KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …
Transcript of KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL …
KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL TRANSFORMATION:
A CASE STUDY ANALYZING ENTERPRISE RESOURCE
PLANNING (ERP) IMPLEMENTATION
A Dissertation
Submitted to the Faculty of Argosy University Campus
College of Business
In Partial Fulfillment of The Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Organizational Leadership
by
Oliver Jones
October 2011
KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL TRANSFORMATION:
A CASE STUDY ANALYZING ENTERPRISE RESOURCE
PLANNING (ERP) IMPLEMENTATION
Copyright © 2011
Oliver Jones
All rights reserved
!2
!3
KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL TRANSFORMATION: A CASE STUDY ANALYZING ENTERPRISE RESOURCE
PLANNING (ERP) IMPLEMENTATION
A Dissertation
Submitted to the Faculty of Argosy University Campus
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Organizational Leadership
by
Oliver Jones
Argosy University
October 2011
Dissertation Committee Approval:
_____________________________________ ______________________________ William Dzekashu, PhD Date
_____________________________________ Walter McCollum, PhD
_____________________________________ _____________________________ Jo Chang, Ed. D
!4
!5
KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL TRANSFORMATION: A CASE STUDY ANALYZING ENTERPRISE RESOURCE
PLANNING (ERP) IMPLEMENTATION
Abstract of Dissertation
Submitted to the Faculty of Argosy University Campus
College of Business
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Organizational Leadership
by
Oliver Jones
Argosy University
October 2011
William Dzekashu, PhD
Walter McCollum, PhD
Jo Chang, Ed. D
Department: College of Business
!vi
Abstract
Knowledge continues to be a critical part of the organizational transformation effort;
however, accomplishing the objective of developing and leveraging critical
organizational knowledge to improve performance remains an elusive goal for
organizations. A critical area of knowledge strategy during transformational change is
determining where to focus business efforts to protect, develop, and deploy the
knowledge resource for effectiveness; however, organizations continue to fail to meet the
goal of effectively creating and leveraging knowledge during change. The purpose of the
research is to address the gap between the objective and outcome of the knowledge
strategy during transformational change. The research problem addressed was the means
by which leaders in a particular organization create and manage organizational
knowledge held by employees during ERP implementation. The research questions
addressed was how an organization manages the identification and transition of implicit
(unarticulated) knowledge to an articulated state. The theoretical framework used for the
study was the knowledge creation theory. The research methodology was a case study, a
mixed methods research design was used to examine relationships and patterns through
the experiences of participants. Data was collected via five sources: surveys,
observations, documents, focus groups and interviews. In general, the study results
showed an organization with a strong culture of informal knowledge sharing. Company
leaders implemented deliberate measures to enable knowledge capture, including
embedding mid-managers and knowledge workers into project teams. Through socialization,
knowledge was captured. Challenges still exist in formalizing a sustaining way of
!vii
knowledge capture. The significance of the findings could advance the understanding of
the complex myriad of organizational knowledge held by individuals within a firm. .
From a social perspective, the results of this study could help organizations and
corporations to develop a reliable process to cultivate the creation of organizational
knowledge.
!viii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This dissertation is the result of an endless supply of love, support, and encouragement from my two families: the "Jones family" and my "expanded family." I will be forever grateful to my wonderful wife, Dr. Dawne M. Jones, who persisted through often joyful but sometimes strenuous discussions of my work, filled parenting gaps, and inspired me to persist in this adventure. I am grateful as well to my brother Fitzroy, who pushed me to seek challenges while embracing life; my sisters Sheila and Arlene, whose lives I can proudly emulate; and of course my parents Robert and Yvonne, whose own perseverance through life's many challenges has been, as the old song says so well, the wind beneath my wings.
I am dedicating this dissertation to my children: Damon (9), Olivia and Octavia (7), and Olesia (6). In truth, you are the reason I've done this. I hope this accomplishment sets a standard that will help stir your own aspirations. Your dad will always be your biggest fan.
To my father-in-law, Dr. Elijah Porter, who exemplifies discipline and the pursuit of perfection: you have provided me with a road map to follow. To my mother-in-law, Laverne Porter: your cheering me along this journey has touched my heart. To my brothers-in-law, Elijah and Dr. Tyrone Porter: your unwavering support has meant much to me.
To my pastor Randy Wooden: your never-ending encouragement has been important and essential. To Mark Mayes: thank you for believing in me as well as in my work. To my colleague Kimyatta Divinity: I have gained a sister through this experience. To my colleague Bruce Clemence: thank you for sharing your gift of collegial conversation and personal mastery. Thank you!
I am indebted, of course, to my dissertation committee, who endured many drafts and many diversions during my discovery process. I must also acknowledge my dissertation chair, to whom I owe my doctoral experience, Dr. William Gang Dzekashu, whose never-ending selflessness, attention to detail and empathy has been so much appreciated. To Dr. Jo Chang and Dr. McCollum: your unwavering commitment to excellence has been of tremendous value.
To my editor Toni Williams and statistician Dr. Brian Sloboda: thank you for your dedicated work in ensuring the integrity of my writing. I am forever indebted.
And to everyone else who helped and supported me through the process, let me say that your name not appearing here in no means diminish my appreciation for your friendship,
!ix
love, and support. This finished work, the result of so much effort by so many people, truly has as much to do with you as it does with me.
!x
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated
to my mother — Yvonne Delores Jones
!xi
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
TABLE OF TABLES xv .........................................................................................................
TABLE OF APPENDICES xviii ............................................................................................
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY 1 ....................................................Statement of Research Problem 3 ...........................................................................................Background of the Organization Studied 4 ............................................................................Nature of the Study 7 ..............................................................................................................Research Questions 9 ..............................................................................................................Purpose of the Study 10 ..........................................................................................................Theoretical Framework 10 .....................................................................................................Definitions and Terms 12 ........................................................................................................Assumptions of the Study 14 ..................................................................................................Scope and Delimitation of Study 14 .......................................................................................Limitation of the Study 15 ......................................................................................................Significance of the Study 16 ...................................................................................................Summary 17 ............................................................................................................................
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW 18 ....................................................................History of Knowledge 18 .......................................................................................................Approach to Knowledge Creation 20 ....................................................................................
Economic Approach to Knowledge 20 ...........................................................................Social Constructionist Approach to Knowledge 23 ........................................................
Delineations, Taxonomies, and Typologies of Knowledge 24 ...............................................Articulated Versus Unarticulated Knowledge 24 ...................................................................Knowledge Structures 25 ........................................................................................................
Cognitive Research 26 ......................................................................................................Collective Cognition 26 ....................................................................................................The Knowledge Creation Theory of a Firm 30 ................................................................The Knowledge Vision 35 ................................................................................................The Driving Objectives 35 .............................................................................................Ba 36 .................................................................................................................................Knowledge Assets 36 ........................................................................................................The Environment 36 .........................................................................................................Nature of Knowledge Concerning Organizational Change 37 .........................................Pillars of Knowledge 38 ...................................................................................................
The Knowledge Worker 44 .....................................................................................................Knowledge Experts 44 ............................................................................................................Knowledge Mapping 45 .........................................................................................................Case Studies in Knowledge Management 46 .........................................................................Summary of the Literature 47 .................................................................................................
!xii
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS 50 ......................................................................................Research Design 52 ................................................................................................................Limitations/Delimitations 54 ..................................................................................................Role of the Researcher in Collecting Data 56 ........................................................................Instrumentation 57 ..................................................................................................................Reliability and Validity of OAS 61 .........................................................................................Summary of Methods 66 ........................................................................................................Strength of Method 67 ............................................................................................................
Trustworthiness 67 ............................................................................................................Validity 68 .........................................................................................................................Reliability 69 ....................................................................................................................
Ethical Protection of Research Participants 71 .......................................................................Population 71 ..........................................................................................................................
Site Selection 71 ...............................................................................................................Site Description 72 ...........................................................................................................Sample Population 72 .......................................................................................................
Preliminary Mapping and Site Access 74 ...............................................................................Data Collection Procedures 74 ...............................................................................................Data Analysis 77 .....................................................................................................................Interpretation of Data 78 .........................................................................................................Summary 78 ............................................................................................................................
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS 80 ...................................................................................................Data Generation, Gathering, and Recording Processes 82 .....................................................Data Tracking System 83 ........................................................................................................Analysis of Relevant Research Data 85 .................................................................................
Descriptive Statistics 85 ...................................................................................................Document Review 93 .......................................................................................................Focus Groups 97 ...............................................................................................................Interviews 102 ..................................................................................................................
Integrating the Qualitative and Quantitative Results 105 .......................................................Summary 108 ..........................................................................................................................
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 111 ......Summary of Findings 111 .......................................................................................................Specific Findings of the Study 114 .........................................................................................Recommendations From Previous Studies and From the Current Study 117 ........................Recommendations 118 ...........................................................................................................Impact of the Study on Social Change 120 ............................................................................Experiences During the Conduct of the Study 121 ................................................................Conclusions 121 .....................................................................................................................Future Research 123 ...............................................................................................................
!xiii
REFERENCES 124 ................................................................................................................
APPENDICES 137 .................................................................................................................APPENDIX A
Summary of Theories of Organizational Knowledge and Knowledge Creation 138 .......APPENDIX B
Organization Action Survey 144 ......................................................................................APPENDIX C
Focus Group Script 153 ....................................................................................................APPENDIX D
Interview Questions 156 ...................................................................................................APPENDIX E
Permission to Conduct Research 158 ...............................................................................APPENDIX F
IRB Approval to Conduct Research 162 ..........................................................................APPENDIX G
Permission to Use Survey Instruments 164 ......................................................................APPENDIX H
Formal Letter to Potential Research 166 ..........................................................................APPENDIX I
Site Research Plan 168 .....................................................................................................APPENDIX J
Survey Results 170...........................................................................................................
!xiv
TABLE OF TABLES
Table Page
Table 1 Knowledge Structures: Contributing Scholars .........................................................................................................................................27
Table 2 Sample Mixed Methods Studies .........................................................................................................................................51
Table 3 OAS Learning Performing Factor Descriptors .........................................................................................................................................58
Table 4 Organizational Learning and Performance Actions .........................................................................................................................................62
Table 5 Measures of Organizational Learning Variables Using OAS .........................................................................................................................................63
Table 6 Cronbach Alpha Coefficient for OAS Learning Survey Items .........................................................................................................................................65
Table 7 Overview of Method, Collection Strategy, Process, and Output .........................................................................................................................................66
Table 8 Organization Action Survey: Item Breakout .........................................................................................................................................74
!xv
Table 9 Approach to Primary Question .........................................................................................................................................75
Table 10 Approach to Subquestions .........................................................................................................................................76
Table 11 Pillars of Knowledge .........................................................................................................................................82
Table 12 Results: Responses by Ethnicity .........................................................................................................................................85
Table 13 Levels of Educational Attainment .........................................................................................................................................86
Table 14 Results: Age Distributions of the Respondents .........................................................................................................................................86
Table 15 Number of Years at Organization .........................................................................................................................................87
Table 16 Results: Departmental Affiliation .........................................................................................................................................87
Table 17 Results Status of Position Within the Firm .........................................................................................................................................88
!xvi
Table 18 Results: Number of People Supervised .........................................................................................................................................88
Table 19 Results: Number of Employees in Department .........................................................................................................................................89
Table 20 Results: OAS Ranking .........................................................................................................................................90
Table 21 Document Review Summary .........................................................................................................................................94
Table 22 Transformation as Defined .............................................................................................105
!xvii
TABLE OF APPENDICES
Abstract Page Abstract vii .............................................................................................................................
TABLE OF TABLES xv .........................................................................................................
TABLE OF APPENDICES xviii ............................................................................................
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY 1 ....................................................
Statement of Research Problem 3 ...........................................................................................
Background of the Organization Studied 4 ............................................................................
Nature of the Study 7 ..............................................................................................................
Research Questions 9 ..............................................................................................................
Purpose of the Study 10 ..........................................................................................................
Theoretical Framework 10 .....................................................................................................
Definitions and Terms 12 ........................................................................................................
Assumptions of the Study 14 ..................................................................................................
Scope and Delimitation of Study 14 .......................................................................................
Limitation of the Study 15 ......................................................................................................
Significance of the Study 16 ...................................................................................................
Summary 17 ............................................................................................................................
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW 18 ....................................................................
History of Knowledge 18 .......................................................................................................
Approach to Knowledge Creation 20 ....................................................................................Economic Approach to Knowledge 20 .................................................................................Social Constructionist Approach to Knowledge 23 ..............................................................
Delineations, Taxonomies, and Typologies of Knowledge 24 ...............................................
Articulated Versus Unarticulated Knowledge 24 ...................................................................
!xviii
Knowledge Structures 25 ........................................................................................................Cognitive Research 26 ............................................................................................................Collective Cognition 26 ..........................................................................................................The Knowledge Creation Theory of a Firm 30 ......................................................................The Knowledge Vision 35 ......................................................................................................The Driving Objectives 35 ...................................................................................................Ba 36 .Knowledge Assets 36 ..............................................................................................................The Environment 36 ...............................................................................................................Nature of Knowledge Concerning Organizational Change 37 ...............................................Pillars of Knowledge 38 .........................................................................................................
The Knowledge Worker 44 .....................................................................................................
Knowledge Experts 44 ............................................................................................................
Knowledge Mapping 45 .........................................................................................................
Case Studies in Knowledge Management 46 .........................................................................
Summary of the Literature 47 .................................................................................................
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS 50 ......................................................................................
Research Design 52 ................................................................................................................
Limitations/Delimitations 54 ..................................................................................................
Role of the Researcher in Collecting Data 56 ........................................................................
Instrumentation 57 ..................................................................................................................
Reliability and Validity of OAS 61 .........................................................................................
Summary of Methods 66 ........................................................................................................
Strength of Method 67 ............................................................................................................Trustworthiness 67 ..................................................................................................................Validity 68 ...............................................................................................................................Reliability 69 ..........................................................................................................................
Ethical Protection of Research Participants 71 .......................................................................
Population 71 ..........................................................................................................................Site Selection 71 .....................................................................................................................Site Description 72 .................................................................................................................
!xix
Sample Population 72 .............................................................................................................
Preliminary Mapping and Site Access 74 ...............................................................................
Data Collection Procedures 74 ...............................................................................................
Data Analysis 77 .....................................................................................................................
Interpretation of Data 78 .........................................................................................................
Summary 78 ............................................................................................................................
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS 80 ...................................................................................................
Data Generation, Gathering, and Recording Processes 82 .....................................................
Data Tracking System 83 ........................................................................................................
Analysis of Relevant Research Data 85 .................................................................................Descriptive Statistics 85 .........................................................................................................Document Review 93 .............................................................................................................Focus Groups 97 .....................................................................................................................Interviews 102 ........................................................................................................................
Integrating the Qualitative and Quantitative Results 105 .......................................................
Summary 108 ..........................................................................................................................
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 111 ......
Summary of Findings 111 .......................................................................................................
Specific Findings of the Study 114 .........................................................................................
Recommendations From Previous Studies and From the Current Study 117 ........................
Recommendations 118 ...........................................................................................................
Impact of the Study on Social Change 120 ............................................................................
Experiences During the Conduct of the Study 121 ................................................................
Conclusions 121 .....................................................................................................................
Future Research 123 ...............................................................................................................
REFERENCES 124 ................................................................................................................
!xx
APPENDICES 137 .................................................................................................................
APPENDIX A Summary of Theories of Organizational Knowledge and Knowledge Creation 138 .......
APPENDIX BOrganization Action Survey 144 ......................................................................................
APPENDIX CFocus Group Script 153 ....................................................................................................
APPENDIX DInterview Questions 156 ...................................................................................................
APPENDIX EPermission to Conduct Research 158 ...............................................................................
APPENDIX FIRB Approval to Conduct Research 162 ..........................................................................
APPENDIX GPermission to Use Survey Instruments 164 ......................................................................
APPENDIX HFormal Letter to Potential Research 166 ..........................................................................
APPENDIX ISite Research Plan 168 .....................................................................................................
APPENDIX JSurvey Results 170...........................................................................................................
!xxi
!1
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY
In a world in which the creation and management of knowledge continues to be a
critical part of the organizational transformation effort, few organizations have fully
accomplished the objective of developing and leveraging critical organizational
knowledge to improve performance (Leibold, Probst, & Gibbert, 2002; O’Donnell, 2004;
O’Donnell, Henriksen, & Voelpel, 2006; Voelpel & Streb, 2006). Researchers have
shown that a key reason for such organizational failure is the complexity of the
knowledge held by people (Cole & Bruch, 2006). Despite advancements in artificial
intelligence and management of explicit data, people are still the holders of the
organizational knowledge resource called implicit knowledge (Florence, 2008; Trinkle,
2005). Individuals hold knowledge, but the application of knowledge requires
innovativeness. A critical area of knowledge strategy during transformational change is
determining where to focus business efforts to protect, develop, and deploy the
knowledge resource for effectiveness; however, organizations continue to fail to meet the
goal of effectively creating and leveraging knowledge during change (Davenport, 2005;
Davenport & Voelpel, 2001).
The terms knowledge and information have been widely studied and sometimes
used interchangeably. A clear distinction between data, information, and knowledge can
be of great value to an examination of how critical organizational knowledge is
developed and leveraged. Davenport and Prusak (2000) defined data as “a set of discrete,
objective facts about events” (p. 2), while information is data that have been given
meaning through messaging (Dzekashu, 2009). Fahey and Prusak (1998) asserted that
!2
knowledge not only is derived from information but also increases its value by means of
connection along with comparison, conversation, and consequence.
A consensus exists among practitioners that two kinds of knowledge exist: (a) the
type that is articulated, codified, and documented—explicit knowledge (Nonaka, 1991a)
and (b) the type that can be seen in an individual's internal state and ability to act. The
second type of knowledge, known as capacity knowledge, can be further broken down
into tacit and implicit knowledge. Tacit knowledge can be difficult to articulate and
identify (Dzekashu, 2009; Nickols, 2000). Implicit knowledge can be, but has not yet
been, identified and expressed (Spender, 1996). Implicit knowledge grows through
people’s expertise and experiences. With the right skill sets, implicit knowledge can be
teased out of a competent performer and converted to explicit knowledge (Leonard &
Swap, 2004; Nonaka, 1991a).
The current study included an examination of the knowledge structure in creating
organizational knowledge during the process of transformational change—enterprise
resource planning (ERP) implementation—at the North American headquarters (NAHQ)
of Organization W in the Mid-Atlantic United States. The focus of the study was on
managing the identification and transition of implicit knowledge to an articulated state.
Specifically, the study recommended a map of the knowledge organized by learning
dependency, risk assessment, and other analytical information with options for action for
managers to consider.
!3
Statement of Research Problem
The problem addressed in the current research was the means by which
Organization W leaders create and manage organizational knowledge held by employees
during ERP implementation. The ERP implementation process provides a great
opportunity for leaders of organizations transforming from a function-based to a process-
based style of operation to develop and leverage critical organizational knowledge to
improve their performance (Baker & Maddux, 2005; Sarkis & Sundarraj, 2003).
However, organizational leaders are failing to meet the objective. Studies generally show
that a primary cause for this failure may be found in the complex nature of the knowledge
held by people (Cole & Bruch, 2006; O’Donnell, 2004; O’Donnell et al., 2006; Voelpel &
Streb, 2006).
I am by no means suggesting that resolving the reason stated above is the only
key to successful transformation from a function-based to a process-based style of
operation. Baker and Maddux (2005) suggested that three essential keys of success exist:
(a) structural changes allowing businesses to operate in a process-oriented environment
versus a function-based environment, (b) a successful adaptation of the new environment
by workers, and (c) knowledgeable individuals capable of managing in an increasingly
complex process-oriented environment. While recognizing the significance of all three
key criteria for a successful transformation, the primary focus of the research was to help
individuals and organizations meet the last challenge. Cole and Bruch (2006) contended
the difficulty organizational leaders face in achieving the last challenge is the inability to
!4
develop and leverage the critical organizational knowledge held by knowledgeable
individuals.
A failure to successfully create and leverage organizational knowledge could be
the differentiation factor in the survival of an organization (Y. Malhotra, 2002; Sharkie,
2003). The availability of highly sophisticated knowledge-sharing technologies might be
rendered ineffective if individuals are not willing to share information, disseminating it to
peers and beyond, to supervisors and other areas of the organization. “The lack of
motivation to share knowledge could stem from a belief that the knowledge in their
possession provides an advantage in bargaining and negotiation” (Dzekashu, 2009, p.
30). Even more critical is the sharing of partial or inaccurate information. The
motivation for employees, along with customers and suppliers, to share reliable and time-
critical information arises from trust, information-sharing cultures, and other variables
(Ciulla, 1996; Y. Malhotra, 2002). My intent was to examine a more reliable alternative
approach. In a world where the very survival of an organization can depend on the
creation of organizational knowledge, a reliable process to cultivate this asset is
necessary.
Background of the Organization Studied
Organization W is a holding company with NAHQ in Virginia. The company
operates on a decentralized basis with strong, experienced management teams leading
each principal operating subsidiary. Organization W’s principal operating businesses are
organized into three segments: North American Plumbing and Heating Distribution, U.S.
Building Materials Distribution, and European Distribution. According to the 2008–2009
!5
annual statement, Organization W had 74,000 employees worldwide, over 5,000
locations, and a vehicle fleet numbering 22,000. As stated in its Business Change
mission statements and by a former chief executive officer (CEO) in a 2006 interview,
Organization W is transitioning to open systems to allow flexibility to respond to
changing needs, capture new market opportunities, and realize their global processes and
worldwide integrated systems vision” (Lenius, 2005, p. 1).
In addition to organic growth, Organization W has sustained an aggressive
acquisition strategy. Between September 2002 and September 2007, the organization
acquired over 100 companies (Dewson, 2007). The acquisitions meant taking over
systems and infrastructure as well as the human resources. To take advantage of scale,
the company is transforming to a more centralized business model that requires a uniform
platform, hence the ERP system.
The North American business of Organization W consists of two companies:
Organization W USA and Organization W Canada. Within the two companies are 13
semiautonomous subcompanies (business units). As of January 31, 2009, the cluster had
1,586 branches across North America, supported by 10 large distribution centers. The
back office operations that provide the support for the matrix is the Organization W
NAHQ.
One role of the 1,300 associates across the NAHQ campus is to ensure corporate
governance. Organization W NAHQ is a key element of the overall corporate structure
of Organization W. Corporate functions within the entity include strategic planning,
company communications, tax management, legal support, marketing functions,
!6
procurement and sourcing services, finance planning and operations, human resources,
and information technology development and support. The corporate services provided
by employees of NAHQ are activities and processes that together comprise a set of
enterprise-wide support functions. Services are based on specialized knowledge sets,
both explicit and tacit best practices, and a technology base that extends not only to
internal customers but when appropriate to external customers and business partners as
well.
Organization W NAHQ manages distinct operating units called strategic business
units (SBUs). Core operations are decentralized to the SBU level. As a result, the
supporting departments in NAHQ align with the operational structure. The result is
overlapping roles and uncoordinated knowledge that some consider wasteful and
inefficient. One such SBU is Division F. Division F was the focus of the study. As of
January 31, 2010, the company had 19 branches with 400 employees across the Mid-
Atlantic United States.
