refer to the `̀ ability to apply rules of a

discipline to complex real-world problems''

(Quinn et al., 1996). Systems understanding,

also termed `̀ know-why'' is the deep

understanding of the web of cause-and-effect

relationships underlying a discipline (Quinn et

al., 1996; Nonaka, 1991).

Organizational learning is the process of

continued innovation through the creation of

new knowledge (Quinn et al., 1996; Nonaka,

1991). It is an ongoing process that takes

place as employees engage in knowledge work

(Davenport et al., 1998). Nonaka (1991)

states that organizational learning emanates

from the iterative process of articulation and

internalization. Articulation occurs when an

employee's tacit knowledge is captured as

explicit knowledge and internalization occurs

when this captured explicit knowledge is then

transformed into another employee's tacit

knowledge. Therefore, organizational

learning occurs at the intersection of tacit and

explicit knowledge during the interaction of

the various employees, departments or teams

in a firm (Nonaka, 1991).

Sustainable competitive advantage results

from innovation. Innovation in turn results

from the creation of new knowledge. New

knowledge is created in the process of

organizational learning. Therefore, KM can

be viewed as the creation of sustainable

competitive advantage through continued

organizational learning (Figure 3). Since the

`̀ value of the intellect increases markedly as

one moves up the intellectual scale from

cognitive knowledge through advanced skills

and systems thinking to self-motivated

creativity'', enhancing intellectual capital

within the firm assures the sustainable

competitive advantage of the firm (Nonaka,

1991; Quinn et al., 1996; Hamel, 1998).

The major goal of KM is to enhance

innovation. In a bid to achieve this goal and to

maximize the benefits that can be derived from

effective KM, many firms are investing heavily

in the development of OKMS aimed at

supporting knowledge work and enhancing

organizational learning (Davenport et al., 1998).

However, there are differences in what firms

perceive an OKMS to be. Such differences have

resulted in two common perceptions of OKMS:

the technical perception; and the socio-technical

perception. Each perception is examined in the

next section. The implications of each

perception on the approaches used to develop

OKMS, and the resultant impact on the

sustainable competitive positions of the firms are

also examined.

Organizational knowledge managementsystems

From the perspective of knowledge work, an

OKMS is a system that provides for the

creation of new knowledge, the assembly of

externally created knowledge, the use of

existing knowledge, and the finding of

knowledge from internal and external sources.

Nonaka's spiral of knowledge creation leads

to the definition of an OKMS as that which

Figure 2 The knowledge matrix

226




Volume 4 . Number 3 . 2000 . 224±234

supports organizational learning by enhancing

the exchange and sharing of tacit and explicit

knowledge (Figure 3). Taking Quinn et al.'s

(1996) definition of intellectual capital, an

OKMS can be seen as that which organizes a

firm's know-what, know-how, and know-why

into explicit knowledge resident in the firm's

databases and operating technologies

(Nonaka, 1991; Quinn et al., 1996;

Davenport et al., 1998; Sviokla, 1996). The

advent of KM has resulted in two

predominant perspectives of what constitutes

an OKMS ± the technical perspective and the

socio-technical perspective. Following are

descriptions and analyses of each.

The technical perspective

This perspective holds that an OKMS is an

advanced assembly of software, and its

associated hardware infrastructure, for

supporting knowledge work and/or

organizational learning through the free

access to and increased sharing of knowledge

(Figure 4). The technology-centered OKMS

in use today are employing one technology or

a combination of ten key technologies: group-

ware, messaging, Web browsers, document

management, search and retrieval, data

mining, visualization, push technology, group

decision support, and intelligent agents. Of

these group-ware and Web browser

technologies are the most prominent

(Hibbard, 1997; Chaffey, 1998).

Group-ware software packages are

advanced decision support systems developed

to enhance collaborative group work, between

geographically dispersed professionals.

Examples of group-ware software products

being marketed as OKMS are Lotus Notes,

Network Delivery Knowledge, and Fulcrum

Knowledge Network. Lotus Notes is the most

widely used. Lotus Notes is a document

database that enables the communication

between colleagues, the collaboration among

teams, and the co-ordination of strategic

business processes within an organization. It

can contain both structured and unstructured

content, thereby surpassing limitations that

relational databases impose on the

organization. Notes uses replication

technology to allow users in diverse locations

to access the same knowledge. It supports

e-mail, pull and push technologies, and work

flow automation. The software also provides

up to four levels of security: authentication,

access control, field-level privacy, and digital

signatures (IBM, 1998; Kurchak Associates,

1998; Fulcrum, 1998; Hibbard, 1997).

Group-ware technologies, including Lotus

Notes are developed by independent software

houses and sold to any willing buyer.

Therefore, they are easily acquired. The

security features found in any group-ware

system do not prevent the imitability of the

knowledge resident in the system. Lotus

Notes, for example, employs RSA public key

encryption technology ± the de facto industry

standard ± to secure the knowledge resident in

its knowledge bases (IBM, 1998). However,

because this security standard is also used by

other organizations in the industry, it is not

proprietary. Mechanisms employed by

Figure 3 How knowledge relates to organizational learning and sustainable competitive advantage

227




Volume 4 . Number 3 . 2000 . 224±234

corporate intelligence agents, industrial

espionage experts, and computer hackers may

enable unauthorized users to circumvent the

security controls and access strategic

corporate knowledge (Crock et al., 1996)

resident in the group-ware's knowledge bases.

Therefore, when viewed solely from a

technological perspective, group-ware

technologies do not satisfy the requirements

of a strategic asset. The strategic value of

group-ware does not result from the quality of

technology used to develop these systems.

Web-based technologies entail employing a

Web browser to access knowledge resources

on the Internet or on intranets that link

geographically dispersed professionals. These

technologies are popular with most

organizations for several reasons. First, they

allow for the in-house development of KM

systems, hence building some proprietary

characteristics into the system. Second, they

allow for the development of a naturally

expanding, flexible and easy to use KM

system. This encourages employees to take

advantage of the system. Third, because it is

very simple to develop Web pages, the

employees themselves do most of the

development of the OKMS. This not only

minimizes the cost of developing the OKMS,

it also enhances employee participation and

commitment to the system. Finally, Web

technologies adapt the natural way of

communication between individuals. They

surpass organizational hierarchies, formal

communication policies, physical barriers,

and social groupings to make available to

everyone knowledge articulated by any other

professional. However, these technologies do

not provide for the development of well-

structured KM systems. Web-based KM

systems are thus difficult to manage, maintain

and evaluate. Such systems do not allow the

organization to keep an accurate inventory of

the intellectual capital it possesses and what

the true value of these assets is (Hibbard,

1997; IBM, 1998; Musciano and Kennedy,

1996).

From a resource-based view, Web

technologies may provide limited strategic

advantages. For example, Web browsers are

not rare ± they are easily acquired. The Web

pages developed by these browsers are easily

imitated. Further, Web-based systems have

substitutes in group-ware, messaging,

document management, push technologies,

intelligent agents, search and retrieval, and

data mining technologies. The strategic value

of Web-based KM systems is thus greatly

diluted. Therefore, taken on their own,

Figure 4 The technical perspective of a knowledge management system

228




Volume 4 . Number 3 . 2000 . 224±234

Web-based technologies do not constitute

strategic assets.

Socio-technical perspective

The socio-technical perspective recognizes

that there is more to OKMS than mere

technology. Under this perspective, OKMS

are seen as being complex combinations of

technology infrastructure, organizational

infrastructure, corporate culture, knowledge,

and people (Figure 5). Carayanis (1998)

concurs with this by stating that:

While information technology can be considered

as a value-adding technological infrastructure,

knowledge management can be viewed as a

socio-technical system of tacit and explicit

business policies and practices. These are

enabled by the strategic integration of

information technology tools, business

processes, and intellectual, human, and social

capital.

Technology infrastructure comprises the

hardware, software, middle-ware and

protocols that allow for the encoding and

electronic exchange of knowledge. Three

types of technology infrastructure are found

in an OKMS: knowledge oriented

technologies, function oriented technologies,

Figure 5 Organizational knowledge infrastructure and its relation to sustainable competitive advantage

229




Volume 4 . Number 3 . 2000 . 224±234

and specialty oriented technologies.

Knowledge oriented technologies such as

group-ware and Web browsers directly

process knowledge work and the sharing of

knowledge within the organization. Function

oriented technologies such as office

automation, robotics and desk-top computing

technologies support operational level

activities such as data processing, production,

and service delivery while collecting the data

that eventually get refined into information

and further into knowledge for use in

organizational learning. Specialty oriented

technologies support highly specialized

functions within the firm. Usually these are

those functions that require high levels of

know-how. Examples of these technologies

include computer-aided design and

manufacture (CAD/CAM) software, and

expert systems software (Davenport et al.,

1998; Hibbard, 1997).