In 2008, the leadership team at Organization W approved the implementation of
an ERP system. ERP is “an integrated, multidimensional system that encompasses all
functions of an organization, including planning, control, and global optimization of the
supply chain, using state-of-the-art information technology tools” (Carson, 2005, p. 1).
Carson (2005) further defined ERP as “a suite of software applications that links
accounting, human resource, and planning functions in the front-office to warehouses,
manufacturing facilities, and transportation functions in the back-office” (p. 1). At the
!7
time of this study the ERP team had completed the implementation in Division F and the
relevant back-office support, making this subdivision an ideal study.
Nature of the Study
The nature of the study was in the tradition of a case study using mixed methods,
including the use of both qualitative and quantitative methods of research. Yin and
Moore (1987) noted that explanatory case studies might be suitable for conducting causal
studies. Yin (1994) iterated that case study strategy is a valuable method of researching
the how and why questions, making it ideal for examining 3 years of activities. Yin
further contended that the particular advantage of the case study tradition of inquiry lies
in its capacity for a highly detailed examination of business cases as they exist in real-life
settings (p. 1).
The design of the study was aimed at gaining insights into the knowledge
structure of an organization relating to change during an organizational transformation
effort. Therefore, a case study methodology using mixed methodology strategies was
appropriate to examine the knowledge structure and related shift in organization action
(Yin, 1994, 2003). The methodology, aligning with Yin (1994), included four stages
pertaining to the case study: (a) design, (b) conduct, (c) analysis of emerging trends, and
(d) conclusions along with recommendations and further implications. To aid in
understanding the knowledge structures in both their existent and emergent states, data
gathering employed focus groups and interviews to yield organizational schemas and
scripts at the personal level (Stake, 1995; Yin, 2003). To understand the organization’s
action, data collection included four sources: surveys, observations, documents, and
!8
interviews (Stake, 1995; Yin, 2003). Data from multiple sources was triangulated to
reduce research bias.
The cognitive constructionist research tradition influenced the current study
(Babbie, 1995). The tradition recognizes that individuals in an organization are engaged
in constructing their environment in an active manner as they merge knowledge
structures already in place with other, external information through interpretive actions
(Nonaka & Toyama, 2005; Parac, Meindl, & Stubbart, 1996; Weick, 1995). Because the
focus of the study was the identification and mapping of knowledge, the unit of analysis
was the relationship of dependencies. By analyzing the available documents produced by
employees using select content analysis and information visualization techniques,
knowledge mapping can reveal the pillars of knowledge relevant to knowledge strategy
(Hsinchun & Mihail, 2009). The design included examination of both expressed ideas
and actions perceived by each member to gain insight into the knowledge structure of the
firm pertaining to organizational transformation (Parson, Bales, & Shiles, 1953;
Singleton & Straits, 2005). Data analysis included a content analysis approach and
knowledge mapping techniques.
I explored two additional research strategies in an attempt to determine a fit for
the current study. One alternate approach explored was action research, which is a spiral
process that has the flexibility to lend itself simultaneously to accomplishing (a) action
through change and progress and (b) research through comprehension and knowledge
(Babbie, 1995; Bornemann & Sammer, 2003). I was attracted to this approach to
research because of the access granted to me, thus allowing an examination of real time
!9
data of the study site as it experienced transformational change. The action research
strategy fell short of the requirements for the research questions because it restricted the
use of the historical occurrences and documentations, therefore eliminating the prior 2
years of the study. Another research strategy explored was grounded theory (Glaser &
Strauss, 1967), which allows “collecting information-rich data; gathering empirical
materials from the interviews, observations, and focus group; form concepts and themes;
compare that with more data; and generated theories” (Chang, 2008, p. 3). The grounded
theory strategy also fell short of the requirement for the research. The primary objective
of the research was not to create a new theory or model, but to further the practical
understanding of the area of research pertaining to the effective creation and leveraging
knowledge during change.
Research Questions
The study involved examining organizational knowledge creation and
management during transformational change. In particular, the focus of the study was on
managing the identification and transition of implicit (unarticulated) knowledge to an
articulated state. It was intended that, through the study, answers would emerge for the
following questions:
1. What is the firm’s transformational process and what measure do firm leaders take
to ensure employees’ understanding of the process?
2. How do firm leaders convert implicit knowledge held by employees into articulated
knowledge during organizational transformation?
!10
3. How does the knowledge structure reflect on the firm’s performance during
organizational transformation?
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study was to investigate the nature of a firm’s knowledge
structure by focusing on what employees need to know to carry out their work effectively.
I sought to provide knowledge risk assessment and other decision support information for
managers that could help shed light on important business resources. I also sought to
show where business efforts to protect, develop, and deploy knowledge resources would
be most effective. The study was intended to advance the theoretical understanding of
this knowledge resource for organizations.
I viewed the organization using data generated over 2 to 3 years (2008-2010)
within a period of accelerated change to see how organizational knowledge was handled.
The potential change in the organizational knowledge dynamics was a consequence of
inherent change caused by the ERP implementation. Organizational knowledge, though
difficult to measure, is amenable to measurement through mapping, which allows
information to be processed through examining the map representing the knowledge
structure of a company (Ha°kanson, 2007). The examination of the map strengthened the
case study.
Theoretical Framework
The underlying theory of the current study was the organizational knowledge
creation theory. The theory deals with the process of extracting knowledge from sources
accessible to people in organizations and storing it in knowledge repositories (Nonaka &
!11
Toyama, 2005; Nonaka, von Krogh, & Voelpel, 2006). Organizational theory is the study
of an organization to identify shared themes with the objective of creating solutions to
problems, increasing efficiency and productivity, and addressing the needs of
stakeholders (Gorman, 2004).
The current study included Nonaka and Takeuchi’s (1995) socialization,
externalization, combination, internalization (SECI) model to examine the knowledge
creation process. Nonaka and Takeuchi proposed that tacit knowledge held by
individuals can be converted to explicit knowledge through a spiral process. The SECI
model provides the framework for managing relevant processes.
Nonaka’s theory of organizational knowledge creation, centering on the SECI
model, was developed by Nonaka and his colleagues (Nonaka, 1994; Nonaka, Byosiere,
Borucki, & Konno, 1994; Nonaka & Takeuchi 1995; Nonaka & Toyama 2003; Nonaka,
Toyama, & Byosière, 2001; Nonaka, Toyama, & Konno, 2000). The theory originated
from studying innovative companies to understand their information creation process
(Imai, Nonaka, & Takeuchi, 1985; Nonaka 1988a, 1988b, 1990, 1991b; Nonaka &
Kenney, 1991). Since its creation, the SECI model has evolved from a two-dimensional
state that included (a) social interaction between tacit and explicit and (b) the spiral state
after internalization (Nonaka, 1994) to its current three-dimensional state, which includes
the original two plus the Ba or the shared context of the knowledge creation state
(Nonaka et al., 2001). The model is further explained in Chapter 2.
To examine management of organizational knowledge from an implicit state to an
explicit state, I also relied on a general model of articulation. Ha°kanson (2007)
!12
described the model as the articulation circle. The underlying precept of the model is that
all practice includes three basic elements: cognitive frames (theory), coding schemes and
other symbolic methods of expression (code), and the technology intrinsic to physical
artifacts (tools). The interaction of these three elements enables the articulation and
codification of knowledge (Ha°kanson, 2007, p. 63).
The study was undergirded by organizational knowledge creation theory in
conjunction with the SECI model, which together offered a structure for understanding
what individuals come to know in the course of their work life and the benefits of this
knowledge for both their colleagues and the organization as a whole. Because I
examined how knowledge is identified and summoned from its implicit state to be
organizationally beneficial, the theory of organizational knowledge creation was a good
fit. The continued evolution of the theory can reflect a modern and technologically
enhanced organization.
Definitions and Terms
Enterprise resource planning (ERP) system: The most recent evolution of
technology systems designed to manage various resources of an organization. The
purpose of ERP is the integration of various information systems across the enterprise.
ERP interconnects various operations of the organization (human resources, finances and
accounting, operations and production, marketing and distribution, and so forth) and also
provides a technological liaison between the organization, suppliers, and customers
(Jones & Price, 2004).
!13
Function-based operation: Department-based operational style historically found
in accounting, human resources, and other service-based businesses (Baker & Maddux,
2005).
Holding company: Holding companies are conglomerate entities whose purpose is
the ownership of other companies. Typically, a holding company possesses sufficient
voting stock in another company to control its management and its operations through
either exerting leverage on or actually electing its board of directors. Holding companies
may also be called parent companies (Leibold et al., 2002).
Process-based operations: Historically found in production sectors, this model
extends across functional boundaries, so that members of a single department or
performers of a single function are unlikely to engage in a process-based perspective.
Process management ties strategic aims and organizational structure to performance
(Baker & Maddux, 2005).
Process workers: Such workers are managed from a performance standpoint, with
their performance shaped by measures directly linked to increasing specific competencies
determined in the course of strategic planning (Baker & Maddux, 2005).
Strategic business units (SBUs): A corporate division, a line of products within it,
or an individual product or brand within the company whose mission is independent from
the company’s other business, so that it may be marketed in a different way than
elsewhere in the company. Typically, the structure of an SBU is not as defined or
disciplined as the structure of the company, permitting the SBU to react more rapidly to
changes in the market and to new opportunities (Tsai, 2001).
!14
Assumptions of the Study
The following assumptions served as a foundation for the study: (a) firms are
social systems, (b) organizational knowledge is socially created, (c) the capacity to create
organizational knowledge is inherent in all firms as social systems, (d) organizational
reality is a subjective matter and is perceived in different ways by different participants in
the study, (e) researchers can measure collective-level action and cognition, (f) the
Organization Action Survey (OAS) used is a valid and reliable instrument to measure
collective action, and (g) the OAS can be used to describe nonlinear dynamic social
action systems such as an organization.
Scope and Delimitation of Study
Certain delimitations were developed to limit the scope of the research. These
delimitations included research site, method and research sample, focus of study, and
time. The organization studied is a global organization with 5,000 locations worldwide.
The study was confined to a division with the organization. I focused the investigation
on the employees directly affected by the ERP implementation. Additionally, the
research was constrained to the 2008–2010 time frame. The study cut-off point was
subject to my scheduled research timeline.
The literary review will not expand beyond organizational knowledge creation to
individual knowledge creation. The focus of this study is knowledge creation at an
organizational level during change. In addition, the ERP implementation is extensive and
is expected to continue beyond the period examined in the current investigation. I chose
focus the study on division F because, unlike the rest of the organization, the project was
!15
fully implemented in these locations. The chosen location was conducive to the case
study method since employees experience the two phases required for project completion
within a year of the completed date.
Limitation of the Study
The study limitations were related to the previously discussed delimitations.
First, the focus of the study was to the single subsidiary of Organization F, while
providing in-depth data that were location and firm specific. The information may not be
transferable or generalized beyond the location or firm studied. In addition, because the
location was deliberately chosen (because the site is undergoing transformation), there
was a decrease in the transferability of findings.
The study was also limited by its method. Although a case study approach allows
an in-depth view of a business case as it occurs in actual practice (Yin, 1994), the
findings may not represent the overall population. Additionally, although many facets
might affect the development and leveraging of critical organizational knowledge to
improve performance, the study was confined to examining the implicit knowledge held
by people and the process of extracting the said knowledge for the benefit of the
organization. The focus of the study was on creating and managing organizational
knowledge during transformation. As mentioned previously, the time constraint of the
research did not allow an examination of the process over an extended period of time.
!16
Significance of the Study
Companies are risking enormous capital in implementing ERP systems. Starting
from the assertion that a company’s ability to generate new knowledge is essential for
change in the organization (Nonaka, 1991b), and that this generation of new knowledge
results from an iterative social process (Giddens, 1990; Schwandt, 1997), there are
opportunities to gain knowledge through the process of ERP implementation that would
be invaluable to the organization postimplementation (Orlikowski & Hufman, 1997).
The study could make theoretical, methodological, and practical contributions.
From a theoretical perspective, the study advanced the understanding of the
complex myriad of organizational knowledge held by individuals within a firm.
Investigating the nature of a firm’s knowledge structure by focusing on what employees
need to know to carry out their work effectively can be valuable in a knowledge
economy. The theoretical underpinnings were analyzed and led to the discovery of new
insights and common themes. Additionally, if organizational leaders are not able to
understand their knowledge asset, the survival of the organization may be threatened.
From a practical perspective, the study may help firm leaders identify and manage
the key asset of knowledgeable individuals capable of managing in an increasingly
complex process-oriented environment. Although researchers have conducted studies on
organizational knowledge, minimal research includes a focus on how to manage the
identification and transition of implicit knowledge to an articulated state effectively in an
effort to align an organizational knowledge strategy with the overall strategy. Ha°kanson
(2007) noted, “Organizations to a large extent are ‘articulation machines,’ built around
!17
codified practices and deriving some of their competitive advantages from clever, unique
articulation” (p. 51). Organization W’s variety of product offerings, company size, and
transforming business model led to a unique study.
Summary
This chapter included a discussion of the research question, assumptions about the
study, significance of the research, and the general plan disclosing how the research was
conducted. Chapter 2 includes an overview of the literature reviewed for the study,
syntheses and critiques about the literature on approaches to knowledge and knowledge
structures, and further discussions of Nonaka and Takeuchi’s (2005) SECI model for
examining the knowledge creation process. The chapter further examines Nonaka’s
organizational knowledge creation theory.
!18
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
Although implied agreement exists regarding the need for organizations to create
and leverage knowledge (Y. Malhotra, 2002; O’Donnell et al., 2006; Sharkie, 2003;
Youngdahl & Ramaswamy, 2008), there is much less agreement on how to identify,
create, manage, and leverage organizational knowledge. The term organizational
knowledge creation is a tent under which various noncoherent models, theories, and
concepts are housed (Ortiz Laverde, Baragano, & Sarriegui Dominguez, 2003). Some
models include Nonaka and Takeuchi’s (2005) SECI model; Probst, Raub, and
Romhardt’s (2002) building blocks of knowledge management model; Heisig, Mertins,
and Vorbeck’s (2001) competency model; and McElroy’s (2002) demand-side supply-side
model. The foundation for the study included two theoretical bases: knowledge and
action. This chapter includes a discussion on the key points among different streams of
research and various approaches to comprehend knowledge creation. The chapter also
includes a literature review of the history of knowledge, approaches to knowledge
creation, knowledge structures, the SECI model, the building blocks of knowledge
management model, and knowledge articulation. Given the setting of the research, a
brief section of the review focuses on transformational change.
History of Knowledge
The working definition of knowledge is based on Fahey and Prusak’s (1998)
interpretation of knowledge as a concept to be held and applied in the mind of the knower
and which increases the value of information through the four avenues of comparison,
connection, consequence, and conversation (p. 267). The study of knowledge reaches
!19
back to the Greek era (Dzekashu, 2009). Awad and Ghaziri (2007) attributed the origins
of some current methods to Aristotle and Plato. Reflections of Aristotle’s work may be
seen in various scientific research approaches, including gathering data, relating to
experience, and attempts to comprehend and interpret data through models and theories
(Dzekashu, 2009, p. 20). Plato’s work is also reflected in modern approaches to
understanding knowledge (Awad & Ghaziri, 2007). Furthering a dialogue between
Socrates and Glaucon, Plato demonstrated that “humans come to know through the
process of sharing experiences and storytelling” (Dzekashu, 2009, p. 20).
The Greek era produced two paradigms for knowing: the subject-object model
and the observer model. The subject-object model involves analyzing human experience
and determining objective versus subjective elements of an experience (Schopenhauer,
1966). The observer model suggests the universe consists of objects (entities) based on
perceptions and presumptions of subjects (observers; Schopenhauer, 1966). Modern
philosophers such as Descartes, Locke, and Kant have built on two models reflected in
current research on knowing. Other researchers such as Heidegger, Mead, and Tugendht
(1986 ) challenged aspects of these models, particularly the aspect of consciousness and
self-awareness.
Although the centuries-old debate on individual knowledge continues among
philosophers and researchers, neoclassical researchers of organizational (collective)
knowledge have tried to avoid the subjective or human area of the knowledge debate,
focusing instead on objective, quantifiable, fact-based knowledge of a firm.
Contemporary theories construed the differences among companies as “a result of a profit
!20
maximizing firm’s ability to imitate successful firms” (Nonaka & von Krogh, 2009, p.
636). The embedded assumption was that firms are passive and merely adapt to their
environment without affecting the structural make-up (Teece, 2003). Other researchers
have successfully argued it is impossible to isolate human subjectivity from the objective
(Chandle, 1977; Flvberg, 2001).
Approach to Knowledge Creation
Looking at 100 years of literature that has developed around the study of
organizational knowledge, two approaches to knowledge have emerged (Gorman, 2004;
Schwandt, 1997). One approach involves building on the economic tradition (Penrose,
1959; Schumpeter, 1934), which includes several models addressed further in the review.
Another approach to the study of knowledge is the social constructivist approach
(Gorman, 2004; Weick, 1979, 1995) that contends knowledge is derived from
experiences.
Economic Approach to Knowledge
The dominant approaches to knowledge are built on economic traditions
(Gorman, 2004) and include the four distinctions addressed in this review: the transaction
cost economy (TCE), the competency economy, the information processing model, and
the resource-based model (Nelson & Winter, 1982; Penrose, 1959; Schumpeter, 1934). A
transaction cost is “the cost of providing for some goods or services through the market
rather than having it provided from within the firm” (Coase, 1937, p. 386). The TCE
represents an early and influential attempt to propound a theory of economics that factors
the firm’s knowledge architecture into the model. Like other equilibrium-based
!21
economic theories, TCE assumes that maximizing profit is the function of a firm and that
minimizing costs is a component of this maximization (Williamson, 1971, 1981;
Williamson & Masten, 1999). Additionally, TCE takes as a given the rationality of
ownership and management.
The distinction between TCE and other early economic models is the significance
attributed to transaction cost as well as production cost (Fliaster & Spiess, 2008). An
essential factor for determining the cost of transactions is the degree to which knowledge
is specific (Picot, Borenlanger, & Rohrl, 1997). Fliaster and Spiess (2008) identified
knowledge that is specific and can be used only for a small number of tasks of large
value. In contrast, frequent transactions allow individuals to distribute the relatively large
costs of developing and maintaining social connections, especially strong connections,
across a larger group of transactions involving one partner (Fliaster & Spiess, 2008, p.
99). In the TCE model, human capital and knowledge are assets; hence, acquisition and
exchange of knowledge becomes the focus. Creating organizational knowledge is a
conversion process from unarticulated (tacit or implicit) knowledge to articulated
(explicit) knowledge (Gorman, 2004, p. 42).
Langlois and Foss (1999) introduced the competency perspective as a
complementary approach to TCE. The competency perspective has roots in evolutionary
theory, which includes an argument for the role of routine in-process flow (Nelson &
Winter, 1982), and resource-based theory, which includes a focus on the clustering of
related transactions (Foss, 1996). A key contribution of the competence approach is its
emphasis on knowledge creation and learning as core competencies of a firm (Gorman,
!22
2004; Morroni, 1992). Companies are moving from business models whose view of
value is derived from physical products to models in which value to a greater or lesser
extent includes intangibles such as providing services, maintaining knowledge, and
building relationships (Ojasalo, 2009, p. 216).
Mintzberg and Waters (1983) highlighted a third approach in which organizations
are viewed from an information processing perspective: the information processing
model. In this approach, Mintzberg and Waters focused on functional approaches to
understanding information processing using decision making, problem solving, and
artificial intelligence models. This perspective includes a view of knowledge as valued
information stored within individuals (Gorman, 2004; Li & Change, 2009). The
information processing model provides a clear framework that explains how
organizations function and adapt processes, although Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995)
contended that it lacks sufficient explanation on knowledge creation.
The resource-based model (Barney, 1991; Crook, Ketchen, Combs, & Todd, 2008;
Hamel & Prahalad, 1994; Jeroen Kraaijenbrink & Groen, 2010; McIvor, 2009) is
grounded in the competitive advantage argument that views knowledge as an important
strategic resource (Albert & Anderson, 2010; Ardichvili & Won Yoon, 2009; Argote,
McEvily, & Reagans, 2003). The approach focuses on maximizing a firm’s performance
and leveraging corporate knowledge (Uzama, 2009). Resource-based theories are
generally used in constructing theoretical frameworks for examining how knowledge and
capabilities are generated and transferred (Eltantawy, 2008). An advantage in
competitive terms can be derived from using resource-based approaches in apprehending
!23
relationships between different skills and practices employed by managers (Eltantawy,
2008, p. 152).
Social Constructionist Approach to Knowledge
Another stream of knowledge research derives from the social constructionist
perspective (Berger & Luckmann, 1966; Gorman, 2004; Weick, 1979, 1995). The social
constructionist view of knowledge creation is as a dynamic interplay among individuals
at a collective level. Sometimes characterized as postmodernist, this stream of research is
grounded in the concept that individuals actively assemble their environment. Social
construction involves a combination of existing knowledge structures with interpreted
external information (Weick, 1995). From the combination of two forces, new
knowledge is formed, incorporated into institutions, and evolve into tradition (Yeganeh &
Su, 2006). Social constructionists view reality as a continuing, constantly changing
process. This reality is maintained and continued by individuals acting according to how
they interpret and understand it (Geertz, 1974). Organizational knowledge is therefore
viewed as a product of collective minds. Only a collective, not a single person, can know
this emergent phenomenon entirely (Gorman, 2004).
Although the general consensus is the social constructionist stream of research
lags behind the economic stream in popularity, prominent models and concepts have been
created over time. Some models include Schwandt’s (1997) knowledge framework,
Canary’s (2010) structurating activity theory, and Seely Brown’s (1991, 2002)
communities of practice. Other concepts include Spender’s (1996) industry recipes and
!24
knowledge taxonomies; Tsoukas’s (1996) knowledge as a continuum; and von Krogh,
Roos, and Slocum’s (1994) conditions for new or recreated knowledge.
Delineations, Taxonomies, and Typologies of Knowledge
The discussion continues about how to delineate knowledge successfully
(Dolfsma, 2008). Many social scientists have attempted to delineate knowledge (Nickols,
2000; Polanyi, 1962; Probst et al., 2002; Spender, 1996). One approach used was the
creation of taxonomies to define dimensions, components, and types of knowledge. A
recognized and widely accepted delineation was Polanyi’s (1962) attempt. Polanyi
proposed a twofold view of knowledge: a tacit dimension and an explicit dimension. The
two dimensions have served as the foundation for many researchers in the field of
knowledge management (Gorman, 2004). The typology proposed by Spender (1996) was
similar in that it differentiated implicit knowledge (generated through action) and explicit
knowledge (generated through communication). Kogut and Zander (1996) delineated
knowledge between new knowledge and reproduced knowledge. Nickols (2000) further
delineated unarticulated knowledge into two categories: (a) implicit knowledge, which,
while not yet converted, is amenable to becoming explicit, and (b) tacit knowledge,
which differs in that it strongly resists being made explicit.
Articulated Versus Unarticulated Knowledge
In his famous delineation of knowledge, Polanyi (1962) identified the tacit and
explicit types of knowledge. Polanyi’s theory rested on three basic concepts: (a) real
discovery cannot arise out of articulated governance; (b) knowledge is both public and, to
a great extent, private; and (c) knowledge starts in the tacit unarticulated realm. Polanyi
!25
concluded that tacit knowledge could not be articulated because it is internalized in the
unconscious mind. Consistent with the focus of the current study, the review was
structured around Nichols’s (2000) delineation of nonexplicit knowledge into implicit and
tacit types. Tacit and implicit knowledge is unarticulated, whereas explicit knowledge is
articulated knowledge. Despite the delineation efforts presented above, researchers have
cautioned against valuing the significance of one type of knowledge over another for
organizations.
Knowledge Structures
Cognitive researchers use the concept of knowledge structures to represent an
interrelated collection of facts or knowledge about behaviors or actions held by human
experts. Such knowledge structures are controlled by learning dependencies (knowledge
elements), which provides structural integrity for human-centered approaches to
examining knowledge (Lyles & Schwenk, 1992). Knowledge structures assume the role
of filters, affecting the interpretation and action of how new information is processed by
members of social system (Gorman, 2004, p. 56).
Knowledge structure varies across firms, workgroups, and organizations. Foss
and Pedersen (2001) proposed that subgroups within organizations be viewed as
individual knowledge structures that are heterogeneous in nature. A subsidiary, division,
or headquarters of a multinational firm such as Organization W should therefore be
examined for intrafirm heterogeneity and not interfirm heterogeneity. Knowledge
elements within a knowledge structure hold characteristics of knowledge content such as
!26
tacitness, complexity, and source (Foss & Pedersen, 2001). These characteristics are
further examined in the Pillars of Knowledge section.
Cognitive Research
As mentioned earlier in the review, neoclassic researchers of organizational
(collective) knowledge have tried to avoid the subjective (human) area of the knowledge
debate. The reverse is also true for cognitive researchers. Wong and Sitkin (2002 ) noted
that the focus of cognitive science has been the study of the human mind and the thought
process of individuals, ignoring the social context in which individuals exist. Brower
(1996 ) and Resnick (1991 ) noted a fundamental shift has taken place in the subjective
area of research to focus on the role of both the social context and process of emergence
of knowledge. Organizational theorists interested in knowledge management,
integration, and creation have conducted extensive work on this area of study.
Collective Cognition
Hayak’s (1945 ) interpretation of collective cognition was borrowed for the
current study, attributing it to the involvement of three interacting elements: the
individual abilities of the agents, their shared knowledge, and their communication
structure. Collective cognition can be recognized by organized principles, routines and
practices, management schemes, related organization consensus on past experiences
(organizational memory), agreed-upon goals, adaptive orientation to the environment,
and the relationships commonly held and diffused throughout organizations (Lyles &
Schwenk, 1992; Zander & Kogut, 1995). Justification for collective cognition is based
!27
on the premise that individual processes are disjointed from and generally ignorant of the
detailed dynamics of the overall system (Sackman, 1992).
The appropriateness of studying cognition at the collective level was first argued
by Durkiem (1895) and championed by Hayak (1945); however, the number of empirical
studies has increased since the early 1990s at the collective level examining knowledge
structures and schema (Bougon, 1992; Casey, 1994; Giegle, 1997). Schneider and
Angelmar (1993) indicated that when studying the collective, researchers must account
for social interactions, group dynamics, politics, and communication because their
variables are not captured at the aggregate level. A convergence of interest exists in the
area of collective cognition in organizations between social scientists and strategists.
Social scientists are interested in context sensitivity, from a social perspective, of
cognitive processing within a firm, whereas organizational strategists focus on a firm
from a knowledge-processing perspective (Schneider & Angelmar, 1993, p. 354). Table 1
displays a list of contributing scholars.
Table 1
Knowledge Structures: Contributing Scholars
!28
(continued)
Author Knowledge structure
Neiser (1976) Knowledge structures arise because of cognitive limitations of individuals to absorb and
recall large amounts of information.
Hannan &
Freeman (1977)
Knowledge structures classified into core and peripheral (Lyles & Schwenk, 1992)
extend these classifications.
Argyris &
Schon (1983)
Knowledge structures define expected relationships, behaviors, and actions for
organizational members’ complex knowledge structure in order for the top management
team to respond appropriately to the organizations environment
Daft & Weick
(1984)
The top management team bears responsibility for determining the way in which an
organization interprets the environment and responds to it strategically. Properties relevant
to knowledge structure = encoding, storage, elaboration, forgetting, retrieval, modeling,
modification, addition of new structures, complexity of structure.
Schwenk (1984) Knowledge structures create biases in interpretation of information and the
oversimplification in strategic management decision making.
Lurigio &
Carroll (1985)
Complexity of knowledge structure differs depending on individual domain-specific
expertise
!29
Table 1. Knowledge Structures: Contributing Scholars (continued)
(continued)
Author Knowledge structure
Prahald &
Bettis (1986)
Knowledge structures create perceptual filters that allow managers to emphasize relevant
information while disregarding irrelevant information; effective perceptual filters that
allow top management teams to focus on relevancy, even if information is not accurate or
complete.
Weick &
Bougon (1992)
Three stages for developing knowledge structure: (1) agreement on which concepts
capture and abstract their joint experience; (2) consensus on relationships among these
concepts; (3) similarity of view on how these related concepts affect each party (Lyles,
1992, p. 157).
Fahey &
Narayanan
(1989)
Structural knowledge of key decision-making groups skewed their understanding of
environmental information which contributed to demise of company over 15 year period
(case study in television manufacturing firm).
Huff &
Schwenk (1990)
Executives actively examine their firm's external environment and altered their
cognitive map in a predictable fashion (casual maps in oil and auto industry).
Hershey, Walsh,
Read, & Chulef
(1990)
Complexity of knowledge structure differs depending on individual's domain knowledge
(study of expertise on financial problem solving).
Barr, Stimpert,
& Huff (1992)
First empirical study to call attention to utility of knowledge structures and their
relationship to learning (per Walsh, 1995). Studied two firms who altered knowledge
structure, but surviving company showed evidence of continued experimentation,
change, and learning (studied changes in cognitive maps of two railroad companies using
archival documents).
Geigle (1997) Knowledge structures are impacted by variables such as work experience, group
membership, organizational tenure, organizational culture, organizational context, and
industry
!30
Table 1. Knowledge Structures: Contributing Scholars (continued)
The Knowledge Creation Theory of a Firm
The focus of the current study was the phenomenon of knowledge creation and
management within a firm from the perspective of the organization knowledge creation
theory (OKC) of a firm (Nonaka & Toyama, 2003). OKC perspective is distinct because
of its emphasis on understanding the conscious act of creating meaning (knowledge
Author Knowledge structure
Kuhn &
Corman, 2003
Convergence and divergence of members' knowledge structures over time; using
interviews and observations—nine month case study of government agency striving to
understand complexities marking implementations of organizational change programs.
Gorman (2004) The study examined 7 primary characteristics of a firms knowledge structure
concerning change: Study examined two firms
Clariana &
Wallace (2007)
Examines a computer based approach to examine knowledge structures in individuals
and groups
Anantatmula &
Kanungo (2009)
The study examines way of establishing monetary benefit to Knowledge Management
using knowledge structures
Zhang, Wang,
Dong, & Zhou
(2009)
The study compared Chinese and American students’ knowledge structure: Study
results showed remarkable difference
Wu & Ragatz
(2010)
The study examine the feasibility of integrated supplier into new product development
process using knowledge structure to frame the study
Friesl,
Sackmann, &
Kremser (2011)
The study examines the barriers to knowledge sharing on German air force
Yin, Ge, & Li,
(2011)
Use knowledge structure framework to assess knowledge transfer from consultants to
knowledge workers during ERP implementation
Kawashima,
Lobel, Yamada,
& Ohtake (2011)
Legal structuring of knowledge products to benefit society
!31
creation) and how knowledge is processed within a firm. Building on Plato’s perspective
of knowledge as a justified true belief (Baird, 1961/2008), Nonaka and Toyama (1995)
and Nonaka et al. (2006) premised the OKC on the concept that an individual creates
knowledge by making sense of a new situation by committing to his or her justified
belief.
Additionally, unlike the neoclassical organizational knowledge theorists, the OKC
is grounded on the premise that knowledge inherently includes human values and ideals
and is therefore inherently subjective (Nonaka & Toyama, 2003). Truth becomes a truth
through human interactions being influenced by the ideal, ideologies, and values of the
collective (Nonaka & Toyama, 2003, p. 5). Complementing the subjective aspects of
knowledge creation, the OKC also prescribes a role for hard knowledge, which facilitates
the expansion (universality) of knowledge. The OKC proposes that “subjective (tacit)
knowledge held by individuals is externalized into hard (explicit) knowledge to be shared
and synthesized” (Nonaka & Toyama, 2005, p. 419). During the process of sharing and
synthesis, new knowledge is created, which in turn is internalized and built on preexisting
subjective knowledge (SECI).
Figure 1 represents Nonaka and Takeuchi’s (2005) SECI model to examine the
knowledge creation process. Nonaka and Takeuchi proposed that unarticulated
knowledge held by individuals could be converted to articulated knowledge through a
spiral process. The SECI model provides the framework for managing the relevant
processes.
!32
!
Figure 1. Four modes of knowledge conversion. From The Knowledge Creating Company (p. 62), by I. Nonaka and H. Takeuchi, 1995, London, England: Oxford University Press. Copyright 1995 by Oxford University Press. Adapted with permission.
In an effort to describe their model, Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) used the process
of developing a new product. In this case, the process of creating a new product starts
with accumulating and sharing the tacit knowledge of the customer through marketing
research: socialization. Research and development facilitates the articulation of tacit
knowledge into a product concept: externalization. Product concept is then synthesized
and developed into product by product engineers and other groups: combination. The
explicit knowledge created by this new product to the customers generates more tacit
knowledge: internalization. Internalization sets off a new spiral.
Nonaka’s theory of organizational knowledge creation centering on the SECI
model was developed by Nonaka and his colleagues (Nonaka, 1994; Nonaka et al., 1994;
Socialization Externalization
Internalization Combination
TacitKnowledge
ExplicitKnowledge
ExplicitKnowledge
TacitKnowledge
From
To
!33
Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Nonaka & Toyama, 2003; Nonaka et al., 2000, 2001). Many
scholars have employed the OKC approach. Becerra-Fernandez and I Sabherwal (2001)
used OKC to develop a knowledge sharing scale, Bonifacio and Molani (2003) applied
OKC to examine diversity in knowledge creation, Bryant (2005) employed OKC to
examine tacit knowledge sharing, Chen and Edgington (2005) used OKC to assess the
value of organizational knowledge, A. Malhotra, Gosain, and El Sawy (2005) applied
OKC in understanding the knowledge creation in the supply chain of a business, and
Massey and Montoya-Weiss (2006) applied OKC to examine the knowledge conversion
process. Additionally, the OKC has provided the basis from which theories such as
knowledge-based theory of the firm, resource-based view of the firm, information
processing theory, social capital theory, social network theory, social exchange theory,
structuration theory, and theory of the growth of the firm were developed (Gorman,
2004).
Nonaka et al. (2006) identified several propositions for the OKC approach: (a)
knowledge-based exploration, (b) examining information processing, (c) managing
organizational structure, and (d) analyzing a firm’s growth. An examination of the
situation, end, and means contained in the creation, processing, and management of
knowledge is required.
As noted in Chapter 1, the OKC theory originated from studying innovative
companies to understand their information creation process (Gorman, 2004; Imai et al.,
1985; Nonaka 1988a, 1988b, 1990, 1991b; Nonaka & Kenney, 1991). Since its creation,
the SECI model has evolved from a two-dimensional state social dynamic interplay
!34
between tacit and explicit and the spiral state after internalization (Nonaka, 1994) to its
current three-dimensional state that includes the original two plus the ba state, or shared
context that harbors meaning for knowledge creation (Nonaka et al., 2001). Figure 2
illustrates the three-dimensional state of knowledge creation.
!
Figure 2. The dynamic model of a knowledge-creating company. From “The Theory of a Knowledge Creating Firm: Subjectivity, Objectivity and Synthesis,” by I. Nonaka and R. Toyama, 2005, Industrial and Corporate Change, 14, p. 423. Copyright 1995 by Reed Business Information, Inc. Adapted with permission.
Nonaka and Toyama’s (2005) dynamic model of a knowledge-creating company
demonstrate the conceptual framework that examines how knowledge is created through
the dynamic interplay with its environment. The model consists of 5primarycomponents:
the SECI process of dialogues and practice (described above); the knowledge vision and
driving objective, which provide a direction and energy to the SECI process; ba, the place
!35
where the SECI process operates; knowledge assets, SECI process input and outputs; and
the environment, the dynamic space as knowledge and multilayered ba coexists.
The Knowledge Vision
The concept of knowledge vision has been used to represent many different
interpretations by researchers over time. Nonaka and Toyama (2003) honed the
knowledge vision as the notion that represents a firm’s reason to exist. A knowledge
vision derives from key members of a firm asking why we do what we do (Nonaka &
Toyama, 2003). From this questioning, the firm derives knowledge creation and the
strategic direction of knowledge creation that transcends current capabilities of the firm.
The Driving Objectives
A knowledge vision within itself cannot create knowledge (Nonaka & Toyama,
2003). To bring a knowledge vision to fruition, the firm has to establish concrete steps,
goals, or actions to link with the dialogues and processes explained in the SECI process.
This process is defined as the driving objectives.
Nonaka and Toyama (2003) explained that knowledge creation is guided by
“synthesis of contradictions and thoughts” (p. 434). The acceptance of the dichotomy
transcends either–or solutions, accommodating the creation of new knowledge to solve
such contradictions. Some contradictions cannot be resolved by synthesis and dialogue
but rather through practice. To accomplish knowledge creation through practice, Nonaka
and Toyama noted that preconceived notions have to be discarded and replaced with an
acceptance of the current reality. The synthesis of contradictions through dialogue or
practice creates concepts and hypotheses.
!36
Ba
Nonaka and Takeuchi (2005) defined ba as “shared context in motion, where
knowledge is shared, created and utilized” (p. 428). Basing their premise on Haek’s
(1945) and Suchman’s (1987) arguments that knowledge is context-specific and is
therefore reliant on physical context or situated action to be created, Nonaka and
Takeuchi proposed ba as that context in motion. Ba represents the time and space of such
interactions. Within this constant movement of shared context in motion and the creation
of new meanings, new knowledge is created. Additionally, Nonaka and Takeuchi
proposed that a firm could therefore be viewed as an “organic configuration of multi-
layered ba” (p. 430).
Knowledge Assets
During the knowledge creation process of dialogue and practices at ba, knowledge
assets are created (Nonaka & Toyama, 2003). Knowledge assets may consist of
previously created knowledge such as learned practices, patents, and brand. “Knowledge
assets also include the knowledge to create knowledge and the social capital shared
within an organization (Nonaka & Toyama, 2003, p. 430).
The Environment
Nonaka and Toyama (2003) defined the environment as a multilayered ba that
transcends boundaries of organizations. Knowledge is created through a synthesis of a
firm’s knowledge with knowledge held by stakeholders such as customers, suppliers,
competitors, and universities (Nonaka & Toyama, 2003, p. 431). This interaction in turn
!37
supports revisiting and redefining vision, dialogues, and practices and driving objectives
that affect the environment (Nonaka & Toyama, 2005).
Nature of Knowledge Concerning Organizational Change
The basis of the current study was the premise that organizational change is
dependent on the ability to develop new knowledge (Hedberg, 1981; Lundberg, 1989;
Schwandt, 1997). Therefore, embedded in an effort of transformational change is the
requirement that the social system must create new knowledge and sustain deep-level
change (Nickols, 2000). In the study, transformational change was viewed from both a
macro level representing episodic change and a micro level exploring ongoing adaptation
and continuous change models. If change is dependent on the ability to develop
knowledge (Hedburg, 1981; Lundberg, 1989, 1991; Nonaka, 1991; Schwandt &
Gundlach, 1992), then understanding the dynamics of a collective learning framework
becomes useful for examining how organizations transform themselves to survive in a
changing environment.
Punctuated change models have influenced contemporary thinking about how
organizations change (Sastry, 1997). Originally proposed by Gould and Eldridge in 1972,
punctuated change models characterize change as relatively stable followed by infrequent
transformative punctuations in which new structure emerges (Gorman, 2004). Tushman
and Romanelli (1985) first introduced empirical evidence for a punctuated equilibrium
model after studying 14 organizations. Tushman and Romanelli (1994) furthered their
work with an empirical study on the microcomputing industry. Additional evidence of
these findings was presented in the work of Tushman and Anderson (1986) and Tushman
!38
and Rosenkropt (1992). Although punctuated equilibrium has been researched as a
perspective and analytical lens to understand what change has been developed (Tushman
& Romanelli, 1994), the empirical testing of the role of knowledge structures in that
change dynamic is limited.
A living systems approach could also be considered to understand
transformational change and collective cognition (Capra, 1996; Gersi, 1991; Mingers
1995; Theirtart & Forges, 1995; Wheatly, 1992). However, limited empirical evidence
exists to affirm the link. The perspective living systems approach highlights the inherent
capacity of a system to self-produce and create knowledge from a nonlinear ecological
perspective (Bateson, 1977; Capra, 1996; Luhman, 1984; Maturana & Verela, 1980;
Miller, 1971, 1978; Prigogine, 1979). A living systems approach provides explanations
for why a firm replicates itself in its own image. When a firm places more emphasis on
developing its internal capabilities and competencies in an effort to increase its
knowledge-creating capacities, it can incorporate the living systems perspective to
understand the social process in creating new knowledge.
Pillars of Knowledge
Gorman (2004) described seven pillars to the nature of knowledge concerning
organizational change: (a) the focus of knowledge structure—internally versus externally,
(b) the structure of the dominant core toward inquiry—suppress versus evoke, (c) the
element contributing to the suppressing inquiry, (d) the focus of action orientation—
performing versus learning, (e) the structure of actions, (f) the response to threatening
conditions in external environments, and (g) the perspective of change. The current study
!39
included seven pillar lenses to examine the nature of the firm’s knowledge structure.
Additionally, the management of knowledge can be viewed in the seven pillars context.
Focus of knowledge. In this context, a firm’s knowledge focus describes actions
associated with knowledge retrieval and how a firm maintains, controls, and creates
criteria for judgment, selection, and legitimization of action (Powell, 1991; Schein, 1987;
Walsh & Ungson, 1991; Weick, 1995). Svieby (1997) suggested that there are two core
purposes of measuring intangible assets, like knowledge, and two key parties interested in
the results. One way of measuring intangible assets is assessing levels at a point in time.
Another way of measuring intangible assets is utilizing flows and trends due to the
fluidity of the assets. Externally, interested parties are stakeholders, customers, creditors,
and shareholders, whereas internally, managers and decision makers are the parties of
interest. Although a plausible argument exists for examining intangible assets by flows
and trends, external stakeholders might display an interest in protecting their investments
and therefore placing greater value in a point-in-time valuation. A management team
with a primary focus on satisfying external interest might adopt policies that could affect
the knowledge structure (Svieby, 1997).
Structure of the dominant core toward inquiry. Collinson, Cook, and Conley
(2006) contextualized inquiry as a “cyclical process of questioning, predicting, data
collection, data analysis, and action” (p. 239). Two general approaches have evolved in
the organizational development. One approach utilizes problem-solving orientations in
organizational development. According to Luechauer (2000), this approach has
dominated business schools over the past 50 years, resulting in heavy uses in
!40
organizations. The problem-solving approach presumes a problem needs to be resolved.
Daft (2007) noted that this approach could lead to a demoralized workforce and act as
disincentives to innovation, which could affect knowledge creation. Another approach
utilizes appreciative learning inquiry. Cooperrider and Srivastva (1987) coined this
alternate approach, which attempts to incentivize groups and organizations to generate
and create new self-images. Unlike the problem-solving approach, appreciative inquiry
assumes that everything is going well in the organization. The focus is on creating an
atmosphere that encourages, identifies, emboldens, duplicates, and enhances the
knowledge structure that is currently valuable to the group and organization.
Element contributing to suppressing inquiry. Continuous improvement is an
ideal of organizational learning (Collinson et al., 2006). Inquiry can be useful to an
organization knowledge structure by promoting continuous and cyclical learning.
Organizational cultures that support inquiry combined with the inquiry process can create
a work environment that is productive, rewarding, and stimulating.
Focus of action orientation. An organizational knowledge structure could also
be affected by actions of organization leaders. The overall goal of a for-profit business is
to maximize shareholder wealth (Coase, 1937). In individual organizations, however, the
approach to this objective can be accomplished differently. Some leaders might place
emphasis on the bottom-line performance, therefore eking as much productivity out of a
worker as possible and disregarding employee morale (Paladino, Bates, & da Silveira,
2001). Other leaders strive to build a learning organization by emphasizing building the
intangible asset—organizational knowledge—in the process (Paladino et al., 2001). The
!41
approach that firms and institutions take in managing knowledge can tremendously affect
their competency levels and, as a consequence, their performance (Sanchez, 2006).
Additionally, subgroups within an organization have varying short-term priorities;
therefore, a gap may exist between the action orientations of the organization individuals
and the overall goal (Sanchez, 2006, pp. 256-257).
The structure of these actions. Consistent with Goldkuhl and Braf (2001), a
pragmatic perspective directs a focus on utilization of knowledge in organizational
actions. Goldkuhl and Braf noted,
In order to act, the actor must have knowledge about the situation: declarative
knowledge. The actor must know what to do (i.e., what actions to perform). The
actor must also know within what kind of situation he or she acts. Situational
knowledge will also include knowledge about circumstances (what kind of
objects) within the situation. (p. 4)
Goldkuhl and Braf further noted that an actor requires know-how (procedural knowledge)
and must be attuned to the goals and values of the organization (motivational
knowledge). In addition to the distinctions about what, how, and why, Goldkuhl and Braf
further suggested adding knowledge about whom (i.e., knowledge concerning which
persons certain actions will be performed in relation to).
The response to threatening conditions in external environments. Storey,
Emberson, Godsell, and Harrison (2006) noted that, in theory and in practice, senior
managers expect to align their organization with the current and expected external
environment while developing internal organizational capabilities not only to respond to
!42
these threats but also to increase adaptive capacity, improve organizational performance,
and achieve competitive advantage. Weick (1987) further supported this position by
asserting that in addition to evaluating the merit of adapting to strategy or design, senior
managers must be aware of the changes in the organization (p. 113).
Studies have shown that managers’ belief systems derive from experienced past
activities and outcomes (Klein, Moon, & Hoffman, 2006a; Snowden & Boone, 2007;
Weick, 1995). There seem to be consensus that, as long as these belief systems reflect a
sensible representation of the environment, the system can be a valuable map for
directing effective organizational action. March and Simon (1958) explained that most
organizations operate in environments that are fluid and complex, where the only
constant is change. The reaction to such environments can be erratic and not well
thought out as leaders face unfamiliar events and choices. Snowden and Boone (2007)
noted that decision makers need to update their beliefs to mount an effective response to
an organizational environment.
The area of strategic management has been fertile for researchers for the past 50
years. Daniels et al. (2002) reported that much of the strategic management literature
focuses on tasks of being a manager and managers’ technical response to environment.
Other strategic management scholars propose that organizations should also focus on
creating distinctiveness in internal organization. The dual environment focus could
create a competitive advantage for an organization (Collis & Montgomery, 1995; Porter,
1980; Wernerfelt, 1984).