All the technology infrastructure used in

OKMS (including software) is tangible.

Because this technology infrastructure is

largely software-dependent, it is easily

replicated, copied, pirated, reverse-

engineered or cloned, even when protected by

regulatory assets such as copyrights, patents

and licenses. The hardware infrastructure

found in OKMS is largely standard and thus

easily imitated. Therefore, the technology

component of the OKMS is not a strategic

asset (Michalisn et al., 1997; Wernerfelt,

1984; Long, 1994).

The Ford Motor Company is a clear

example of a firm that is re-inventing its

corporate architecture by investing heavily in

technologies for KM systems. It is using KM

systems to redefine the auto manufacturing

industry, gain a competitive stronghold in

emergent electronic markets, and get closer to

its customers. The firm has established the

autoxchange mart ± an information

technology-intensive KM and electronic

commerce system intended to shift the car-

manufacturing model from the conventional

`̀ push'' business model to the emergent

`̀ pull'' model. In the `̀ pull'' model, the

consumer determines the precise

configuration of the car before it is

manufactured. Thus, consumers get highly

customized products while the firm saves

substantial amounts of capital that would

otherwise be tied up in large inventories of

finished products. Further, auto designers,

financiers, marketers, and production

engineers are able to gain insightful

knowledge about the customers, customer

needs, trends in consumer tastes and the

evolution in consumer behavior that allows

them to remain in front of the innovation

curve. Thus by effectively harnessing the

capabilities provided by information

technologies, Ford is attempting to create a

sustainable competitive advantage in the auto

industry (Kerwin, 2000).

Organizational infrastructure refers to the set

of roles and organizational teams whose

members have skills to serve as resources for

individual projects. The way these roles relate to

each other within the context of the

organization's structure defines the

organizational infrastructure. The organizational

infrastructure defines the organization's

management style and philosophy. It

determines how the employees of the firm are

organized into formal and informal teams of

departments; how these teams interact formally

and informally; and the role and goals of each

team and how these relate to the overall

corporate strategy (Davenport et al., 1998).

Organizational infrastructure is intangible.

No two organizational infrastructures are

alike. Well-developed organizational

infrastructure can be a source of sustainable

competitive advantage. This advantage is not

derived from the organization's hierarchy.

Rather it is derived from the dynamic

interaction of the teams and individuals that

make up the hierarchy. Though it may be easy

to replicate or imitate the organization's

hierarchy, it is extremely difficult to replicate

the precise nature of interaction between the

roles and the teams in the hierarchy. The

more advanced the organizational

infrastructure, the greater the economic rents

it will generate for the organization.

Therefore, organizational infrastructure is a

strategic asset (Davenport et al., 1998;

Michalisn et al., 1997).

Federal Express (FedEx) is an example of a

firm that has built an information-technology

intensive global organizational infrastructure

that meets the criteria of a strategic asset. The

organizational infrastructure effectively

connects the internal and external

stakeholders at FedEx to each other in an

online, real-time mode. In this way it allows

FedEx to dynamically exchange knowledge

with its customers, vendors, suppliers and

trade partners while effectively transacting the

firm's core business functions. Further, all

230




Volume 4 . Number 3 . 2000 . 224±234

employees at the firm have instantaneous

access to the knowledge resources resident in

its technologies, databases and operating

procedures. Employees can easily interact

across time zones, political borders, business

divisions, and organizational hierarchy levels

in a real-time online mode, thereby

facilitating instantaneous exchange of

knowledge. While it may be possible to

imitate the technological infrastructure at

FedEx, it is extremely difficult to replicate an

organizational structure equivalent to

FedEx's in complexity, behavior, and

productivity. A case in point is United Parcel

Service (UPS) and Document Handling

Services (DHL) which have OKMS that are

almost as elaborate, global and extensive as

that at FedEx, yet enjoy significantly smaller

market share both globally and domestically

when compared to FedEx (Rao et al., 1999).

General Electric is yet another firm that has

developed a `̀ social architecture'' that enables

it to keep ahead of its competitors in almost

all the markets it serves. The organizational

infrastructure at General Electric has

facilitated the maturing of this social

architecture by allowing a seamless flow of

knowledge across all employees regardless of

their position, authority, or geographical

postings. Hence, suggestions from anyone in

the firm are quickly assessed through a

specific process called `̀ Work out'' (Layne,

2000). While it may be easy to replicate

General Electric's organizational hierarchy,

the fabric that holds its organizational

infrastructure together, thereby facilitating a

productive `̀ social architecture'' and highly

effective knowledge sharing processes such as

`̀ work out'', is extremely difficult to replicate,

imitate or even substitute. In that sense it is

also valuable and rare.