!43
According to Daniels et al. (2002), “Managers actively seek for their organization
to be advantageously different from others, either by identifying available opportunities
in the competitive environment or by positioning their organization distinctly from others
by using resources specific to their own organization” (p. 33). The lens through which
managers view their organizations drives differences in how they interpret their
competitive environment. Unlike managerial groups in the same organization, managers
in different organizations encounter varied sectors of the task environment. As a result,
the cognitive perspective from which the structure is viewed is different. (Daniels et al.,
1994; Hodgkinson & Johnson, 1994).
Perspective on change. Some environment events might have an impact on and
be a factor in an organizational knowledge structure. The combination of the
environmental events into a simple knowledge structure might result in an increase in the
complexity of the structure over time (Meyer, 1992; Shank & Alberson 1977). Pruzak
(1997) noted that in the course of this condition of influx, organizations whose structures
are simple will identify areas in their environment where they can operate with
reasonable stability or choose to ignore the jolts being experienced. According to Draft
and Wik (1984), firms with tightly coupled knowledge structures tend to resist change
and maintain the status quo. Instead, the leaders of these firms might attempt to force the
environment to change at the expense of stability. The firm with long-established
traditional values might choose to ignore contradictory evidence that might cause change
(Draft & Wiek, 1984). Other tightly coupled firms, according to Lyle (1988), seek out
new markets (geographic or demographic) that reflect the historical structure.
!44
Conversely, firms with a higher tolerance for disagreement (loosely coupled knowledge
structures) can accommodate varying opinions and more flexibility on taking action and
strategies (Pruzak, 1997).
The Knowledge Worker
First coined by Peter Drucker in the 1960s, the term knowledge worker represents
an individual who adds value to information via comparison, connection, consequence,
and conversation within an area of specialty. Knowledge workers can enrich the overall
understanding of an area of interest using analytics, concept framing, or development.
(Davenport, Thomas, & Cantrell, 2002). Most businesspeople understand that knowledge
workers are at the heart of innovation and are hence important to long-term
organizational sustainability and growth (Davenport et al., 2002, p. 23).
Knowledge Experts
The term knowledge expert is widely used to represent lead researchers and
practitioners in the field of knowledge management. For the purpose of the current study,
the term represented the decision makers responsible for processing implicit
(unarticulated) knowledge to an explicit (articulated) state for the benefit of the
organization. Although knowledge workers are expected to play a key role in managing
data, Dzekashu (2009) proposed that the success of knowledge management initiatives is
the primary responsibility of the managers of different departments within the
organization possessing the capacity to manage projects, change, and technology (p. 35).
Knowledge experts might contribute greater standards than knowledge workers by
!45
ensuring that individual knowledge transitions into highly dynamic organizational
knowledge (Dzekashu, 2009).
Knowledge Mapping
In a world in which the creation and management of knowledge continues to be a
critical part of the organizational competitive advantage strategic objective, the question
of how organizations retain their intellectual capital has been a favorite subject of
knowledge researchers since the early 1990s (Jordon & Tricker, 1995; Nonaka et al.,
1994). One approach to identifying which knowledge is important for the delivery of
products or services is knowledge mapping. The argument for knowledge mapping is
based on the premise that although retaining knowledge experts in an organization should
be a priority, it is even more important to transfer their knowledge into a condition that is
useful to management and people who remain loyal to an organization (Gordon, 2000;
Howard, 1989; Kim et al., 2003).
A knowledge map is a graphical depiction of what, when, where, and how
knowledge is applied in a web of cause and effect relationships (Gordon, 2000; Howard,
1989; Kim et al., 2003). This knowledge web, portrayed in a knowledge map, is
comprised of ascendant knowledge (as cause) and descendant knowledge (as effect). The
map therefore displays the characteristics of current business processes because it is
developed based on these practices. A knowledge map therefore displays players,
sources, flows, constraints, and leaks of knowledge within an organization and represents
a navigation aid for both tacit and explicit knowledge (Gordon, 2000).
!46
Using knowledge mapping as a part of their approach to investigating knowledge,
Adam and Murphy (1995) developed a map to support the strategic activities of top
managers resulting in more structurally sound decision support systems. Gordon (2000)
applied the knowledge mapping approach to assemble dispersed knowledge in several
large organizations. Garcia-Flores et al. (2000) applied knowledge mapping techniques
as a part of their efforts to improve interagency information and knowledge flow,
resulting in the integration of several previously disintegrated supply chains. Forza and
Salvador (2001) examined the relationship between knowledge and performance in
manufacturing facilities, resulting in developing a knowledge map integrating research in
operations management and in organizational communication. Yoo, Suh, and Kim (2007)
used a knowledge map to alter a conventional decision-making procedure within an
organization.
Case Studies in Knowledge Management
Several knowledge management scholars have applied the case study approach to
examine organizational knowledge. Gorman (2004) used the case study method to
examine the dynamic social process of creating organizational knowledge during
transformational change in two corporations: financial and manufacturing. King and
Zeithaml (2003) used a similar approach with firms from two diverse industries: textile
and hospital. Jensen and Szulanski (2007) used case study methodology to examine a
claim that using templates enhances the effectiveness of knowledge transfer at Xerox
Corporation. Rao, Earls, and Sanchez (2007) also used case study methodology to study
a special case of global transorganizational insourcing in two dispersed, semiautonomous
!47
organizations. The following chapter outlines how the case study approach was used for
the study.
Summary of the Literature
Efforts to understand identification, creation, management, and leveraging of
organizational knowledge have led organizational leaders to take formal and informal
knowledge management initiatives to survive. Chapter 2 included an analysis of the
literature and key research components of organizational knowledge creation. The
relationship between the study and previous research reinforces the complexity of the
knowledge held by people and the challenges of managing it, although it confirms
several ways exist to manage this organization asset effectively. The current study
differed from others because of its target, timeliness, and the uniqueness of the
organization studied.
The history of the study of knowledge demonstrates the quest to understand the
nature of knowledge and how inconclusive the findings have been. The history of the
study of organizational knowledge indicates that two approaches to understand
knowledge have emerged: economic and social constructivist. Scholars in the
economic stream view economy as the primary impetus for organizational knowledge
creation whereas the social constructivist scholars credit the dynamic interplay among
individuals at a collective level as the key driver. Although the general consensus is
the social constructionist stream of research lags behind the economic stream in
popularity, prominent models and concepts have been created over time.
!48
The theoretical frameworks for the study came from the school of
organizational theories, specifically the organizational knowledge creation theory. The
distinction of this theory is the emphasis on understanding the conscious act of
creating meaning (knowledge creation) and how knowledge is processed within a
firm. Extracting knowledge from the sources accessible to people in organizations and
storing the knowledge in knowledge systems is an enormous task. The complexity
increases with capturing unarticulated and articulated knowledge during
transformational change.
People, processes, and technology comprise the three important components of
knowledge management coming together as different parts of a system that require
contemplation during the knowledge capture process (Dzekashu, 2009).
Understanding organizational knowledge during transformational change means
identifying knowledge structure and examining the transformation process to
determine where business leaders focus their efforts to protect, develop, and deploy
knowledge resources for effectiveness. One approach to identifying which knowledge
is important for the delivery of products or services is knowledge mapping. The
argument for knowledge mapping is based on the premise that although retaining
knowledge experts in an organization should be a priority, it is even more important
for knowledge to be converted and transferred to ensure usefulness to management
and people who remain loyal to an organization (Gordon, 2000; Howard, 1989; Kim et
al., 2003).
!49
Gorman (2004) described seven pillars to the nature of knowledge concerning
organizational change: (a) the focus knowledge structure—internally versus externally,
(b) the structure of the dominant core toward inquiry—suppress versus evoke, (c)
element contributing to the suppressing inquiry, (d) the focus of action orientation—
performing versus learning, (e) the structure of actions, (f) the response to threatening
conditions in external environments, and (g) the perspective of change. I used the seven
pillar lens to examine the nature of a firm’s knowledge structure. Additionally, the
management of knowledge can be viewed from the seven pillars context. Chapter 3
includes an examination of the methodology, research design, treatment, my role as the
researcher in collecting data, the instrumentation, and sampling methods and procedures
used to conduct the study.
!50
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS
The purpose of this chapter is to explain the design and methods chosen for the
study. The research methodology was driven by the research objective and questions. A
study of this caliber requires extensive understanding of existing literature and methods
used to examine the studies. The problem addressed in the current study was a failure of
organizational leaders to take advantage of a system-driven transformational change to
develop and leverage critical organizational knowledge to improve performance (Baker
& Maddux, 2005; Sarkis & Sundarraj, 2003). The study was designed to gain insights
into a firm’s knowledge structure during a transformational change effort. To examine
the organizational actions and the structure by which these actions are guided, a case
study using mixed methods was appropriate.
The nature of the research validated a single case design (Yin, 2003). I sought the
perceptions of participants as they related to the capture and management of knowledge
held by individuals in a specific situation with little interest in generalizability. The
company was reflecting radical transformation (Tushman & O Reilly, 1996), as evident in
its stated direction to change strategy, structure, and power distribution in response to
requirements of implementing an ERP within the organization. Case study strategy has
been a valuable approach to researching how and why questions (Yin, 1994), making it
ideal for examining 3 years of the life of the project. Yin (1994) further contended that
case study method has the advantage of being able to examine a case in detail as it exists
in its real-life context (p. 1).
!51
Several knowledge management scholars have applied the case study approach to
examine organizational knowledge as well as a mixed methodologies approach to inquiry
(see Table 2). In addition, the focus on a single location allowed for the in-depth analysis
for the inquiry. Table 2 displays examples of single, mixed-method case studies in the
area of knowledge management.
Table 2
Sample Mixed Methods Studies
The issue of biases and prejudices due to my personal experiences is well-
documented. However, if a researcher can remain blind to the status of the participant,
Author Title of dissertation or journal article
Methodolog
y
Rao, Earls, & Sanchez
(2007)
International Collaboration in Transorganizational
Systems Development: The Challenges of Global
Insourcing
Jensen & Szulanski (2007) Template Use and the Effectiveness of Knowledge Transfer
King & Zeithaml (2003) Measuring organizational knowledge: A conceptual and
methodology framework
Gorman (2004) Creating organizational knowledge during transformation
change: A multi-site case study using an action theory
approach
Mixed
Hanks (2008) Measuring Relative Risk Intelligence: Model Development Mixed
Florence (2008) Contractor Knowledge Transfer as Perceived by Defense
Federal Civilians in Washington, DC
Qualitative
Bresman, Birkinshaw, &
Nobel (2010)
Knowledge transfer in international acquisitions Mixed
Fullerton (2010) Transformative learning Among College Students Mixed
Barnes et al. (2010) Developing Instructional Leaders Mixed
!52
the experiences can be critical to the merit of the study (Cone & Foster, 2006). Thus, my
experience as a manager and internal consultant in the organization under study could be
considered relevant and useful. The challenge was to be “explicitly mindful of the
purpose of the study and of the conceptual lenses on it—while allowing oneself to be
open and to be reeducated by the things we don’t know or expect to find” (Miles &
Huberman, 1994, p. 20).
Research Design
The methodology followed the recommendation of Yin (1994) and had four
stages: (a) design case study; (b) conduct case study; (c) analyze case study evidence; and
(d) develop conclusions, recommendations, and implications. Qualitative strategies were
appropriate to examine the knowledge structure and related shift in organization action
(Yin, 1994, 2003). Quantitative procedures were focused on capturing a broad
representation of employees’ view of the firms’ actions as it relates to performance and
learning while adapting to the changing environment.
According to Miles and Huberman (1994), although quantitative evidence can
outline prominent relationships not readily obvious to a researcher, understanding that
relationship requires qualitative evidence (p. 14). Combining methods proved useful,
adding scope and breadth to the study through triangulation and enhanced synergy
(Creswell, 1994; Green, Caracelli, & Graham, 1989; Miles & Huberman, 1994). When
compared to traditional methods of research in social sciences, mixed methodologies is
relatively new; however, the use of the method is expanding (Creswell, 2003; Creswell,
Plano, Gutmann, & Hanson, 2003; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998, 2003). Recently,
!53
empirical work on knowledge structures and organizational change has involved
multiple methods (Barnes, Camburn, Sanders, & Sebastian, 2010; Fullerton, 2010).
In seeking to understand both the existing and the emergent knowledge structures,
data gathering included the use of focus groups and interviews for the purpose of
obtaining personal perspectives of members of the organization (Stake, 1995; Yin, 2003).
To understand an organization’s action, data collection included five sources: surveys,
observations, documents, focus groups, and interviews (Stake, 1995; Yin, 2003). Data
from the multiple sources were triangulated to reduce bias.
Data gathering and analysis was focused on multiple levels (Chang, Lee, Cheng,
& Marek-Sadowska, 1998), meaning that data concerning organization knowledge and
actions were gathered from individuals and groups. A multilevel approach was supported
because it simultaneously considered individual perceptions about individual actions and
the collective actions (Meng, Zhang, & Liu, 2007).
The cognitive constructionist research tradition influenced the current study
(Babbie, 1995). The tradition recognizes that existing knowledge structures are actively
combined with external information through actions of interpretation by members of an
organization (Nonaka & Toyama, 2005; Parac et al., 1996; Weick, 1995). Data analysis
included a content analysis approach and knowledge mapping techniques using NVivo
software as a tool.
As the focus of the study was identifying and mapping knowledge, the unit of
analysis was the relationship of dependencies. By analyzing the available documents
produced by employees using select content analysis and information visualization
!54
techniques, knowledge mapping revealed the pillars of knowledge relevant to the
knowledge strategy (Hsinchun & Mihail, 2009). The design included an examination of
both expressed ideas and actions as perceived by each member to gain insight into the
intrinsic qualities of Division F’s knowledge structure related to organizational change
using NVivo software as an aid (Singleton & Straits, 2005).
Limitations/Delimitations
Certain delimitations were developed to limit the scope of the research. These
delimitations included research site, method and research sample, focus of study, and
time. The organization studied is a global organization with 5,000 locations worldwide.
The study was confined to a division with the organization. I focused the investigation
on the employees directly affected by the ERP implementation. Additionally, the
research was constrained to the 2008–2010 time frame. The study cut-off point was
subject to my scheduled research timeline.
The ERP implementation is extensive and is expected to continue beyond the
period examined in the current investigation. I chose focus the study on division F
because, unlike the rest of the organization, the project was fully implemented in these
locations. The chosen location was conducive to the case study method since employees
experience the two phases required for project completion within a year of the completed
date.
The decision not to consider factors such as the effectiveness of the leadership,
technical capabilities within the industry, and overall group effectiveness limited the
findings. Additionally, the selection of a single site limited cross-company or cross-
!55
industry comparison capabilities. Because of the sampling design, I was not always able
to match survey data with the qualitative data for individuals. The study was not
designed to evaluate the transformational change, nor is the study focused on the
alteration of the knowledge structure over time.
Several study limitations were related to delimiter previously discussed. First, the
firm was purposefully selected because it was undergoing a transformational change
effort; therefore, the transferability of the findings may also be decreased. Second, the
study was also limited by its methods. Although a mixed-method approach allows for
examining both relationships and underlying causes for relationships, the qualitative
methods used in the study are subject to other interpretations (Kunes, 1991). Qualitative
findings cannot be generalized to the layer of the population (Stake, 1995). Furthermore,
the study was limited to describing the creation of knowledge within the organization in
the course of a transformation effort. The study did not link knowledge-creating
capability to the success or effectiveness of the transformation and subsequent survival of
the firm or to the overall performance of the firm. Finally, although statistically
significant, the sample design may not represent participation by the full organization.
There may be biases in the data because of the type of employees who responded to the
survey and those who participated in the focus groups and interviews. Other employees
with other strong opinions could have declined to participate in the study.
!56
Role of the Researcher in Collecting Data
The laws of instruments say that what an individual thinks exists and what an
individual believes to exist is completely determined by the instruments used to research
such beliefs (McQuade, 2006). The choice of conceptual instruments influences how
reality is created. For the current study, an action frame of reference was based on an
assumption of the collectives, and the social construction of reality served as a bias. The
organizational action instruments chosen were based on these assumptions, as were the
questions and analytical frameworks selected to analyze the interview and observational
data. The challenge was to be “explicitly mindful of the purpose of the study and of the
conceptual lenses on it—while allowing oneself to be open and to be reeducated by the
things we don’t know or expect to find” (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 20).
Heightened emphasis on being the primary instrument for data collection and
analysis occurred in the qualitative portion of the study. According to Creswell et al.
(2003), the role of the researcher is based on merit, time spent in the field, and rapport
established by participants. Lastly, I assumed that my experiences were critical to the
merit of the study. Thus, my experience in organizations as a manager and as a research
consultant was considered relevant and useful.
Primary access is the ability to get into an organization and be allowed to conduct
research (Coghlan & Brannick, 2005, p. 67). In the current study, I was granted
permission to examine the process. Agreement of participation included both obtaining
visibility into the research areas while also providing value to the SAP implementation
initiative. After determining the objectives of the research, it was necessary to identify
!57
the resources essential to achieving these objectives. Next, prerequisites of creating a
winning situation were explored, which includes identifying the long-term and short-term
value of the study for the organization and its effect on the overall outcome.
A key factor in a researcher’s decision to conduct field research is securing the
necessary resources such as funding, human skills, and time (Coghlan & Brannick, 2005).
Such challenges include getting process owners to recognize the strategic value of their
data and the research. I secured executive champions that ensured collaboration between
the business units and myself. Additionally, time was allotted by organization leaders to
conduct the research.
Data were captured through survey responses, transcripts, and field notes from the
tape-recorded focus groups and interviews. Additionally, data were utilized from my
personal journal aimed at capturing methodological considerations during the course of
the research process. To increase the response rate and address confidentiality concerns,
the primary Business Readiness project team administered the survey. I followed up with
personal interviews and document reviews.
Instrumentation
I used instruments used in previous similar research to conduct the study. The use
of such instruments was intended to increase the credibility of the study. I received final
approval for the OAS.
The OAS was developed by George Washington University's Center for the Study
of Learning to capture dynamic social action at a firm level as it relates to performance
and learning. Developed in the mid-1990s, the theoretical foundations of the survey stem
!58
from Schwandt’s dynamic social action learning model (Schwandt, 1997). Fundamental
to the survey is the premise that the efficacy of an organization depends upon its values
and the processes, norms, and actions considered critical by the organizational leaders for
the fulfillment of its mission (Johnson, 2000; Parson et al., 1953; Schwandt, 1997). The
survey collects information on perceptions of the organization’s actions. The survey has
eight factors, corresponding to learning and performing orientations for prerequisites. A
copy of the survey appears in Appendix B. Table 3 provides a brief overview for each of
the eight factors.
Table 3
OAS Learning Performing Factor Descriptors
!59
(continued)
Factor Descriptors
Factor 1: Adapting to
environment
(Adapting: learning)
Proactive external interfacing: Seeking out information to meet unanticipated
customer needs or emerging market; proactively gathering data to anticipate
consumer or industry trends; tracking competitors, strategic group
configurations, customer or supply chain satisfaction.
Factor 2: Adapting to
environment
(Adapting:
performing)
Reactive external interfacing: Responding to intense industry competition or
technological changes; reacting to governmental agencies or consumer's
requests; adopting new industry standards; market-driven approach
Attaining goals (Goals:
learning)
Reflective planning: Reflecting on priorities and goal-oriented actions,
critically examining criteria for success, focusing on new knowledge and
innovation, creating goals for research and development; emphasizing
plausible readiness over planned change approach.
Factor 4: Attaining
goals (Goals:
performing)
Production focus prioritizing: Establishing clear performance goals;
consistently meeting deadlines; maintaining accountability for, achieving
goals; having an achievable mission; producing well-established products;
emphasizing accurate planning to minimize the unexpected.
!60
Table 3. OAS Learning Performing Factor Descriptors (continued)
The survey has four primary sections (see Table 4; adapting, goal, learning, and
culture), each of which utilizes a different scale designed to maximize interpretive
capability and confidence. Additionally, the scales (rank Likert, rank order, and forced
choice) each provide different insights into the learning and performing orientation of a
firm as perceived by survey respondents. The first section contains items about the
current daily practice, procedures, and processes of the firm. Respondents evaluate the
extent to which their firm carries out its functional requirements using a 5-point Likert-
type scale. The second section contains items about the present actions of the firm with
respect to the firm’s emphasis relative to performance. Responses are measured through
Factor Descriptors
Factor 5: Integration
and coordination
(Integrating:
learning)
Network idea sharing: Taking opportunities for developing knowledge, skills,
and abilities; sharing new insights; collaborating and networking; using
situational approaches to resource allocation and communication.
Factor 6: Integration
and coordination
(Integrating:
performing)
Communicating and coordinating effective actions: Implementing changes to
make people more effective; holding leaders responsible for decision making;
ensuring fair and equitable allocations of resources; enforcing formal/
hierarchical communication structure; creating rigorous role responsibilities.
Factor 7: Maintaining
cultural patterns
(Culture: learning)
Reinforcing flexibility and growth: valuing individual and firm development;
viewing mistakes as learning opportunities; critically reviewing current
Factor 8: Maintaining
cultural patterns
(Culture:
performing)
Establishing performance standards: rewarding performance achievement;
maintaining established standards; emphasizing systemic equity over
flexibility; ensuring consistent values to guide daily activity; minimizing risk-
taking and norm deviancy; reinforcing rule-bound reward punishment-based
systems
!61
a forced-choice method in which respondents select one of five options that best
describes the firm. This component was not used for the current research. The third
section ascertains respondents’ perceptions concerning what is important to their firm.
The fourth section asks about the firm’s actions in case of change. These items are
forced choice, are intended to ascertain perceptions of firm preponderance toward
learning actions, and require participants to respond based on changes in the external
environment. This section provides useful insights into organizational knowledge and
perceptions about how the firm approaches change.
Reliability and Validity of OAS
Johnson (2000) conducted a four-stage study to assess reliability and validity of the
OAS. Stage 1 was a pilot study with 144 items, conducted with three subgroups in two
different organizations (N = 26, 48, and 30). In Stage 2, 24 of the pilot study items were
reworded to improve the clarity of the items. The third stage involved piloting the
revised instrument in an organization similar to the one in Stage 1. With a population
size of 774 selected from a Mid-Atlantic governmental agency in the United States, 236
participated in the study. Based on the data collected in the pilot study, the testing of the
final phase on index construction was completed (Johnson, 2000). Johnson (2000)
reported the following reliability measures for the four learning indexes: environmental
interface, α = .78; action/reflection, α = .64; dissemination and diffusion, α = .81; and
meaning and memory, α = .74. Table 4 and 5 outlines the OAS functions and measures.
!62
Table 4
Organizational Learning and Performance Actions
Note. From A Theoretical Model of Organizational Learning and Performing Action Systems, by C. G. Johnson, 2000, Masters Abstracts. (UMI No. 9973084). Copyright 2000 by C. G. Johnson. Adapted with permission.
OAS functions
Performance
or learning Description
Adapting to the change environment Performing Identifying resources to meet organizational
goals
Learning Obtaining information concerning changes
external to the environment
Attaining organizational goals Performing Producing products and services of the highest
quality
Learning Reflecting on organizational experiences to
improve the quality of products and services
Integrating and coordinating within
the organization
Performing Utilizing structures that support effective
products and services
Learning Sharing Information and Knowledge for
continuous improvement
Maintaining/reinforcing
organizational culture
Performing Achieving performance standards
Learning Reinforcing an open and flexible culture
!63
Table 5
Measures of Organizational Learning Variables Using OAS
(continued)
Organizational learning variables Survey items
Meaning and memory (Maintaining/
reinforcing organizational culture)
from its employees?