The core of the OKMS is the people. This

component includes all the organization's

stakeholders ± employees, owners, customers,

suppliers and regulators/legislators. However,

employees are the most significant

participants. Employees are the key source of

the intellectual capital acquired and managed

by the OKMS. Intellectual capital is an

intangible asset. It is also rare, valuable, non-

substitutable and difficult to imitate.

Therefore, intellectual capital is a strategic

asset. Further the employees propel the

organizational learning process. They

articulate personal tacit knowledge into the

explicit knowledge resident in the

organization's databases, systems, and

operating technologies. In so doing, they

make personal knowledge available for

corporate use. Further, they tap into the

corporate pool of explicit knowledge,

internalizing it into personal tacit knowledge

that they then use to generate new knowledge.

This new knowledge is then articulated back

into the corporate databases, systems and

operating technologies, further expanding the

corporation's intellectual assets (Quinn et al.,

1996; Nonaka, 1991; Davenport et al., 1998;

Sviokla, 1996; Michalisn et al., 1997).

As individuals, employees do not meet the

requirements for a strategic asset. They easily

transfer from one organization to the next.

Their productivity depends on a complex

combination of factors: motivation, reward,

skill levels, experience, health and even

emotional factors. However, as teams or units

of workers, employees satisfy the conditions

of a strategic asset. The teams formed by the

employees, and the synergies emanating from

these teams, result in organizational learning.

Organizational learning is a strategic asset.

Since it is the collaboration between

employees that enables the process of

organizational learning, the collection of

employees ± human resources in total ± is a

strategic asset. Said another way, because the

employees are the custodians and developers

of intellectual capital, when they work

together or collaborate, they constitute a

strategic asset (Michalisn et al., 1997; Grant,

1998; McNearney, 1996; Spitzer, 1996;

Nonaka, 1991; Quinn et al., 1996).

Leading consulting firms have continued to

maintain a lead in investing in their employees

as a core element of their strategic competitive

advantage. Strategy consulting firms such as

Bain, Boston Consulting Group and

McKinsey have developed elaborate

information-technology enabled KM systems

that accentuate dialogue between individuals

rather than knowledge objects in a database.

They make effective use of communities of

practice, brainstorming sessions, one-on-one

conversations, apprenticeship, and computer-

supported collaboration and group work

technologies to keep their employees actively

engaged in perpetual organizational learning

(Hansen et al., 1999).

Microsoft is another example of a firm that

has developed a successful KM system using

the socio-technical approach. It has, over the

past decade, quietly assembled over 245 of

231




Volume 4 . Number 3 . 2000 . 224±234

the brightest researchers from around the

globe and provided them with resources to

conduct leading-edge research and

development of future software products. The

organizational infrastructure that Microsoft

has established to support its researchers and

product developers facilitates a rich exchange

of knowledge across disciplines hitherto

considered remotely related. Yet Microsoft

has been able to tap the ensuing knowledge

into its products, hence expanding its market

share very rapidly while remaining well at the

forefront of innovation in the software

industry. Like General Electric it has been

able to expand its product offerings,

reshaping itself successfully as the business

environment evolved from the standalone

Personal Computer, to the Client-Server

Architecture and more recently to the

Internet and Electronic Commerce business

models. While technology is an integral part

of its KM system, people are even more

important. So are the culture and the

organizational infrastructure that cement the

interactions of its people and technology

components, hence generating the knowledge

that keeps Microsoft competitive (Stross,

1997; Kurtzman, 1998).

Culture refers to the shared beliefs, norms,

ethics and practices within an organization. A

knowledge friendly culture is one in which the

employees highly value learning and exhibit a

positive orientation to knowledge. It is one in

which experience, expertise and rapid

innovation are held to be more important

than hierarchy. Such a culture deeply

embraces knowledge and the opportunities

that come with learning. A knowledge

unfriendly culture, on the other hand, is one

that neither values nor rewards knowledge.

Culture is intangible. It is unique to each

organization. A knowledge friendly culture

cannot be replicated, imitated, acquired or

substituted. It develops within the

organization, and remains unique to that

organization. Therefore, a knowledge friendly

culture is a strategic asset.