6. Does your organization see mistakes learning opportunities?
8. Does your organization use ideas and suggestions
12. Does your organization believe that continuous change is
necessary
14. Do people in your organization believe that evaluation is
critical in reaching our goals
17. Does your organization have a strong culture of shared
values, beliefs, and norms that support individual and group
development
Dissemination and diffusion
(Integrating from its employees?)
3. Does your organization provide opportunities for employees to
develop their knowledge, skills, and capabilities?
4. Do your organization’s leaders support quick and accurate
communication among all the employees?
15. Does your organization have established work groups,
networks, and other collaborative arrangements to help the team
adapt and change?
16. Are there systems in place to share new operational processes
and procedures throughout the team?
Environmental interface (Adapting
to the changing environment)
1. Do members of your organization share external
information?
2. Does your organization continuously track how your
competitors improve their products, services, and operations?
!64
Table 5. Measures of Organizational Learning Variables Using OAS (continued)
From A Theoretical Model of Organizational Learning and Performing Action Systems, by C. G. Johnson, 2000, Master’s Abstracts International. (UMI No. 9973084). Copyright 2000 by C. G. Johnson. Adapted with permission.
Several other studies were conducted to test the validity and reliability of OAS
(Hunte-Cox, 2004; Vincent, 2006). With a sample size of 105 executives, Hunte-Cox
(2004) found reliability measures for the OAS while using expert judgment to establish
content validity. Vincent (2006) further established item-level reliability acceptance of
the OAS by using the Cronbach alpha calculations for the 17 learning items. Table 6
outlines the reliability coefficients of the different learning subsystems.
Organizational learning variables Survey items
7. Does your organization predict the changes occurring in the
external environment?
10. Does your organization deliberately reflect upon and evaluate
external information?
Action/reflection (Attaining
organizational goals)
5. Does your organization have set goals for researching and
developing new products and/or services
9. Does your organization learn through informal
communication?
10. Do members of the organization effectively use
organizational structures (e.g. chain of command, personal
networks) when sharing ideas and innovations?
13. Does your organization have clear goals for individual and
team development
!65
Table 6
Cronbach Alpha Coefficient for OAS Learning Survey Items
Note. From A Leadership in Knowledge Society: An Examination of the Relationship Between Perceptions of Leadership and Knowledge Management Actions Using a Social Action Theory Approach (p.107), by C. Vincent, 2006, Dissertation Abstracts International (UMI No. 3218612). Copyright 2006 by C. Vincent. Adapted with permission.
Focus groups and in-depth interviews were used to gather information about
organizational variables and existing or emerging knowledge structures. Because
knowledge structures include content and structure, the data-gathering technique was
structured to obtain information relative to the prevailing assumptions about
organizational knowledge and how it is created during transformational change efforts.
The words members used as they described how they made sense of the changes and how
they developed and institutionalized new ideas served as a lens for data gathering.
An understanding of a firm’s knowledge structure was based on analysis of the
focus group data and interview data. Direct quotes from participants appear with the
analysis to provide evidence for the results. For each of the focus groups, the following
steps were followed: (a) developing a storyline—the narrative summary of the focus
group's discussion from the knowledge mapping process based upon the transcripts, field
notes, and maps developed in the activity; (b) preparing an element table—the listing of
the broad categories to represent the dimension of the story and evidence from the
Learning subsystems Cronbach’s alpha
Environmental interface .6257
Action/reflection .7606
Dissemination and diffusion .6719
Meaning and memory .7272
!66
transcript, and (c) developing an element matrix to identify any relationships between
elements as captured by the focus group’s depiction.
Summary of Methods
Table 7 summarizes the research question and the data gathering and analysis
methods that support each subquestion. The overall research question, which asked how
firm leaders convert implicit knowledge held by employees into articulated knowledge
during organizational change and transformation, guided selection and sequencing for the
collection and analysis of data. A cross-source summary shows how data were gathered.
Table 7
Overview of Method, Collection Strategy, Process, and Output
Collection strategy Purpose and/or process Output
Focus groups 4-6 participants, consensus building Individual maps shared during process to
build a consensus map to represent
elements and relationships
Interviews Individual sessions Individual notes and/or maps constructed
Observations Gain insight into the stated direction,
into the daily routines of work, and
into their sense making process of
change effort underway in their firm
Contextual understanding of the nature of
work and climate, confirmatory process for
analysis
Document review Gain insight into the stated direction,
history of firm, policies, and
procedures
Identification of internal and external
contextual factors impacting knowledge
structure
Survey Ascertain perceptions about
organizational actions related to
changing environment
Broad representation of interrelated actions;
insights into the learning/performing
orientation
!67
Strength of Method
The design of the study involved an attempt to address the trustworthiness,
validity, and reliability issues that arose in case studies. Reliability and validity were
analyzed for the quantitative survey. Along with conformity factor analysis, the phase
design of the study allowed for additional validation to measure collective actions of
performance and learning. For the quantitative methods, triangulation (Denzin &
Lincoln, 2008) was used to enhance reliability and credibility (Patton, 2002) and to serve
as a heuristic tool to establish trustworthiness (Miles & Huberman, 1994).
Trustworthiness
The persistent observation and the exploration of relationships between the
theoretical constructs employed served to enhance the trustworthiness of the study.
Additionally, Lincoln and Guba’s (1985) trustworthiness criteria were considered.
Researchers’ criteria included (a) truth value—data collection and analysis techniques
designed to help control variance and response to Campbell and Stanley’s (1966) eight
threats to internal validity; (b) applicability—although the random sampling within the
defined population might not be maximized, the case selection process might enhance the
extent to which the findings might apply in other contexts; (c) consistency—the survey
research and detail in methodology aim to allow for replication of the study with the
development of reliable measures; and (d) neutrality—member check, expert panels,
multiple data sources, and multiple analysis techniques are all designed to increase the
degree to which the findings of the study are conditions of the inquiry rather than my
biases, motivation, or interest.
!68
To increase the credibility of the qualitative aspect of the study, I used instruments
used in previous similar research to conduct the study. Additionally, the use of
triangulation to provide multiple data points from different sources contributed to
creditability.
Validity
Threats to internal and external validity for the qualitative and quantitative data
gathering were considered. The design of the study and use of multiple data-gathering
strategies served as criteria in the validation process.
Campbell and Stanley’s (1966) list of threats to internal validity was the primary
framework used for the quantitative method. The methods included consideration for
history, maturation, repeat testing, differential selection, loss of respondents, and
instrument. External validity, or the generalizability of the study, was relatively limited
because the study took place in a single organization. However, findings are consistent
with the empirical work of comparable studies in other organizations, contributing to
generalizability. The description of time and contextual elements through document
analysis, interviews, and observations might increase the degree to which findings are
transferred to other organizations.
The threat to construct validity of the construct was mitigated via factor analysis
assessing patterns found in the cluster of responses to the survey. The approach involved
verifying that the items developed for the organizational learning instrument within each
!69
construct statistically belonged together. Additionally, items from the instruments were
used as part of the interview guide, providing another check on face validity.
According to Patton (2002), any validity of the qualitative method is dependent
on my competency and the rigor employed. In the current study, internal validity might
have increased through a number of strategies. First, the study included the use of
multiple data collection methods and techniques. Through triangulation, I was able to
leverage the advantages of each method of data collection while depreciating the
drawbacks of any one method (Patton, 2002). Additionally, triangulation increased the
credibility of the phenomena by providing several data points from different sources to
help confirm findings. In addition, observations and interviews took place in the
everyday environment of the organization to reflect actual experiences of those who
participated in the study.
Internal validity in qualitative research addresses the question of whether
researchers actually observed what they think they observed (McMillan & Schumacher,
1997). Two strategies were employed to confirm the findings. The first involved
member checks. I contacted respondents to validate results and to solicit feedback. The
second strategy was to use an expert panel to share the progression of the study. The
panel included outside individuals not directly involved with the project but who served
as a sounding board for me about circumstances surrounding initial project findings.
Reliability
Reliability is the principle of consistency. To ensure the same or similar results
are reflected when the survey is repeated, several strategies were developed. Some
!70
strategies included the use of a well-established survey and the documentation of
methodological considerations throughout the research process. The use of independent
seminal research and an expert panel during the study helped to control bias and increase
reliability.
I reduced threats to external reliability by maintaining a reflexive journal in
NVivo software and documenting the rationale for the methods considered and for the
methods employed. Methodological decisions and my role as one of the instruments
were recorded (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). The journal provided an audit trail for future
researchers who wish to replicate or evaluate the research qualities (Patton, 2002).
Additionally, the journal served to capture insights as the study evolved.
Threats to internal reliability for qualitative method were reduced by using both
audio recordings and field notes to allow other researchers to assess the data.
Additionally, an expert panel of knowledge researchers reviewed the coded data to judge
the reliability of my analysis. My bias was controlled in the analysis stage by techniques
such as coding checks (Miles & Huberman, 1994).
The threat to reliability of quantitative data was reduced through alpha
coefficients. The reliability of the survey instrument was estimated by means of
Cronbach’s alpha coefficients, which in most cases provide a suitable measure of
reliability since significant measurement error normally can be connected to the sampling
content (Nunnally, 1967, p. 211). Previous tests on the said instrument confirmed
reliability.
!71
Ethical Protection of Research Participants
The study included several ethical dilemmas that are typical in organizational
research. The intended purpose of the study; the anticipated methods used; and issues
related to confidentiality, anonymity, and the volunteer nature of the study were reviewed
with the participating organization and individual participants. The data collected will
remain permanently confidential, and results were written to protect the firm participants.
Procedures were administered in accordance with the human subjects guideline and
included protective strategies such as debriefing participants (Mirvis & Seashore, 1979).
All procedures required by the Graduate School of Business and Organizational
Leadership Human Subjects Process were followed.
Population
Site Selection
The context of the study was transformational change. Therefore, I intentionally
chose a site that was undergoing a self-proclaimed transformational change effort.
Because the research focused on knowledge creation at the collective level during
transformational change efforts, ensuring that the selected site was at a relatively early
point in time versus at the very beginning or end of a transformation was important.
Because it was not a critical incident study, I needed a reasonable amount of time to
capture the perceptions of organizational change from the stakeholders. Equally
important was the concern that too much time not elapse so that the effect would not
diminish. With the aforementioned factors in mind, an SBU named Division F met the
criteria.
!72
Several factors were considered when choosing the site for the study. First, the
firm had to allow me to collect survey data from informed sources, as well as observe the
phenomena required for all components of the study. Second, the site had to be a large
enough business unit within the firm with enough data available to inform the study.
Third, the participant site had to provide access to a representative sample of its
management team and informed sources throughout the research. Fourth, the site had to
be in the midst of a self-proclaimed transformation effort.
Site Description
The firm studied met the criteria set out in the previous section. The firm is in the
building supplies wholesaling industry and will be referred to as Organization W. As of
January 31, 2010, the company had 19 branches with 400 employees across Mid-Atlantic
United States.
Sample Population
The sample included organizational members representing the firm. A targeted
sample of informed individuals was employed for qualitative data collection, including
those with knowledge of the organization’s strategic direction as well as those
knowledgeable about operations practices. Scholars have argued the importance of
utilizing organizational members in this cross-section (Bryant, 2005; O’Cathain, Murphy,
& Nicholl, 2008; Yin, 2003).
Participants for the focus groups represented a cross-section of the firm and
included representatives from each functional area and business unit within each site.
Participants for in-depth interviews included senior management team members and
!73
selected informed sources within the firm. A broader representation of the firm will be
made by drawing on survey responses. A power analysis was conducted determine
sample size for given effect size. With an alpha set at 0.1, the required sample size was 70
which was well below 83 used.
A purposeful sample with senior management and selected informed sources
allowed for an examination of the nature of organizational knowledge through in-depth
interviews and focus group. To qualify as an informed source required close working
knowledge not only of change processes in the organization but also of strategic
direction. Selections were confirmed with the director of Business Change along with
other key players such as a member of the executive team, manager at the functional
area and business unit level, or other leaders. In all, 22 participants participated in focus
groups and interviews. The 3 interviewees were selected because of their specific leadership
role in the process. Interviews were an hour long and conformed to a generic interview
format. Field notes and voice recordings were used to capture data.
I did not review or analyze data during the collection phase. The survey was
administered first, followed by the focus groups, interviews, and observations.
Document reviews were ongoing. Table 8 outlines the different approaches.
!74
Table 8
Organization Action Survey: Item Breakout
Preliminary Mapping and Site Access
Before formal field work began, I performed an initial mapping of the research
site. In the initial contact, I became familiar with the physical and social structure of the
firm and probed for feasibility and access to the site. The goal of this process was to
ensure that all ethical considerations had been met, to develop rapport with members of
the site, and to introduce the researcher to the preliminary contextual element of the firm.
Data Collection Procedures
The data-gathering portion of the mixed method approach was qualitative to
include (a) focus groups, (b) in-depth interviews, (c) document review, (d) observation,
and (e) survey administration. The use of multiple data-gathering methods not only
strengthens the grounding of research by triangulation of evidence, but also increases the
rigor of evidence gathering and increases its breadth and depth (Denzin & Lincoln,
Scale No. Focus
Likert Assessment of daily practices and processes: Measures
performance and learning actions of subsystems
Rank order Perceived importance to firm’s success: Top three
actions relative to functional prerequisites
Forced choice Placement of Performance/Learning in current action of
firm: Orientation towards social actions of performance
and learning
!75
2008). Additionally, multiple data-gathering methods illuminated the characteristics of
knowledge by permitting the gathering of organization-specific assertions about the
transformation effort or nature of work (document review) to gather perceptional data
about a firm’s actions (surveys). The intent was to obtain consensus and to gain insight
and sense making about change effort (focus group) and to reaffirm or elaborate on
perceptions from senior management (interviews).
Mixed method designs move beyond triangulation by enabling the integration of
findings and by making connections to gain a more comprehensive insight into the
phenomena of interest (Caracelli & Greene, 1997; O’Cathain et al., 2008; Woolley,
2009). The convergence of multiple data sources enabled me to respond not only to the
primary research question (see Table 9) but also about the nature of the firm’s structure
and the subquestions guiding the study (see Table 10).
Table 9
Approach to Primary Question
Primary question Data gathering Data analysis
What is the firm’s transformational
process and what measure do firm
leaders take to ensure employees’
understanding of the process?
Focus groups, in-
depth interviews,
documents
Content analysis of the
transcripts and published
documents, notes
!76
Table 10
Approach to Subquestions
Results were categorized into the seven primary characteristics that represent the
nature of knowledge structure concerning organizational change as noted in Chapter 2
and used by Gorman (2004): (a) the focus of the knowledge structure (internally vs.
externally), (b) the dominant core toward inquiry (suppressed vs. evoked inquiry), (c)
the elements contributing to the reduction of equivocality and inquiry, (d) action
orientation (performing vs. learning), (e) the structure actions (accommodate varied
results etc.), (f) the response to threatening conditions in external environment, and (g)
the perspective change (outcome vs. opportunities; Gorman, 2004).
Subquestion Data gathering Data analysis
How do firm leaders convert
implicit knowledge held by
employees into articulated
knowledge during organizational
change and transformation?
Focus groups, in-depth
interviews, documents,
meeting notes
Content analysis of
the transcript and
consensus maps to
formulate a
composite map
How does the knowledge structure
reflect on the firm’s performance
during organizational change and
transformation?
Surveys, observation,
in-depth interviews,
documents
Descriptive statistics
and content analysis
!77
Data Analysis
The data analysis process was designed to allow for analysis within and across the
quantitative data in a way that ensures reasonable levels of trustworthiness, validity, and
reliability. Strauss (1987) noted that there is no standard sequence for analysis; therefore,
each research project has its own process. Critical elements considered in the design of
this analysis include data availability, accessibility, and requirements; the nature of the
data; and interpretations by the researcher.
The data analysis took place in three phases, following Miles and Huberman’s
(1994) coding continuum (see Figure 3). First, the qualitative data were initially
analyzed. An analysis of the quantitative data followed by gathering descriptive statistics
for items both individually and in aggregate, as well as through analyzing observational
information about organizational activities. Analysis of both qualitative and quantitative
results involved coding the three sources of information (focus group, interview, and
document review). The process concluded with an analysis of themes across datasets and
a synthesis of the results with the document review and survey output. Figure 3
illustrates the three-step analysis process.
!78
!
Figure 3. Qualitative analysis process. From Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, by M. B. Miles and A. M. Huberman, 1994, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Copyright 2000 by Sage Publications. Adapted with permission.
Interpretation of Data
The data analysis methods concluded with a final interpretation based on the
meta-knowledge structure concerning organizational change. Context-specific elements,
as well as a firm’s approach to change, were considered. Figure 3 depicted the analysis
process in relation to the study’s conceptual framework. The arrows indicate directions
of the analytical steps, as well as the relationships between the theoretical constructs
guiding the study.
Summary
Several researchers and practitioners in the field of knowledge acquisition,
transfer, development, and leveraging have used different approaches of inquiry to
seek answers to the question of organizational knowledge creation. No researcher
had previously addressed the specific research questions set forth in the current study
Components Procedures Outcomes
Data Reductions
Data Display
Conclusions &Verification
CodingCategorisation
AbstractionComparison
DimensionalisationIntegration
Interpretation
Description
Explanation/Interpretation
!79
(see Chapter 1) of leveraging organizational knowledge creation during
transformational change. Current literature (see Chapter 2) confirmed the interest in
the area of research to understand the identification, creation, management, and
leveraging of organizational knowledge for organizational benefits.
The research methodology was driven by the research objective and questions.
The nature of the research validated a single case design (Yin, 2003). Several knowledge
management scholars have applied the case study approach to an examination of
organizational knowledge as well as a mixed methodologies approach to inquiry. In
addition, the focus on a single location allowed for the in-depth analysis for the inquiry.
The issue of biases and prejudices due to personal experiences of the researcher is well
documented. However, if a researcher can remain blind to the status of the participant,
the experiences can be critical to the merit of the study (Cone & Foster, 2006).
The methodology followed the recommendation of Yin (1994) and had four
stages: (a) design the case study; (b) conduct the case study; (c) analyze the case study
evidence; and (d) develop the conclusions, recommendations, and implications. To
understand the existing and emerging knowledge structures, data were gathered using
focus groups and interviews to obtain personal-level schemas and personal-level scripts
of the organization (Stake, 1995; Yin, 2003). To understand an organization’s action, data
collection included four sources: surveys, observations, documents reviews, and
interviews (Stake, 1995; Yin, 2003). Results were categorized following the seven pillars
of knowledge. Data from the multiple sources were triangulated to reduce bias.
!80
The design included an examination of both expressed ideas and actions as
perceived by each member to gain insight into the nature of each firm’s knowledge
structure concerning organizational change using NVivo software as an aid (Singleton &
Straits, 2005). To increase the credibility of the study, I used instruments used in similar
research to conduct the study. I received approval to use the OAS instrument.
The data analysis took place in three phases: (a) preparing descriptive statistics
and analyzing observational data concerning original organizational action, (b) analyzing
qualitative data using content analysis, and (c) interpreting the findings. The process
concluded with an analysis of themes across datasets and a synthesis of the results with
the document review and survey output.
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS
The purpose of the current study was to investigate the nature of a firm’s
knowledge structure during transformation. As previously noted in Chapter 1, the focus
of the study was on what employees need to know to carry out their work effectively
during organizational shift. Consistent with Chapter 3, data gathering for the study
included observing meetings, reviewing documents, administering surveys, conducting
focus groups, and conducting follow-up interviews within the affected division of
Organization W.
The chapter is organized into three primary sections. The first section includes a
description of the process by which data were collected and recorded. The second section
!81
presents the unedited results of the data or cumulative findings. The data provided relates to
knowledge capture during the implementation of a change process and the role played by
organizational leaders and employees in the said knowledge capture process. The final
section shows the integration of the qualitative and quantitative results in a manner that
responds to each research question. Consistent with the objectives in Chapters 1 and 4,
results were categorized and viewed through the lens of seven primary characteristics that
represent the nature of knowledge structure concerning organizational change (pillars of
knowledge) discussed in Chapter 2 and used by Gorman (2004).
!82
Table 11
Pillars of Knowledge
Yin (1988) defined the case study research method as an empirical inquiry that
involves investigating a phenomenon in a real-life context using multiple sources of evidence
and aims at answering the how and why questions where the investigator has little or no control.
I used the case study research method to (a) determine the process used by the organization
studied to capture knowledge held by individuals during transformation and (b) determine
how the knowledge is shared and distributed throughout the firm. The study also involved
examining the knowledge structure of the firm. Various source and approaches were used to
gather data from the field. This chapter includes tables that logically organize the findings of
the study.
Data Generation, Gathering, and Recording Processes
The research involved exploring the knowledge capture process at Division F,
mainly through four sources: document reviews, focus groups, interviews, and surveys.
The survey was administered to 83 participants ranging from decision makers to
Pillars Interpretations
1. The focus of the knowledge structure Internally vs. externally
2. The dominant core towards inquiry suppressed vs. evoked inquiry
3. The elements contributing to the reduction of equivocality
and inquiry
Specific elements impeding inquiry
4. Action orientation performing vs. learning
5. The structure actions
6. The response to threatening conditions in external
environment
Offensive/defensive etc.
7. The perspective change Outcome vs. opportunities
!83
knowledge experts. Participants ranged from company executives to hourly workers that
were stakeholders in the process. Focus groups included managers from various
functional areas; three each from human resources and acquisitions, two from finance, six
from sales, and eight from the information technology departments. Twenty-one
documents were reviewed—four strategic documents, seven procedural documents, and
10 feedback and working documents—that addressed knowledge capture activities during
the transformational process. In addition, sanitized data containing 217 lessons learned
and 52 support logs were obtained from the information systems department in Microsoft
Excel format and loaded into NVivo for analysis.
Data Tracking System
The NVivo software was used to track, organize, and store data extracted from the
review process while at the study site. Sanitized data presented in the descriptive
statistics were in Microsoft Excel format. The survey was administered through Survey
Monkey.
After descriptive statistics were completed, content analysis was performed on
documents (lessons learned results, procedural documents, and meeting notes) to seek
emerged general patterns and themes. The empirical materials collected from the
document review process were analyzed using the constant comparative method for sense
making. After receiving lesson-learned data from the information technology
department, I used NVivo to assist in managing, shaping, and understanding the data. I
stored the data in tables to facilitate open coding, which incorporated the use of word
frequency queries to identify key words. Several rounds of coding followed for sense
!84
making and preliminary grouping. The next step was to use matrix coding (axial coding)
to derive key themes from the data. Because I worked with preexisting categorizations
(seven pillars of knowledge creation), I matched the emerged themes to the categories.
Next, I reviewed other documents and meeting notes, after which I coded common
emerging themes from data obtained into existing categories.
Content analysis formed the basis of assessing focus groups. One focus group
consisted of the same department and occupation. The subsequent three focus groups
included employees from mixed occupations and departments. From such a mix, I was
able to get more lively answers. The focus groups interviews were conducted face-to-
face using a digital recorder.