Southwest Airlines is an example of a firm

that has developed a world-acclaimed positive

corporate culture that has contributed

significantly to its corporate success. In the

words of Southwest Airline's founder, Herb

Keller, Southwest's competitors can do

everything it does ± fly one type of aircraft,

serve no meals, transfer no luggage, give no

assigned seats, fly mostly short hauls, and

always charge the lowest fare ± but they

cannot copy its culture. Indeed, Southwest

Airlines has ranked among the top ten

corporations best to work for in the USA over

the past few years. It has also remained a

dominant player in the very competitive

airline industry. Its culture allows its

employees to acquire knowledge quickly both

from its clients and from fellow employees. It

allows employees to use the knowledge

instantaneously as they make decisions, and

encourages employees to disseminate their

knowledge to colleagues. Its culture rewards

learning and the development of others. As

such Southwest's employees are able to

provide very high levels of customer

satisfaction, thus generating the repeat

business that keeps it competitive (Colvin,

1997).

Knowledge may be tangible or intangible in

nature. Know-what, know-how, and know-

why, when articulated into the organization's

database and operating technologies, are

tangible. Similarly, explicit knowledge is

tangible because it has been encoded into

documents, databases, or some other

permanent medium. Explicit knowledge

exhibits strategic characteristics only when it

is proprietary. For this type of knowledge to

remain proprietary, it has to be protected

from other parties. Such protection is

achieved through legal assets such as patents

or copyrights, or through security features

such as access controls and encryption. When

explicit knowledge is captured on electronic

media it becomes increasingly vulnerable to

piracy regardless of the types of protection

being used to protect it. Piracy dilutes the

strategic value of knowledge. Therefore,

articulating knowledge makes it easier to

acquire and/or imitate that knowledge, hence

diluting its strategic properties (Quinn et al.,

1996; Michalisn et al., 1997; IBM, 1998;

Crock et al., 1996).

Tacit knowledge, on the other hand, is

intangible. However, it only becomes strategic

when used to advance the objectives of the

firm. When this knowledge is not used in the

interest of the firm, it does not contribute any

value to the firm. Because tacit knowledge

resides in an individual, its benefits are not

long-term. It is lost when the individual leaves

the organization. Therefore, tacit knowledge,

though rare, non-substitutable, inimitable,

and valuable (when used to advance

corporate goals), does not satisfy the ex-post

232




Volume 4 . Number 3 . 2000 . 224±234

conditions of a strategic asset. Further,

because tacit knowledge can be captured as

explicit knowledge through the process of

articulation, it becomes possible to acquire.

These two observations limit the strategic

value of tacit knowledge (Michalisn et al.,

1997; Peteraf, 1993; Wernerfelt, 1984).

Care-why, the knowledge that resides in the

culture of a firm, is also intangible. Unlike

tacit knowledge it cannot be articulated into

explicit knowledge. However, care-why is

largely related to the culture of the

organization. It has strategic value only when

the culture of the organization is knowledge

friendly. This is because such cultures foster

the development of care-why. A culture that is

not knowledge friendly stigmatizes care-why,

thereby incapacitating organizational learning

and the resultant benefits. Therefore, the

strategic value of care-why is tied to the

strategic value of the organization's culture

(Quinn et al., 1996; Michalisn et al., 1997;

Davenport at al., 1998).

On the whole the socio-technical

perspective enables a firm to reap sustainable

competitive advantages from its OKMS

(Figure 5). The organization that develops its

OKMS, so that the intangible components

are strategically and appropriately

synchronized with a well-developed

technology infrastructure, acquires a system

that is rare, difficult to imitate, valuable and

non-substitutable. Such a system is strategic

and will accord the firm the sustainable

strategic advantages it needs to leverage its

competition.

Conclusion

In order to leverage its strategic competitive

position, a firm needs to adopt the socio-

technical perspective when developing its

OKMS. In so doing it addresses all the

components pertinent to the implementation

of the OKMS as a strategic system by giving

appropriate focus to those components that

generate sustainable competitive advantage.

OKMS that simply exploit the tangible

aspects of knowledge do not leverage the

firm's sustainable competitive advantage. On

the contrary, they dilute the sustainable

competitive position of the firm. Therefore

organizations that adapt this approach risk

losing their true source of sustainable

competitive advantage ± intellectual capital ±

by articulating this asset and thus making it

readily available to competitors.