Three interviews were conducted to confirm gaps in the data. I used the interview
process to fill the gaps in the data. Because the interviewees were accessible, I was able
to meet with each of them for the purpose of sharing initial coding, which aided in
interpreting the data. Conducting document review, I created relations and data set
structures and at the same time tracked issues and insights that came into view as the
analysis proceeded. I was able to arrive at new insights, bring to light patterns, recognize
themes, and match to the existing categories. Each interview transcript was also
segmented and coded. After collecting survey results, the collection of field data took
place; additional coding was performed in NVivo, in which data were indexed to
facilitate handling (organizing, searching, and storing) and analysis.
Prior to starting the research, I developed a field study plan using the NVivo
software. I had a laptop throughout the research process, which allowed me to take notes
!85
and track discussions with personnel at the study site. The notes contained mainly
information relating to the research process, possible documents required for review,
observations, and the survey administration process. Upon engagement with the program
manager (point of contact), I requested initial documents and had preliminary discussions
about the process and the objectives of the study. As I collected documents in the field, I
used the built-in cataloging function to reference materials within NVivo.
In addressing the concerns of data collection and triangulation, I collected detailed
notes from authorized individuals who provided access to or actual documentation. In
addition, the focus groups included the use of an audio recording device. The data were
triangulated by collecting information from participants with different roles in the
organization. The implementation of four methods of data collection to carry out the
study helped to triangulate the data through multiple source corroboration.
Analysis of Relevant Research Data
Descriptive Statistics
The demographics of the responses were as follows. Out of the 62 respondents,
72.1% were male, and 27.9% of the responses were female. Table 12 summarizes the
responses by ethnicity.
Table 12
Results: Responses by Ethnicity
Response (%) Response (n)
Asian 1.6 1
Black/African American 1.6 1
Hispanic/Latino 0.0 0
!86
Most of the respondents were White/Caucasian, and a few respondents were
Asian and African American. Table 13 summarizes the respondents by educational
attainment.
Table 13
Levels of Educational Attainment
Almost 62% of the respondents had 4 years or more of college education. Table 14
summarizes the respondents by ages.
Table 14
Results: Age Distributions of the Respondents
Native American 0.0 0
White/Caucasian 91.9 57
Other 4.8 3
Answer options Response (%) Response (n)
Less than high school /some high school 0.0 0
High school degree or equivalent 22.6 14
Some college 9.7 6
2-year college degree 6.5 4
4-year college degree 59.7 37
Master’s degree 1.6 1
Doctoral degree 0.0 0
Other 0.0 0
Categories of ages Response (%) Response (n)
Under 21 years 0.0 0
21 to 30 years 11.3 7
31 to 40 years 25.8 16
!87
The typical ages for the respondents were between 31 and 60 years of age,
inclusive. Table 15 shows the number of years the respondents spent at the organization.
Table 15
Number of Years at Organization
Table 16 characterizes the department with which respondents were affiliated.
The departmental affiliation was mainly administration, support staff, and other
(warehouse, showrooms, sales, etc.)
Table 16
Results: Departmental Affiliation
41 to 50 years 38.7 24
51 to 60 years 21.0 13
61 years or more 3.2 2
Options Strongly agree Agree Undecided Disagree Response (%) Response (n)
< 1 year 0 0 0 0 0.0 0
1 year to less than 3 years 2 0 1 0 4.8 3
3 years to less than 5 years 2 8 2 0 19.4 12
5 years to less than 10 years 2 7 1 0 16.1 10
10 years to less than 15
years
2 11 4 1 29.0 18
15 years or more 4 12 1 2 30.6 19
Options Response (%) Response (n)
Executive management 16.1 10
Administration 22.6 14
Engineering 3.2 2
Support staff 30.6 19
Other 27.4 17
!88
Table 17 summarizes the status of the position of the respondent within their
organization. More than 40% self-identified as department/middle management with
32.3% as full-time hourly employees.
Table 17
Results Status of Position Within the Firm
Table 18 summarizes the number of people the respondents supervise. Twenty-
three (37.1%) respondents had no supervisory responsibilities, and the remaining
respondents had some supervisory responsibilities.
Table 18
Results: Number of People Supervised
Options Response (%) Response (n)
A. Part time hourly 0.0 0
B. Full time hourly 32.3 20
C. Front line supervisor 8.1 5
D. Department/middle management 40.3 25
E. Senior management 8.1 5
F. President / owner 0.0 0
G. Other 11.3 7
Options Response (%) Response (n)
No supervisory capacity 37.1 23
1-4 people 30.6 19
5-10 people 19.4 12
11-20 people 9.7 6
More than 20 people 3.2 2
!89
Table 19 summarizes the number of employees in the respondents’ department.
More than 72% of respondents had five or more employees in their department.
Table 19
Results: Number of Employees in Department
The survey questionnaires took approximately 30 minutes to complete. Eighty-
three of 230 individuals replied to the request for participation. The nonresponse rate was
64% (147 participants). Of the 83 surveys distributed, 62 participants (74.7%)
responded.
Consistent with my objectives in Chapter 4, the survey responses were classified
into four primary sections (adapting, goal, learning, and culture; see Table 20) and further
classified in to learners and performers categories. Based on the results from the Likert
and ranking scales, insights into the learning and performing orientation of a firm were
ranked. Additionally, a forced choice scale was used to collect demographic data (see
Table 20).
Options Response (%) Response (n)
> 5 employees 27.4 17
5-10 employees 25.8 16
11-20 employees 24.2 15
More than 20 employees 22.6 14
!90
Table 20
Results: OAS Ranking
(continued)
Organizational learning
variables Survey items
Me
an
S
D
Factor 7
Maintaining cultural patterns
(Culture: learning)
Reinforcing flexibility and growth: valuing individual and
firm development; viewing mistakes as learning
opportunities; critically reviewing current
4.2
0
0.
79
Factor 2
Adapting to environment
(Adapting: performing)
Reactive external interfacing: Responding to intense
industry competition or technological changes; reacting to
governmental agencies or consumer's requests; adopting
new industry standards; market-driven approach
4.0
5
0.
78
Factor 4
Attaining goals
(Goals: performing)
Production focus prioritizing: Establishing clear
performance goals; consistently meeting deadlines;
maintaining accountability for, achieving goals; having an
achievable mission; producing well-established products;
emphasizing accurate planning to minimize the unexpected.
4.0
3
0.
67
Factor 8
Maintaining cultural patterns
(Culture: performing)
Establishing performance standards: rewarding
performance achievement; maintaining established
standards; emphasizing systemic equity over flexibility;
ensuring consistent values to guide daily activity;
minimizing risk-taking and norm deviancy; reinforcing
rule-bound reward punishment-based systems
3.9
7
0.
84
Factor 6
Integration and coordination
(Integrating: performing)
Communicating and coordinating effective actions:
Implementing changes to make people more effective;
holding leaders responsible for decision making; ensuring
fair and equitable allocations of resources; enforcing
formal/hierarchical communication structure; creating
3.8
0
0.
82
rigorous role responsibilities.
!91
Table 20. Results: OAS Ranking (continued)
The following data were obtained through surveys and are presented in eight main
categories.
Focus of knowledge. From the survey, 58 respondents (93.6%) agreed that
knowledge sharing is a core value of the organization. Fifty-five respondents (89%)
agreed that managers support knowledge and information sharing across units and teams.
Thirty-two (53.6%) believed in the ability of the organizational knowledge structure to
support knowledge sharing at the individual level.
Structure of the dominant core toward inquiry. The survey results indicated a
pattern of cyclical knowledge management: questioning, collecting, analyzing, and taking
action. Fifty (81%) respondents agreed the organization deliberately reflect upon and
Organizational learning
Variable Survey Items
Mea
n SD
Factor 3
Attaining goals
(Goals: learning)
Reflective planning: Reflecting on priorities and goal-
oriented actions, critically examining criteria for success,
focusing on new knowledge and innovation, creating goals
for research and development; emphasizing plausible
readiness over planned change approach.
3.72 0.8
7
Factor 1
Adapting to environment
(Adapting: learning)
Proactive external interfacing: Seeking out information to
meet unanticipated customer needs or emerging market;
proactively gathering data to anticipate consumer or
industry trends; tracking competitors, strategic group
configurations, customer or supply chain satisfaction.
3.69 0.8
0
Factor 5
Integration and coordination
(Integrating: learning)
Network idea sharing: Taking opportunities for developing
knowledge, skills, and abilities; sharing new insights;
collaborating and networking; using situational approaches
to resource allocation and communication.
3.60 0.8
4
!92
responded to external information. Eighty-one percent of respondent agree that the
organization uses ideas and suggestions from its employees. Forty-five (73%)
respondents agreed that there are established ways to share new operations and processes
throughout the organization, and 54 (87%) responded positively to a suggestion that the
organization believes in continuous change.
Element contributing to suppressing inquiry. Fifty-three (85.5%) respondents
agreed that leaders support quick and accurate communication among all employees.
Focus of action orientation. The information obtained from the survey
questionnaires that addressed Research Question 3 were as follows. Ninety-seven percent of
respondent agreed or strongly agreed that people in the organization believe evaluating
what customers say is critical to reaching organizational goals. The result of developing a
culture of learning was the highest score factor of the eight categories with a mean score of 4.2
out of a possible 5. A culture of learning means reinforcing flexibility and growth, valuing
individual and firm development, and viewing mistakes as learning opportunities. The
next four factors were the performance factors followed by three learning factors. The
least associated factor to the firm under study was knowledge sharing—network idea
sharing; taking opportunities for developing knowledge, skills, and abilities; sharing new
insights; collaborating and networking; and using situational approaches to resource
allocation and communication (see Table 20)
Structure of actions. This section is a follow-up to the previous section. Thirty-
two (52%) respondents agreed or strongly agreed that organizational structure encourages
and facilitates the sharing of individual knowledge (e.g., easy access to appropriate
!93
internal resources, time for consideration and discussion). Another 27 (43.5%) somewhat
agreed. Forty-three (72.4%) confirmed the organization established workgroups,
networks, and other collaborative arrangements to help the employees adapt and change.
The response to threatening conditions in external environments. The
response to this component was as follows. Fifty (80.7%) respondents acknowledged
that the organization deliberately reflected upon and evaluated external information,
whereas 46 (74%) shared this information. Fifty (80.7%) predicted changes in the
industry.
Perspective on change. Fifty-four (86%) believed that continuous change is
necessary.
Document Review
The study included a review of the content of the organization’s documents that
relate to the seven pillars of knowledge. The document review was conducted on site at
Organization W to gain an understanding of (a) the firm’s knowledge structure, (b) how
the firm created knowledge internally, and (c) how the firm translated its strategic
direction or decisions into specific actions within the organization. Management has
policies and processes in place that ensure documentation on mission critical processes.
Table 21 provides a summary of the content analysis.
!94
Table 21
Document Review Summary
(continued)
7 pillars of knowledge Documents Findings and themes
Focus of knowledge Lessons learned, meeting notes,
support phone call log, meeting
observations, human resources job
description
Systemic but point in time retrieval,
collection and processing (measuring
knowledge), focus both internally and
externally
Structure of the
dominant core toward
inquiry
Training documents, meeting notes,
functional area updates
Evidence of appreciative inquiry rewarding
inquiry: defined as going the extra mile,
relentless focus on customer service, mid-
level managers have an integral role
Element contributing
to suppressing inquiry
Lessons learned, meeting notes,
support phone call log
Strong promotion of continuous
improvement and cyclical learning, open
communications encouraged, time
Focus of action
orientation
Marketing research documents,
training course schedules, training
documents, human resources
benefits, policy documents
Performance-driven organization but strong
commitment to develop from within
The structure of these
actions
CEO presentations, incentive
processing documents, CEO memos
and monthly communications
What, how, why, and who; strategy is to
hang on to knowledge workers
The response to
threatening conditions
in external
environments
Published annual and quarterly
reports, project strategic document,
CEO memos, and monthly
communications
Senior management strategy aligns internal
capability to deal with threats, seek to
acquire companies to deal with threats
!95
Table 21. Document Review Summary (continued)
By using the results of the survey as a guide, the content analysis of the
documents provided some results to the how questions. I was able to extract meaning
from the documents that allowed additional insights into the primary characteristics that
represent the nature of the firm’s knowledge structure. The findings of the document
review were as follows.
Focus of knowledge. To examine the organization’s knowledge focus, the
analysis included several document sources. Results of the analysis of the lesson learned
data resulted in a theme of steadfast focus on the customer and the external environment.
Twenty-four percent of all lessons learned concerns were directly customer related, and
another 30% concerned service delivery. This theme persisted when coding results from
the meeting notes and support phone log. Observational notes from the project team
meetings highlighted strong concerns for the customer experience during implementation.
In addition, comparing lessons learned data from three sequential rounds of
implementation indicated a possible adaptation to new knowledge received.
Structure of the dominant core toward inquiry. Inquiry involves a cyclical
process of questioning, evaluating, interpreting, and implementing. The documents
highlighted multiple sources of customer feedback channels, including online marketing
surveys, store-front surveys and channels, one-on-one feedback, and a live customer
7 pillars of knowledge Documents Findings and themes
Perspective on change Published annual and quarterly
reports, lessons learned
documents, CEO memos and
monthly communications
High tolerance for disagreement (loosely
coupled knowledge structure),
accommodate varying opinions and more
flexibility in taking action
!96
support call center. The training documents indicated a deliberate and systemic approach.
Less was shown of a structured internal process.
Element contributing to suppressing inquiry. The documents used to examine
the suppression of inquiry were the support phone log and lessons learned feedback
documents. Although there was no evidence to support a deliberate suppression of
inquiry by the management, the issue of time commitment to the quality of the inquiry
was brought up. Additionally, the inability to share knowledge easily with external
consultants indicated a type of suppressant.
Focus of action orientation. Evidence (marketing research documents, training
course schedules, training documents, human resources benefits, policy documents) supported
the survey findings that Division F of Organization W is a performance-driven
organization with a commitment to developing the capabilities of employees as a
competitive advantage. Policies and procedural documents disclosed significant effort
toward identifying SMEs and embedding them throughout the process.
Structure of actions orientation. Evidence of the structure can be demonstrated
in mandatory training for all associates as customer-facing salespeople, even for back-
office associates who may never face customers. The policy documents lent support to a
systemic approach for all associates to represent the company. In one example, the
company used the theme “Going the extra mile” as a perpetual campaign to be
relentlessly focused on the customer. Training courses, online training, reward systems,
business and marketing intelligence procedures and mandatory policy requirements were
designed to support the objective. Weeks leading up to the implementation weekend, a
!97
war room created with specialists and SMEs all working in one large room. Analysts at
the work site identified and monitored SMEs and knowledge workers. If a knowledge
worker through experience recognizes any abnormalities (internalization), he or she
shares the concern with the analyst on ground (socialization). The analyst documents the
concern, which is cued up to the war room (externalization). The documented issue is
assigned, evaluated, and analyzed, and necessary changes are made (combination).
The response to threatening conditions in external environments. Evidence in
the documents showed the company studied to be proactive and aggressive when
responding to the threat of the external environment. During the period of the study, the
company was aggressively making acquisitions to capture market share during an
economically challenging time in their markets of operations. Company leaders were
also retraining and retooling their employees to adapt to new markets.
Perspective on change. Forty-seven percent of all documents collected had a
theme of change. Evidence in the published annual and quarterly reports, lessons learned
documents, CEO memos, and monthly communications pointed to a company that accepts
change as a way of doing business. However, the document review indicated that a key
component of the knowledge strategy in the organization is to hold onto knowledge workers.
Focus Groups
The focus groups were designed to be flexible and to extract answers to the
research questions while allowing participants to provide information they thought important
to the topic under study. Group sessions lasted an average of 45 minutes, depending on the
duration of discussion with the experts. The information obtained through the focus groups
!98
and interviews corroborated with the other two sources. As noted in Chapter 3, I used the
lens of the 7 pillars of knowledge to examine the site under study. Findings of the focus
groups were categorized in the following groupings.
Focus of knowledge. A firm’s knowledge focus describes actions associated with
knowledge retrieval and how firms maintain, control, and create criteria for judgment,
selection, and legitimization of action (Powell, 1991; Schein, 1987; Walsh & Ungson,
1991; Weick, 1995). The consensus from the focus groups was that although there is
general room for improvement formalizing (organizing, indexing, and making available)
a knowledge management process, knowledge retrieval for the company happens in
various ways, both formal and informal. One manager stated, “Formally, knowledge
transfer meetings are common, along with systematic training sessions and structured on-
boarding processes.” Another manager noted, “There is a need for better organization,
indexing, and availability of archived documents such as requirements and business
briefs and cases located on network resources.”
Another manager further explained, “Informally, there is a robust culture of
knowledge sharing and collegial collaboration.” The assertion was made that much of
the informal knowledge maintenance currently taking place might be better handled via
more formal processes. To confirm the sentiments of one focus group, one manager
suggested that the criteria for judgment and legitimization of action come from multiple
sources, both formal and informal.
Structure of the dominant core toward inquiry. Inquiry involves a cyclical
process of questioning, predicting, data collection, data analysis, and action (Collinson et
!99
al., 2006). The consensus of the firm’s knowledge structure toward inquiry is that there is
a deliberate and systemic effort by the company to acquire knowledge. According to one
manager, “The Company’s business integration process contains a cyclical and evolving
set of steps to accomplish its goals of profitably and efficiently.” Another participant
noted, “The Company conducts a site assessment with the management of the perspective
group to be integrated with. Through conversation and direct questioning business
process is gathered.” Corroborating the sentiments of the previous manager, another
asserted, “The integration group conducts roundtable type analysis to incorporate the
insight of the team’s experience and knowledge. Out of this collaboration, a custom
action plan is compiled and set into motion.”
Other managers explained,
Cyclical inquiry processes are regularly taking place in the groups within our
company. Questioning and predicting took place primarily in form of
requirements gathering and workshopping. Data collection and analysis typically
formed part of the design process, both functional and technical. Action followed
in the form of build, testing and production of software components.
One manager summarized it best:
Business process inquiry often occurs more informally, although some structured
workshopping takes place, especially with the support of third-party process
designers. Inquiry and prediction typically happen at mid- to senior-level
management, followed by collection and analysis by the associated workgroups,
arriving at management-directed action.
!100
Element contributing to suppressing inquiry. Continuous improvement is an
ideal of organizational learning (Collinson et al., 2006). Inquiry can be useful to an
organization knowledge structure by promoting continuous and cyclical learning. In a
follow-up on the previous section, one manager confirmed, “The firm under study
deliberately promotes and encourages inquiry. Notwithstanding, some themes still
emerged from the inquiry.” One manager stated, “The primary suppressant at work in the
organization is not systemic per se, but an insufficiency, both actual and perceived, of
available time.” The consensus was that managers agreed that inquiry and other forms of
knowledge retrieval, being by their nature time-intensive, are restricted by the barrier of a
required investment of work hours that the likely knowledge consumer may not be
willing or able to make. In such cases, the potential inquirer may instead replicate the
knowledge (or a new version of it) by redundant research or process design. Another
participant explained, “Naturally, the time shortage is only cosmetically non-systemic,
since it can be mitigated by systemic change, e.g., addition of resources.”
Focus of action orientation. As stated in Chapter 2, an organizational
knowledge structure could also be affected by the actions of organization leaders.
Corroborating the findings from the surveys, the consensus of the firm under study was
fundamentally an aggressive performance-based organization. One participant
summarized the consensus of the focus groups by commenting,
It is not atypical in large organizations for some elements of leadership to impede
the movement of knowledge and alter the knowledge structure for purposes not
consistent with organizational aims. At our company, this is not the case. Rather,
!101
there is a culture of leadership’s embracing and sponsoring knowledge
maintenance and utilization.
The structure of these actions. In further corroborating the findings from the
survey, one participant noted,
Invariably, my experience, expansion, and utilization of knowledge, insofar as it
is directed and persisted by leadership, have followed directly from perceived
pragmatic imperatives. Leadership identifies an organizational need pertaining to
knowledge utilization, and in seeking resolution of the immediate need, actively
directs the gathering, maintenance, and dissemination of knowledge in the larger
context.
Another participant further noted, “In addition, leadership at all levels, including
workgroup leadership structures, participates in purposive knowledge nurture and
distribution.”
The response to threatening conditions in external environments. The
response to this component was as follows. One manager stated,
Threatening external conditions have certainly played a part in organizational
events over the past several years of the company’s history, as economic
conditions worsened and major downward adjustments in workforce occurred.
Response to external threats has been measured but aggressive. Knowledge
management in such circumstances becomes more a matter of conservation than
expansion.
!102
Another manager corroborated by noting, “The key effort must be, and has been,
retention of essential knowledge resources in the face of budgetary restrictions.” Another
participant acknowledged,
To sacrifice long-term knowledge continuity in the interest of short-term savings
is always a temptation. Inevitably our company, like any organization, has taken
losses in this area, but they have been mitigated by leadership’s awareness and
factoring in of this hazard.
Perspective on change. As stated in Chapter 2, some environment events might
have an impact on and be a factor in an organizational knowledge structure. The
response to the company’s perspective on change can be summarized by the feedback
from one manager’s statement, “Change taken as a whole, in both internal and external
environments, is addressed and managed head-on within the organization. The Business
Change Programme group has been tasked with the maintenance of knowledge necessary
for effective change.” Another participant confirmed, “As organizational change
proliferates, there is a strong effort to precede and prepare for it through a structured
effort directed at maintaining knowledge consistency and reliability.”
Interviews
I interviewed three managers, two from the Acquisitions Department and one from
Human Resources. Two managers from the Acquisitions Department answered questions
related to implementing a change process, and a manager in the Training Department
responded to the questions about employees adapting to change. The three interviews were
!103
intended to fill the gap in the data collected from the focus groups, meeting notes, and
document reviews.
In addition to confirming the data received from previous sections, four important
statements were documented. One key manager stated,
The company’s ability to adapt to a changing environment can be readily seen in
its reaction to the new lead law in California. The company is changing its view
of what materials and products need to be used in their plumbing products. Once
the state passed law forbidding any lead content in plumbing products, the
company as a whole had to react to the existing product already in the
warehouses. The company devised a plan governed by its corporate office and
regional management to proactively remove lead based products from all
warehouses in California which was not an enforcement of the law.
In another example of the company’s perspective on change, a senior manager
noted that one of the challenges that employees of Division F, a member of the Industrial
Group, have encountered is the need to deliver product to customers as soon as it arrives
from the supplier.
“In many cases, delivering one route delivery may require a second shipment to
the customer before the initial delivery is returned. The increased reaction time of
Division F to deliver to the customer puts a wrinkle in the ticket and billing flow
process but is a testament to the commitment of the company to adapt the process
to accommodate the speed and agility required in the current business climate.
!104
This type of adjustment is in direct response to increased pressures to attract and
maintain industrial customers.”
In addressing a follow-up question on the coding that showed an uneven balance
of informal versus formal knowledge, one senior manager noted,
We do realize there are opportunities there. What we discovered was that people
sometimes assume that their leaders are primarily concerned with operational
efficiency and financial results. That presents a problem when trying to talk about the
real issues. Whatever shapes a new system takes, we realized that we need to be
much more present in the branches with our staff than we have been in the past. The
voices of our customer and people on the front line were sometimes not very clear, so
we make decisions that often do not work well for our front-line staff, our customers,
or our vendors. We have been moved to say that if we want to be customer-centered,
we need to incorporate the voices of our consumers, vendor, frontline people, back-
office support staff, and management team in the design work that we are doing, in
making decisions, and in shaping the discussion.