References

Carayanis (1998), `̀ The strategic management of

technological learning in project/program

management: the role of extranets, intranets and

intelligent agents in knowledge generation,

diffusion, and leveraging'', Technovation, Vol. 18

No. 11, pp. 697-703.Chaffey, D. (1998), Groupware, Workflow and Intranets:

Reengineering the Enterprise with CollaborativeSoftware, Digital Press, Boston, MA.

Colvin, G. (1997), `̀ The changing art of becoming

unbeatable'', Fortune, 24 November, pp. 299-300.Crock, S., Smith, G., Weber, J., Melcher, R.A. and

Himelstein, L. (1996), `̀ They snoop to conquer'',

Business Week, 28 October, pp. 172-6.Davenport, T.H., De Long, D.W. and Beers, M.C. (1998),

`̀ Successful knowledge management projects'',

Sloan Management Review, Winter, pp. 43-57.Fulcrum (1998), Fulcrum Knowledge Network, http://

www.fulcrum.com/english/products/fknhome.htm,

9 April, p. 1.Grant, L. (1998), `̀ Happy workers ± high returns'', Fortune,

12 January, p. 81.Hamel, G. (1998), Strategic Flexibility: Managing in a

Turbulent Economy, Wiley, Chichester, UK.Hansen, M., Hansen, N. and Tierney, T. (1999), `̀ What's

your strategy for managing knowledge?'', HarvardBusiness Review, March, pp. 106-16.

Hibbard, J. (1997), `̀ Knowing what we know'',

Informationweek, 20 October, pp. 46-64.IBM (International Business Machines) (1998), `̀ Lotus

notes: an overview'', http://www.lotus.com/core/

content.htm, 25 April, pp. 1-12.Kerwin, K. (2000), `̀ At Ford, e-commerce is job 1'',

Business Week, 28 February, pp. 74-8.Kurchak Associates (1998), `̀ Network delivery

knowledge'', http://www.coursewaresource.com/

kurchak/, 9 April, p. 1.Kurtzman, J. (1998), `̀ An interview with Brian Arthur'',

Strategy and Business, 2nd quarter, pp. 95-103.Layne, R. (2000), `̀ GE chief outlines strategies for future'',

The Beacon Journal, 26 February.Long, L. (1994), Introduction to Computers and

Information Processing, 4th ed., Prentice-Hall Inc.,

Upper Saddle River.McNearney, D.J. (1996), `̀ Employee motivation:

creating a motivated workforce'', HR Focus, August,

pp. 1-6.Michalisn, M., Smith, R. and Kline, D. (1997), `̀ In search of

strategic assets'', revised and submitted to the

International Journal of Organizational Analysis,

August, pp. 1-39.Musciano, C. and Kennedy, B. (1996), HTML:

The Definitive Guide, O'Really & Associates,

Bonn.Nonaka, I. (1991), `̀ The knowledge creating company'',

Harvard Business Review, November-December,

pp. 96-104.

233




Volume 4 . Number 3 . 2000 . 224±234

Peteraf, M.A. (1993), `̀ The cornerstones of competitiveadvantage: a resource-based view'', StrategicManagement Journal, Vol. 14, pp. 179-91.

Quinn, J.B., Anderson, P. and Finkelstein, S. (1996),`̀ Managing professional intellect: making the mostof the best'', Harvard Business Review, March-April,pp. 71-80.

Rao, B., Navoth, Z. and Horwitch, M. (1999), `̀ Building aworld class logistics, distribution and electroniccommerce infrastructure'', Electronic Markets, Vol. 9No. 3, pp. 174-80.

Spitzer, D.R. (1996), `̀ Rewards that really motivate'',Management Review, May, pp. 45-50.

Stross, R. (1997), `̀ Mr Gates builds his brain trust'',Fortune, 8 December, pp. 84-98.

Sviokla, J.J. (1996), `̀ Knowledge workers and radicallynew technologies'', Sloan Management Review,Summer, pp. 25-40.

Wernerfelt, B. (1984), `̀ A resource-based view of thefirm'', Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 5,pp. 171-80.

William, M.L. and MacDermid, S.M. (1994), `̀ Linkagesbetween employee benefits and attitudinal andbehavioral outcomes: a research review andagenda'', Human Resources Management Review,Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 131-60.

234




Volume 4 . Number 3 . 2000 . 224±234

A resource based view of organizational knowledge management systems

Business

Transcript of A resource based view of organizational knowledge management systems