A fourth factor emerged from the interviews that could be relevant when
examining elements that contribute toward suppressing inquiry. External consultants had
a substantial role in the implementation process.
Because of the structured process followed by established consulting firms like
the ones associated with the project, there were limited accesses allowed by the
project team. If there was a concern to be raised, it had to be channeled and
filtered through the chain-of-command, placing a limitation on inquiry that could
be considered a suppressant.
!105
Integrating the Qualitative and Quantitative Results
In this section I respond directly to the questions researched. Question 1 was as
follows: What is the firm’s transformational process and what measure do firm leaders
take to ensure employees’ understanding of the process? According to the published
documents, the firm’s transformational process is called the Business Change Programme
(BCP) with an objective to shifting the business model from a function-based to a
process-based style of operation. “This shift is done in concert with implementing an
ERP system,” affirmed a participant in Focus Group 2. Analysis of the document review,
focus groups, and interviews disclosed description of the transformation process as
described in Table 22.
Table 22
Transformation as Defined
Areas affected by transformation Definition
The technology New user interface
New printers/forms
New controls/security
New desktop view
The customers New customer number
New financing and credit arrangements
New format correspondence
Inventory management Less manual ordering
Automatic replenishment
New booking-in/returns/transfer procedures
New methods of stock counting/adjustments
Visibility of previous inaccessible data
The employees New roles and performance measures
New policies and procedures
!106
Cross-source analysis showed that firm leaders take a structured approach to
ensure employees’ understanding of the process, which includes awareness campaigns,
direct communication from the senior management, and establishing a business readiness
process. The strategic project documents defined the business readiness process as a
pragmatic and robust process to track, monitor and report on the key activities that must
be undertaken to ensure the business is ready and able to implement the BCP. Focus
groups revealed the business readiness process was driven and owned by the business and
not the project team or IT. Business readiness has three key components: (a) change
readiness, (b) business plan scorecard, and (c) business plan.
The focus of change readiness is on understanding and assessing the level of
business engagement to the change process. For example, Understanding what is
changing and why. Additional focus was placed on assessing associates’ capacity
(required skills and knowledge) to operate in the new operating environment. The
effectiveness of leadership communication was also assessed.
New levels of authority
New ways of working
The managers New reports/key performance indicators (KPIs)
New business rules
Increased training
Staff and customer queries
Greater visibility of exceptions and performance
Products New product codes
Areas affected by transformation Definition
The technology New user interface
New printers/forms
New controls/security
New desktop view
!107
The scorecard tracks the level of business readiness across the business. The
implementation team responds to the scorecard, an action plan is develop based on the
outcome of the scorecards. The business readiness plan is the action plan for the business
and is a process that identifies the activities associated with the transition and
implementation of things that the organization needs to do, when they need to do it, and
who is accountable for actioning the activities.
As previously mentioned, the business readiness team consists of mid-level
managers from all areas of the business. Additionally, key knowledge workers were
identified by their peers to serve as SMEs. The SMEs were also embedded on the project
teams. Training teams and the development of training documents also played a pivotal
role in employee awareness.
Question 2 was as follows: How do firm leaders convert implicit knowledge held
by employees into articulated knowledge during organizational change and
transformation? Firm leaders used two different strategies to collect implicit data. One
approach was to set up formal channels, for example, a lessons learned system and a support
call center soliciting voluntary conversion. As stated in a focus group,
Cyclical inquiry processes are regularly taking place in the groups within the
company. Questioning and predicting took place primarily in the form of
requirements gathering and workshopping. Data collection and analysis typically
formed part of the design process, both functional and technical. Action followed
in the form of build, testing, and production of software components.
!108
Another approach by firm leaders was to initiate a process of identifying knowledge
workers and providing the right incentives to join the project team. Through socialization,
the implicit knowledge held by the knowledge workers is externalized.
Question 3 was as follows: How does the knowledge structure reflect on the
firm’s performance during organizational change and transformation? The survey
disclosed that although knowledge sharing is highly valued in the firm studied, a formal
network idea sharing process has not been developed. There is a strong informal culture for
sharing new insights, taking opportunities to develop knowledge, collaborating and
networking, and using situational approaches to communicate and allocate resources.
Division F respondents addressed the pride factor several times in the focus groups.
By embedding the mid-level managers and knowledge workers into the
transformation process and project teams, the informal knowledge-sharing process seemed
effective. As shown by the survey sample, the firm has the fortune of having an experienced
workforce, which allows the informal process to work. Firm leaders have recognized the
need to establish a formal channel as they transform to the new state.
Summary
Chapter 4 included an analysis of the findings of survey questionnaire, focus
groups, extensive document reviews, and the follow-up interviews. The data provided
discussion points for Chapter 5. Chapter 4 included the unedited data and analysis of the
results of the findings. The final section contained a summary of the results by
addressing each research question. The findings indicated that the firm’s transformation
change process will be comprehensive. Changes will be experienced by the technology,
!109
Division F’s customers, inventory management, employees, and managers. Firm leaders
have implemented a robust process to ensure that employees understand the process.
Although there is some evidence of formal knowledge processes, the conversion and
dissemination of implicit knowledge remains mostly an informal process.
Chapter 5 includes highlights addressing a critical area concerning establishing a
formal knowledge documenting process during and after the transformation is completed.
In addition, the chapter contains the conclusion of the study and proposed
recommendations. The chapter also includes the implication of the study for knowledge
management in organization.
!110
!111
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Chapter 5 includes a restatement of the purpose of the study and a reflection of
the results of the survey questionnaires, the focus groups, and the extensive document
reviews as they related to the research questions. I will also discuss convergence and
divergence of insights drawn from the literature review, the study, the methodology, and
the analysis of the data. The issue of concern is that the leaders of companies
experiencing transformation are having difficulty determining where to focus business
efforts to protect, develop, and deploy the knowledge resource for effectiveness. The
purpose of the study was to investigate the nature of a firm’s knowledge structure by
focusing on what employees need to know to carry out their work effectively. The
objectives of the research were to (a) understand a company’s transformational process
and the role that firm leaders and employees play in the process and (b) determine
knowledge capture, conversion, and dissemination during the process. This chapter
contains the results from testing the research questions and the implications drawn from a
review of the literature. The order of presentation of the chapter is as follows: summary
of findings, interpretation of findings, recommendations based on previous and current
findings, reflection of the researcher’s experience with research process, impact of the
study on social change, and recommendation for future research. Discussions include the
general research conclusions and implications of the research findings.
Summary of Findings
Chapter 1 proposed that to create and leverage knowledge effectively during
change, a firm needs to have a successful adaptation to the new environment by their
!112
workers complemented by knowledgeable individuals capable of managing in an
increasingly complex process-oriented environment. Additionally, the identification,
articulation, and codification of new knowledge are a prerequisite for such success
(Gorman, 2004). Findings indicated the transformation process as defined by the firm is
a shift in the business model from a function-based to a process-based style of operation
while implementing an ERP system. Because the original organization structure was a
decentralized conglomerate operating model, a shift to a centralized model was deemed
significant. Firm leaders have implemented a deliberate plan to ensure employees
understand the process. Firm leaders adopted a multipronged communication strategy to
engage their employees in the transformation process. Some components included
selling benefits of the transformation, communicating step-by-step updates of the process,
changing attitudes by selling the idea of a net positive net outcome, reinforcing the
emphasis on quality, providing hands-on training, guaranteeing endorsement of
influencers by embedding in the project, and developing process monitoring and change
management to ease worker anxiety and resistance. Mid-level managers played a pivotal
role in implementing the efforts of senior management among employees.
Although there was some evidence of formal knowledge processes, the
conversion and dissemination of implicit knowledge remains mostly an informal process.
However, the design of the project implementation strategy enabled knowledge creation.
The company benefited from having experienced knowledge workers. Knowledge
experts, also referred to as SMEs, were strategically embedded in project teams with
consultants and specialists. Additionally, knowledge workers were identified through a
!113
peer referral process. During implementation, members of the project team shadowed
knowledge workers and observed and documented issues and metrics. The externalized
data were sent to a centrally located war room, where the data were evaluated,
synthesized, and implemented by the project team. Some evidence indicates new explicit
knowledge was adopted to change existing operational processes.
Overall, leaders of the firm were optimistic about the ability of the firm to meet
changes in its external environment through continued high-performing and exceptional
customer service. Internal change was perceived to be a necessity to shift to the new
business model and was designed to optimize the response to external influences.
Restructuring efforts for operational efficiency were perceived to enhance a product or
service rather than purely to benefit shareholder wealth. The updated missions were seen
as credible due to the rate of expansion through same store growth and acquisition to take
advantage of scale. Although skepticism regarding the transformation effort (an effort to
break the old mentality without revolt) is evident, the effort was generally deemed
genuine in its intent. The nature of work was perceived to change significantly with the
transformation effort and implementation of the ERP system.
Examining Division F’s knowledge structure through the lens of Gorman’s (2004)
seven primary pillars of organizational change, the following was discovered: (a) an
externally focused knowledge structure that ties all strategies to customer satisfaction; (b)
a dominant core that evokes rather than suppresses inquiry; (c) loosely coupled elements
that contributed to a culture of informal inquiry; (d) an action orientation focused on
performing with some learning; (e) structuring actions that reflected a rich variety of
!114
inquiry though somewhat uncoordinated; (f) aggressive attributes in response to
threatening conditions in the external environment; and (g) embracement of change as a
reality of the industry, therefore viewing change as an opportunity rather than an outcome
to enhance adaptive capacity. While exploring the firm’s knowledge structure, I did
uncover another dynamic in play. Although the culture of the firm (informal knowledge
sharing) was transferred into the team directly responsible for the transformation, this
was not always the same with consultants. External project consultants also participated
in the project teams, but also brought in their knowledge structure. Although some
evidence exists of two-way knowledge sharing, the formal process used by consultants
prohibited informal exchange and therefore suppressed inquiry.
Specific Findings of the Study
The data relevant to the findings in the study came mainly from the survey
questionnaires, focus groups, document reviews, and interviews. The data analysis took
place in three phases: (a) preparation of descriptive statistics and analysis of
observational data concerning original organizational action, (b) analysis of the
qualitative data using content analysis, and (c) a combination of results in a structured
manner to interpret the findings.
The results of the survey showed that 74.7% of potential participants responded to
the distributed surveys. Fifty-eight respondents (93.6%) agreed knowledge sharing is a
core value of the organization. Fifty-five respondents (89%) agreed that managers
support knowledge and information sharing across units and teams. Fifty-three
respondents (85.5%) agreed that leaders support quick and accurate communication
!115
among all employees. Thirty-two (52%) agreed or strongly agreed that organizational
structure encourages and facilitates sharing knowledge at an individual level (e.g., easy
access to appropriate internal resources, time for consideration and discussion). Another
27 respondents (43.5%) somewhat agreed. Forty-three (72.4%) respondents confirmed
the organization establishes workgroups, networks, and other collaborative arrangements
to help the organization adapt and change.
The survey results reflected the nature of Division F within Organization W.
Fifty-four respondents (86%) believed that continuous change is necessary. Ninety-seven
percent of respondents agreed or strongly agreed the people in the organization believe
that evaluating what customers say is critical to reaching the organizational goals.
Eighty-one percent of respondents agreed the organizational leader deliberately reflect
upon and respond to external information. More than 80% of respondents acknowledged
that the organizational leaders deliberately reflect upon and evaluate external information,
while 74% shared this information. More than 80% predicted changes in the industry,
and 81% of respondents agreed that the organizational leaders use ideas and suggestions
from employees.
The results of developing a culture of learning was the highest score factor of the
eight categories, with a mean score of 4.2 out of a possible 5. A culture of learning
means “reinforcing flexibility and growth: valuing individual and firm development;
viewing mistakes as learning opportunities” (Johnson, 2000, p. 103); see also Gorman,
2004. The next four factors were the performance factors followed by the three learning
factors, suggesting a firm structure that leans toward performance but values learning.
!116
Analysis of the document review, focus groups, and interviews corroborated the
survey results concerning knowledge structure. In addition, these methods of inquiry
clarified more specifically the transformational change experienced within Division F.
The change was universally believed to be comprehensive and transformative.
Documents confirmed that the change will affect the technology, customers, inventory
management, employees, and managers.
Cross-source analysis showed that firm leaders take a structured approach to
ensure employees’ understanding of the process. The process includes awareness
campaigns, direct communication from senior management, and establishing a business
readiness process.
The documents defined the business readiness process as “a pragmatic and robust
process to track, monitor, and report on key activities that must be undertaken to ensure
the business is ready and able to implement the BCP.” Focus groups revealed the
business readiness process was driven and owned by the business organizational leaders
and not the project team or IT.
Firm leaders used two different strategies to collect implicit data. One approach
was to set up formal channels, for example, a lessons learned system and a support call
center soliciting voluntary conversion. There was evidence of cyclical inquiry processes
in play at Division F. Questioning and predicting took place primarily in the form of
requirements gathering and workshopping. Data collection and analysis typically formed
part of the design process -both functional and technical. Action followed in the form of
building, testing, and producing software components.
!117
Another approach by firm leaders was to initiate a process of identifying
knowledge workers and providing the right incentives to join the project team. Through
socialization, the implicit knowledge held by knowledge workers is externalized. Focus
groups and interview results expounded on the finding that although knowledge sharing
is highly valued in Division F, a formal network of idea sharing has not been developed.
However, there is a strong informal culture for sharing new insights, taking opportunities
to develop knowledge, collaborating and networking, and using situational approaches to
communicate and allocate resources.
By embedding mid-level managers and knowledge workers into the
transformation process and project teams, the informal knowledge sharing process
seemed effective. As displayed by the survey sample, the firm has the fortune of having
an experienced workforce as a most valuable asset, which allows the informal process of
knowledge transaction to work. Firm leaders, however, have recognized the need to
establish a formal knowledge management infrastructure as they transform to the new
state.
Recommendations From Previous Studies and From the Current Study
The area of knowledge creation in organizations has been well documented. As
noted in Chapter 1, the challenge for leaders of companies experiencing transformation is
determining where to focus business efforts to protect, develop, and deploy the
knowledge resource for effectiveness. In a study on the effect of collective learning
during such a period of transformation, Gottemoeller (2011) discovered that “a sequential
application of exploration and exploitation, with a period of intensive importation of new
!118
information followed by a period of sustained exploitation, can result in a large growth in
collective capability in a very short time” (p. 198). Accomplishing the goal of effectively
creating and leveraging knowledge during such a period can determine the fate of the
organization. However, I agree with Wallace (2010), who noted, “Managing the process
of converting fragmented ideas or parts of previous concepts into new ways of doing
business can be challenging for an organization” (p. 198). Several recommendations
would enhance the firm’s knowledge creation process.
Recommendations
There is general agreement that the facilitation of knowledge creation within a
company involves both purposefully planned activities that originate and are directed by
management and emergent activities that are the unplanned results of deliberate actions
by management. Although strong evidence exists that senior leaders in Organization W
have been actively enabling knowledge creation, a deliberate and coordinated effort
should be pursued for sustained knowledge capture that complements the intended
structure. As such, organization leaders should develop a knowledge strategy.
Organization W’s focus on the external environment seems to be in line with the
findings of some researchers. Mauchet (2011) noted that by focusing on these external
subsystems, both product and market innovativeness should show improvement. Core
strategies for organization are built around customer satisfaction.
As revealed in the results, the transformation process has produced some
knowledge creation, though primarily informal. To take advantage of the opportunity,
senior management should aim at further enhancing the knowledge-creation potential of
!119
the company. I agree with Pandit (2011) that during times of change, leaders should
make particular efforts to manage the distribution of information where relevant, which
calls for a deliberate clear knowledge vision from senior leaders. By having a clear
knowledge vision, company leaders may help their community of knowledge workers in
three ways: (a) articulating and (b) justifying the concepts they create, (c) and
legitimizing the process.
The research findings credited senior management with mobilizing key
knowledge workers to champion the process, which resulted in broader buy-in and
participation. However, greater focus should be on aligning the efforts of these
knowledge champions to the knowledge vision and structure.
Wallace (2010) clearly highlighted the difficulty managing these fragmented
ideas. Gordon (2000), Howard (1989), and Kim et al. (2003) made the argument for
knowledge mapping based on the premise that although retaining knowledge experts in
an organization should be a priority, it is even more important to transfer the experts’
knowledge into a condition that is useful to management and people who remain loyal to
organization. In his research, Dzekashu (2009) always supported a systemic approach to
resolving an issue.
The organization should consider this option of graphically depicting what, when,
where, and how knowledge is applied in a web of cause and effect relationships (Gordon,
2000; Howard, 1989; Kim et al., 2003). This knowledge web, portrayed in a knowledge
map, consists of ascendant knowledge (as cause) and descendent knowledge (as effect).
The map displays the characteristics of current business processes because it is developed
!120
based on these practices. Because the knowledge map displays players, sources, flows,
constraints, and leaks of knowledge within an organization and represents a navigation
aid for both tacit and explicit knowledge (Gordon, 2000), the local knowledge captured
can be globalized in a systemic way and can get the knowledge to the people in whose
hands it is useful. “Managing the relationship then becomes about managing the
combination and connection of ideas while the managing of ideas is about managing the
flow of that output through the organization” (Wallace, 2010, p. 5).
Impact of the Study on Social Change
The results of the study could help leaders of organizations and corporations
develop a reliable process to cultivate the creation of organizational knowledge. For
many years, researchers from all spectra of knowledge management have implored the
leaders of modern corporations to consider knowledge creation as a source of competitive
advantage (Crook et al., 2008; Jeroen Kraaijenbrink & Groen, 2010; McIvor, 2009; Von
Krogh, Ichijo, & Nonaka, 2000). The premise of this strategy is twofold. First, the
strategy brings to light and prioritizes the needs of knowledge workers, and second, the
strategy facilitates the construction of a learning infrastructure needed to meet the
challenges of the information economy. The window during transformation change offers
a unique opportunity to initiate or enhance a knowledge management process.
Additionally, knowledge and learning as a core strategy can be beneficial for both top
managers and individual workers.
!121
Experiences During the Conduct of the Study
Upon approval of the study by Argosy University, Washington DC, I plan to share
the study with the leadership team at the organization studied and with fellow
researchers. The research was exposed to several areas of study for future research.
Seeing the dynamics of the organization in action from the inside through the lens of a
researcher was a chance of the lifetime. This experience may embolden future research
in the area of interest.
Conclusions
The results of the study provided empirical support for Nonaka and Toyama’s
(2005) OKC theory. By examining how Division F, a subsidiary of Organization W,
extracting knowledge from sources accessible to people, and how that knowledge is
stored into knowledge systems, the current research could help business efforts protect,
develop, and deploy knowledge resources. Additionally, the current research contributes
to existing empirical findings in the area of knowledge creation.
Using a case study approach to inquiry, I applied a mixed methodology of
qualitative and quantitative analysis to investigate the knowledge creation phenomenon at
Organization W while the organization experienced transformational change. To get the
desired results for the inquiry, three questions were used to extract relevant responses.
Research Question 1 asked what is the firm’s transformational process and what
measure do firm leaders take to ensure employees’ understanding of the process. The
results showed that Division F is undergoing a structural change that affects change in all
areas of business. The impetus of the change was the implementation of an ERP system.
!122
Company leaders have taken several deliberate measures to enable understanding
of the process. Some included awareness campaigns, direct communication from the
senior management, and establishing a business readiness process. Other measures
included recruiting knowledge experts and knowledge workers to champion the change
initiative, disseminate information, and serve as SMEs on project teams.
Research Question 2 asked how firm leaders convert implicit knowledge held by
employees into articulated knowledge during organizational change and transformation?
The study showed that Organization W had a strong culture of informal knowledge
sharing. In a process of identifying (through peers) and providing incentives, firm
leaders were able to embed these workers into project teams. Through socialization,
knowledge was captured. Challenges still exist in formalizing a sustaining way of
knowledge capture.
Research Question 3 asked how the knowledge structure reflects on the firm’s
performance during organizational change and transformation? Gorman’s (2004) pillars
of knowledge framework revealed seven basic knowledge structure characteristics for
Division F in Organization W: (a) an externally focused knowledge structure that ties all
strategies to customer satisfaction; (b) a dominant core that evokes rather than suppresses
inquiry; (c) loosely coupled elements that contributed to a culture of informal inquiry; (d)
action orientation focused on performing but some learning; (e) structuring actions that
reflected a rich variety of inquiry, but somewhat uncoordinated; (f) aggressive attributes
counteract threatening conditions in external environments; and (g) embracing change as
!123
a reality of the distribution and logistics industry and therefore viewing change as an
opportunity to enhance adaptive capacity, rather than as an outcome.
In an industry and a culture where change is constant, Division F’s approach to
the transformation was embraced as an opportunity to gain market share through better
customer satisfaction. The experienced and knowledgeable workforce combined with an
aggressive, performance-driven organization reflected positively on the prospects for
transformation success.
Future Research
This section addresses recommendations for action and for future research.
Future research should continue the approach of examining organizational knowledge
creation from the inside but research should be expanded to span multiple knowledge
structures within an organization. Action research methodology could also prove useful
to track real-time data and provide more depth to understanding the knowledge creation
phenomenon from a longitudinal perspective.
Future research could be extended to include more sites across a range of
industries and to include multiple sites within a particular industry. Future research
should continue by examining the complexities of combining collective-level knowledge
structures and taking into consideration additional factors such as external consultants’
knowledge structure and the subsequent impact during transformational periods.
!124
REFERENCES
Albert, S., & Anderson, M. H. (2010). The practice of theory borrowing in organizational studies: Current issues and future directions. Journal of Management Inquiry, 19, 34-46.
Ardichvili, A., & Won Yoon, S. (2009). Designing integrative knowledge management systems: Theoretical considerations and practical applications. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 11, 307.
Argote, L., McEvily, B., & Reagans, R. (2003). Managing knowledge in organizations: An integrative framework and review of emerging themes. Management Science, 49, 571.
Awad, E. M., & Ghaziri, H. M. (2007). Knowledge management (2nd ed.). New Delhi, IN: Dorlin Kindersly.
Babbie, E. (1995). The practice of social research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Baird, F. E. (2008). Philosophic classics: From Plato to Derrida (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. (Original work published 1961)
Baker, G., & Maddux, H. (2005). Enhancing organizational performance: Facilitating the critical transition to a process view of management. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 70(4), 43-48.
Barnes, C. A., Camburn, E., Sanders, B., & Sebastian, J. (2010). Developing instructional leaders: Using mixed methods to explore the black box of planned change in principals' professional practice. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46, 241-279.
Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17, 99-120.
Becerra-Fernandez, I., & Sabherwal, R. (2001). A contingency perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems, Organizational Knowledge Management, 18, 23-55.
Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. New York, NY: Doubleday.
Bonifacio, M., & Molani, A. (2003). The richness of diversity in knowledge creation: An interdisciplinary overview. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 9, 491-500.
!125
Bornemann, M., & Sammer, M. (2003). Assessment methodology to prioritize knowledge management related activities. Measuring Business Excellence, 7(2), 21.
Bryant, S. E. (2005). The impact of peer mentoring on organizational knowledge creation and sharing: An empirical study in a software firm. Group and Organization Management, 30, 319-338.
Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1966). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
Canary, H. E. (2010). Structuring activity theory: An integrative approach to policy knowledge. Communication Theory, 20, 21-49.
Caracelli, V. J., & Greene, J. C. (1997). Crafting mixed-method evaluation design. In J. C. Greene & V. J. Caracelli (Eds.), Advances in mixed-method evaluation: The challenges and benefits of integrating diverse paradigms. New directions for program evaluation (Vol. 74, pp. 19-32). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Carson, W., III. (2005). Successful implementation of enterprise resource planning software: A Delphi study (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
Chang, D., Lee, M. T. C., Cheng, K. T., & Marek-Sadowska, M. (1998). Functional scan chain testing. Design, automation and test in Europe. Design, Automation and Test in Europe, 2, 278-283.
Chen, A. N. K., & Edgington, T. M. (2005). Assessing value in organizational knowledge creation: Considerations for knowledge workers. MIS Quarterly, 29, 279-309.
Ciulla, J. (1996). Leadership and the problem of bogus empowerment (Kellogg Leadership Studies Project: Ethics & Leadership Project Working Papers).
Coase, R. (1937). The nature of the firm. Economica, 4(16), 386-405.
Coghlan, D., & Brannick, T. (2005). Doing action research in your own organization (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cole, M. S., & Bruch, H. (2006). Organizational identity strength, identification, and commitment and their relationships to turnover intention: Does organizational hierarchy matter. Journal of Organizational Behavior.
!126
Collinson, V., Cook, T. F., & Conley, S. (2006). Organizational learning in schools and school systems: Improving learning, teaching, and leading. Theory Into Practice, 45(2), 107-116.
Cone, J. D., & Foster, S. L. (2006). Dissertations and theses from start to finish: Psychology and related fields (2nd ed.). Rockville, MD: United Book Press.
Cooperrider, D., & Srivastva, S. (1987). Appreciative inquiry in organizational life. In Woodman & Pasmore (Eds.), Research on organizational change and development (Vol. 1, pp. 129-169). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Gutmann, M., & Hanson, W. (2003). Advanced mixed methods research designs. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 209-240). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Davenport. (2005). Why does knowledge management still matter. Rex. T+D, 59, 18-25.
Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (2000). Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they know. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Davenport, T., & Voelpel, S. (2001). The rise of knowledge towards attention management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 5, 212-221.
Davenport, T. H., Thomas, R. J., & Cantrell, S. (2002). The mysterious art and science of knowledge-worker performance. MIT Sloan Management Review, 44, 23-30.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2008). Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dewson, A. (2007, September). The investment column: Organization W has been building on a solid base. The Independent, 17, 1. Retrieved October 15, 2007, from http://news.independent.co.uk/business/analysis_and_features/article2976704.ece
Dolfsma, W. (2008). Knowledge economies: Innovation, organization and location. London, England: Routledge.
Dzekashu, W. G. (2009). Integration of quality management into the tacit knowledge capture process. Dissertation Abstracts International, 70(04), 188A. (UMI No. 3355037)
!127
Eltantawy, R. (2008). Supply management contribution to channel performance: A top management perspective. Management Research News, 31(3), 152.
Fahey, L., & Prusak, L. (1998). The eleven deadliest sins of knowledge management. California Management Review, 40(3), 265-276.
Fliaster, A., & Spiess, J. (2008). Knowledge mobilization through social ties: the cost-benefit analysis. Schmalenbach Business Review, 60, 99-118.
Florence, A. R. (2008). Contractor knowledge transfer as perceived by defense federal civilians in Washington. Dissertation Abstracts International, 69(8), 32. (UMI No. 3324088)
Foss, N. J. (1996). More critical comments on knowledge-based theories of the firm: More critical comments on knowledge-based theories of the firm. Organization Science, 7, 519-523.
Foss, N., & Pedersen, T. (2001). Building a MNC knowledge structure: the role of knowledge sources, complementarities and organizational context. Paper presented at the LINK Conference, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Friesl, M., Sackmann, S. A., & Kremser, S. (2011). Knowledge sharing in new organizational entities: The impact of hierarchy, organizational context, micro-politics and suspicion. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 18, 72-81.
Fullerton, J. R. (2010). Transformative learning in college students: A mixed methods study (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
Geertz, C. (1974). The interpretation of cultures. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Goldkuhl, G., & Braf, E. (2001). Contextual knowledge analysis--understanding knowledge and its relations to action and communication. Proceedings of 2nd European Conference on Knowledge Management, IEDC-Bled School of Management, Slovenia.
Gorman, M. D. (2004). Creating organizational knowledge during transformational change: A multi-site case study using an action theory approach. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, George Washington University, Washington DC.
!128
Gottemoeller, M. E. (2011). Exploitation and exploration as collective learning strategies in a complex environment: A case study of a Chinese manufacturing enterprise. Dissertation Abstracts, 198. (UMI No. AAT 3397681)
Ha`kanson, L. (2007). Creating knowledge: the power and logic of articulation. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16, 51-88.
Hamel, G., & Prahalad, C. H. (1994). Competing for the future. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Heisig, P., Mertins, K., & Vorbeck, J. (2001). Knowledge management: Concepts and Best practices in Europe. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Hsinchun, C., & Mihail C. R. (2009). Mapping nanotechnology innovations and knowledge (Vol. 2). New York, NY: Springer.
Hunte-Cox, D. E. (2004). Executive succession planning and the organizational learning capacity (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3111403)
Imai, K., Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1985). Managing the new product development process: How Japanese companies learn and unlearn. In K. B. Clark, R. H. Hayes, & C. Lorenz (Eds.), The uneasy alliance. Managing the productivity-technology dilemma (pp. 337-375). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Jensen, R. J., & Szulanski, G. (2007). Template use and the effectiveness of knowledge transfer. Management Science, 53, 1716.
Johnson, C. G. (2000). A theoretical model of organizational learning and performing action systems: The development and initial validation of the duality of a Parsonian action frame of reference through confirmatory factor analysis. Masters Abstracts International. (UMI No. 9973084)
Jones, M. C., & Price, R. L. (2004). Organizational knowledge sharing in ERP implementation: Lessons from industry. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 16(20), 21.
King, A., & Zeithaml, C. (2003). Measuring organizational knowledge: A conceptual and methodology framework. Strategic Management Journal, 24, 763-772.
Klein, G., Moon, B., & Hoffman, R. F. (2006). Making sense of sensemaking I: alternative perspectives. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 21(4), 70-73.
!129
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1996). What firms do: Coordination, identity, and learning. Organization Science, 7, 502-518.
Langlois R., & Foss, N. (1999). Capabilities and governance: the rebirth of production in the theory of economic organization. Kyklos, 52, 201-218.
Leibold, M., Probst, G., & Gibbert, M. (2005). Strategic management in the knowledge economy: New approaches and business applications. Erlangen, NY: Wiley.
Leonard, D., & Swap, W. (2004). Deep smarts: How to cultivate and transfer enduring business wisdom. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Li, S., & Change, W. (2009). Exploiting and transferring presentational knowledge assets in R&D organizations. Expert Systems with Applications, 36, 766-777.
Lincoln, & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Luechauer, D. (2000). Applying appreciative inquiry instead of problem-solving techniques to facilitate change (Management Development Forum, 2). Retrieved October 8, 2009, http://www.esc.edu/ESConline/Across_ESC/Forumjournal.nsf/web+view/5A8D486A2C5F9B0E852568FD00561F17?opendocument
Lumberg, C. (1991). Organizational learning and organization culture. Presented at the Eastern Academy of Management Conference, Hartford, CT.
Lyles, M. A., & Schwenk, C. R. (1992). Top management, strategy, and organizational knowledge structures. Journal of Management Studies, 29, 155-174.
Malhotra, A., Gosain, S., & El Sawy, O. A. (2005). Absorptive capacity configurations in supply chains: Gearing for partner-enabled market knowledge creation. MIS Quarterly, 29, 145-187.
Malhotra, Y. (2002). Why knowledge management systems fail? Enablers and constraints of knowledge management in human enterprises. In C. W. Holsapple (Ed.), Handbook on knowledge management. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
March, J., & Simon, H. (1958). Organizations. New York, NY: Wiley.
Massey, & Montoya-Weiss, M. M. (2006). Unraveling the temporal fabric of knowledge conversion: A model of media selection and use. MIS Quarterly, 30, 99-114.
Mauchet, M. (2011). Managers' perceptions of organizational learning and organizational innovativeness in a global healthcare organization (Doctoral
!130
dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. AAT 3448977)
McIvor, R. (2009). How the transaction cost and resource-based theories of the firm inform outsourcing evaluation. Journal of Operations Management, 27, 45-63.
McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (1997). Research in education: A conceptual introduction (4th ed.). Don Mills, ON: Longman.
McQuade, T. J. (2006). Science and markets as adaptive classifying systems. In E. Krecké, C. Krecké, & K. Koppl (Eds.), Cognition and economics (p. 77). London, England: Emerald Group.
Meng, W., Zhang, D., & Liu, W. (2007). Multi-level DEA approach in research evaluation. Canterbury, England: Kent Business School.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mintzberg, H., & Waters, J. A. (1983). The mind of the strategist(s). In S. Srivasta (Ed.), The executive mind (pp. 58-83). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mirvis, P. H., & Seashore, S. E. (1979). Being ethical in organizational research. American Psychologist, 17(34), 766-780.
Morroni, M. (1992). Production process and technical change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Nickols, F. W. (2000). The knowledge in knowledge management. In J. W. Cortada & J. A. Woods (Eds.), The knowledge management yearbook 2000-2001 (pp. 12-21). Boston, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Nonaka, I. (1988a). Creating order out of chaos: self-renewal in Japanese firms. California Management Review, 15(3), 57-73.
Nonaka, I. (1988b). Toward middle-up-down management: Accelerating information creation. Sloan Management Review, 29(3), 9-18.
Nonaka, I. (1990). Redundant, overlapping organization: A Japanese approach to managing the innovation process. California Management Review, 32(3), 27-38.
!131
Nonaka, I. (1991a). The knowledge creating company. Harvard Business Review, 69(6), 96-104.
Nonaka, I. (1991b). Managing the firm as an information creation process. In J. R. Meindl, R. L. Cardy, & S. M. Puffer (Eds.), Advances in information processing in organizations (pp. 239-275). Greewich, CT: JAI Press.
Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organizational Science, 5, 14-37.
Nonaka, I., Byosiere, P., Borucki, C. C., & Konno, N. (1994). Organizational knowledge creation theory: A first comprehensive test. International Business Review, 3, 337-351.
Nonaka, I., & Kenney, M. (1991). Towards a new theory of innovation management: A case study comparing Canon, Inc. and Apple Computer, Inc. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 8, 67-83.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. London, England: Oxford University Press.
Nonaka, I., & Toyama, R. (2005). The theory of the knowledge-creating firm: subjectivity, objectivity and synthesis. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14, 419-436.
Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., & Byosière, P. (2001). A theory of organizational knowledge creation: Understanding the dynamic process of creating knowledge. In M. Dierkes, A. B. Antel, J. Child, & I. Nonaka (Eds.), Handbook of organizational learning and knowledge (pp. 491-517). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., & Konno, N. (2000). SECI, Ba, and leadership: A unified model of dynamic knowledge creation. Long Range Planning, 33, 5-34.
Nonaka, I., & von Krogh, G. (2009). Tacit knowledge and knowledge conversion: Controversy and advancement in organizational knowledge creation theory. Organization Science, 23, 635-652.
Nonaka, I., von Krogh, G., & Voelpel, S. (2006). Organizational knowledge creation theory: Evolutionary paths and future advances. Organization Studies, 1179-1208.
Nunnally, J. C. (1967). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
!132
O'Cathain, A., Murphy, E., & Nicholl J. (2008). The quality of mixed methods studies in health services research. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 13(2), 92-98.
O'Donnell, D. (2004). Theory and method on intellectual capital creation: Addressing communicative action through relative methodics. O'donnell, David,theory and Method on Intellectual Capital Creation: Addressing Communicative Action Journal of Intellectual Capital, 5(2), 294-311.
O'Donnell, D., Henriksen, L., & Voelpel, S. (2006). Becoming critical on intellectual capital. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 7.
Ojasalo, K. (2009). Business and design competences in service innovation and development. The Business Review, 13, 216-222.
Orlikowski, J. W., & Hufman, J. D. (1997). An improvisational model of change management: The case of groupware technologies. The Sloan Management Review, 38(2), 11-21.
Ortiz Laverde, A. M., Baragano, A. F., & Sarriegui Dominguez, J. M. (2003). Knowledge processes: On overview of the principal models. In Knowledge Management Summer School - KMSS 2003 (pp. 1-6). San Sebastian, Spain.
Paladino, M., Bates, H., & da Silveira, G. (2001). Using a customer-focused approach to improve quality across the value chain: The case of Siderar. Total Quality Management, 13, 671-683.
Pandit, G. (2011). Critical reflection in collective knowledge creation: A mixed-method case study of middle managers' reflection and interaction in a public organization (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertation and Theses database. (UMI No. 3426943)
Parac, J. F., Meindl, C., & Stubbart, C. (1996). Cognition within and between organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Parson, T., Bales, R. F., & Shiles, E. A. (1953). Working papers in theory of action. New York, NY: Free Press.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Penrose, E. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
!133
Picot, A., Borenlanger, C., & Rohrl, H. (1997). Organizational of electronic markets: Contributions from the new institutional economics. The Information Society, 13, 107-123.
Polanyi, M. (1962). Tacit knowing: It’s bearing on some problems of philosophy. Reviews of Modern Physics, 34, 601-616.
Probst, G., Raub, S., & Romhardt, K. (2002). Managing knowledge: Building blocks for success. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Pruzak, L. (1997). Knowledge in organizations. Boston, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Rao, T., Earls, T. W., & Sanchez, G. (2007). International collaboration in transorganizational systems development: The challenges of global insourcing. Journal of Global Information Technology Management, 10(3), 52-70.
Sanchez, R. (2006). Integrating design into strategic management processes. Design Management Review, 17(4), 10-19.
Sarkis, J., & Sundarraj, R. P. (2003). Managing large-scale global enterprise resource planning systems: A case study at Texas Instruments. International Journal of Information Management, 23, 431-443.
Schneider, S. C., & Angelmar, R. (1993). Cognition in organizational analysis: Who's minding the store? Organization Studies, 3, 347-374.
Schopenhauer, A. (1966). The world as will and representation. Dover, England: Dover.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Schwandt, D. (1997). Integrating strategy and organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Advances in Strategic Management, 14, 357-359.
Seely Brown, J. (1991). Research that reinvents the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 69, 102-111.
Seely Brown, J. (2002). Research that reinvents the corporation. Harvard Business Review on Knowledge Management, 80(8), 105-114.
Sharkie, R. (2003). Knowledge creation and its place in the development of sustainable competitive advantage. Journal of Knowledge Management, 7, 20-31.
!134
Singleton, R., & Straits, B. (2005). Approaches to social research (4th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Snowden, D. J., & Boone, M. (2007). A leader's framework for decision making. Harvard Business Review, 69-76.
Spender, J. C. (1996). Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 45-62.
Stake, R. (1995). The art of case research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Storey, J., Emberson, C. A., Godsell, J., & Harrison. (2006). Supply chain management: theory, practice and future challenges. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 26, 754-774.
Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Svieby, K. E. (1997). The new organization wealth & measuring knowledge-based assets. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Trinkle, S. I. (2005). The nature of tacit knowledge and the nature of the expert: Tacit knowledge retention at the Tennessee Valley Authority. Dissertation Abstracts International, 66(8), 1. (UMI No. 3185679)
Tsoukas, H. (1996). The firm as a distributed knowledge system: A constructionist approach. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 11-25.
Uzama, A. (2009). Critical review of market entry selection and expansion into Japan's market. Journal of Global Marketing, 22(4), 279.
Vincent, C. (2006). Leadership in knowledge society: An examination of the relationship between perceptions of leadership and knowledge management actions using a social action theory approach (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3218612)
Voelpel, S., & Streb, C. (2006). Sticky knowledge: Barriers to knowing in the firm by G. Szulanski. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 5.
Von Krogh, G., Ichijo, K., & Nonaka, I. (2000). Enabling knowledge creation. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
!135
Von Krogh, G., Roos, J., & Slocum, K. (1994). An essay on corporate epistemology. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 53-71.
Wallace, R. (2010). The relationship of organizational learning to knowledge management and its impact on innovation (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. AAT 3440053)
Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Weick, K. E. (1987). Organizational culture as a source of high reliability. California Management Review, 29, 112-127.
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Williamson, O. E. (1971). The vertical integration of production: Market failure considerations. American Economic Review, 61, 112-123.
Williamson, O. E. (1981). The economics of organization: The transaction cost approach. The American Journal of Sociology, 87, 548-577.
Williamson, O. E., & Masten, S. E. (Eds.). (1999). The economics of transaction costs. NorthHampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
Woolley, C. M. (2009). Meeting the mixed methods challenge of integration in a sociological study of structure and agency. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3, 7-25.
Yeganeh, H., & Su, Z. (2006). Conceptual foundations of cultural management research. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 6, 361-376.
Yin, R. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research, design and methods (3rd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Yin, R., & Moore, G. (1987). The use of advanced technologies in special education: The use of advanced technologies in special education. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 60.
Yoo, K., Suh, & Kim, K. (2007). Knowledge flow. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(3), 104.
!136
Youngdahl, W., & Ramaswamy, K. (2008). Offshoring of service and knowledge work. Journal of Operations Management, 26, 212-221.
!137
APPENDICES
!138
APPENDIX A
Summary of Theories of Organizational Knowledge and Knowledge Creation
!139
(continued)
Author Theory about the nature of knowledge Theory about how knowledge is created
Polanyi (1962)
Two dimensions of knowledge: tacit (unarticulated, personal, intuitive, difficult to communicate, context specific, core to prior knowledge base); explicit (able to articulate, observable, transmittable in formal system, codified).
NA .
.
Habermas (1971)
Types of knowledge: technical, practical, and emancipatory. Knowledge as an outcome or result of learning
Based on Plato's dimensions of knowledge (fact-base and belief base)
Winter (1987)
Dimensions of knowledge: Tacit (complex, not observable, not teachable); explicit (simple, observable, teachable).
Stresses the prominence of learning. The role played by routines in organizational evolution is similar to that of genes in biology—routines are dynamic processes by which behavioral patterns are formed and market results are jointly arrived at over a period of time (Nelson & Winter, 1982). .
March (1991); Levinthal & March (1993)
Knowledge taxonomy: Distinguishes knowledge that is newly created versus knowledge that is based on recombination of existing knowledge.
Rational-economic-transaction cost approach: Describes the dual search process of the firm: exploration and exploitation; emphasis on acquisition and performance actions.
Kogut & Zander (1992)
Knowledge taxonomy: Distinguishes knowledge that is newly created versus that which is reproduction; direct relationship between tacitness and transferability of knowledge. Three forms of knowledge: information, know-how, and innovation.
Rational-economic-competency-based: Focuses on codification, replication, and transferring of knowledge. Emphasis on ability to imitate and on product innovation.
Sackmann (1992)
Knowledge taxonomy: There are cognitive structural devices that at the collective level form four types of cultural knowledge: (a) dictionary— commonly held descriptions, the context or "what" of a situation; (b) directory— commonly held practices, the "how" of things and events, (c) recipe—based on judgment, the "should" or recommendations of certain activities, (d) axiomatic—the reason for or explanation of the ultimate causes seen to by underlying a particular event, the "why" of an event.
Social construction: Emphasizes the reciprocal relationship between the type of knowledge and cultural assumptions. Cultural knowledge is commonly held cognitions that the collective may not be aware of.
Nonaka (1994)
Knowledge taxonomy: Four types of knowledge: (a) conceptual, (b) systematized, (c) operational, (d) systemic.
Rational-economic-transaction cost-emphasizing conversion: Knowledge is created through the conversion from tacit to explicit, beginning with the individual and moving through spiral to the collective. There are four conversion modes. Learning occurs only at the individual level.
!140
Summary of Theories of Organizational Knowledge and Knowledge Creation (continued)
(continued)
Author Theory about the nature of knowledge Theory about how knowledge is created
Von Krogh, Roos, & Slocum (1994)
Knowledge taxonomy: Makes distinction between newly created and recreated knowledge through understanding what is knowledge, how it is developed, and what the conditions are for creating the new or recreated knowledge.
Social construction: Heuristic approach focusing on how and why firms know. Knowledge is created through self-referential process. Uses autopoeisis as theoretical lens. Describes a firm's corporate epistemology.
Crossan & Bontis (1998)
Knowledge spectrum: Conversion of knowledge from tacit at individual level to explicit at the organizational level.
Rational-economic conversion model: Transformation from tacit to explicit with consideration for management practice, learning processes, and scheme associated with action. Focuses on knowledge transfer classification based on tacitness and level (individual, group, organization).
Inkpen & Dinur (1998)
Knowledge continuum: Knowledge should be viewed as a kind of spectrum containing at either end a knowledge type: at one end, explicit (the kind of knowledge embedded in particular products and activities); and at the other, tacit (the kind of knowledge arrived at via experience, employed by and embedded in particular cognitive and institutional routines) (p. 456). Organizations have a range of types of knowledge and carriers of knowledge (p. 457). Uses Spender's typology to classify empirical findings and link knowledge management processes with types of knowledge.
Conversion from individual to organizational knowledge: the formation of knowledge in an organization seen as a process in which what individuals know is amplified and becomes part of an organization's knowledge base (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). Specific processes are present at each level (individual—interpreting and sense making; group—integrating; firm—institutionalizing (Inkpen & Crossan, 1995).
Davenport, Long, & Beers (1998)
Socialization knowledge. Redefining knowledge as amalgamation of experience and information.
Economic knowledge management perspective: Identifies factors to help create, share, and use knowledge efficiently; creates knowledge repositories, "lessons learned"; improves knowledge access; builds awareness and cultural receptivity; and manages knowledge as an asset. Identifies factors that lead to successful knowledge management; e.g., flexible knowledge structures, knowledge-friendly culture, channels for knowledge transfer.
Zack (1999) Knowledge types: (1) Declarative knowledge (describing something), (2) procedural knowledge (how something occurs), and (3) causal knowledge (why something occurs), as well as general and specific knowledge.
Resource-based view of firm: Knowledge management architectures. Five stages for creating and distributing knowledge: acquisition, refinement, storage and retrieval, distribution, and presentation.
Tsoukas (1996)
Knowledge continuum: Knowledge that is tacit and knowledge that is explicit are mutually made up. Tacit is the necessary component of all knowledge and therefore exists to some degree with all knowledge, e.g., collective mind (Roberts, 1993).
Social construction: Knowledge as an emergent phenomenon.
!141
!142
Summary of Theories of Organizational Knowledge and Knowledge Creation (continued) Author Theory about the nature of knowledge Theory about how knowledge is created
Spender (1996)
Knowledge taxonomy: Four kinds of knowledge: (1) conscious knowledge (explicit, possessed by individuals), (2) objectified knowledge (explicit, possessed by the firm), (3) automatic knowledge (preconscious, possessed by the individual), and (4) collective knowledge (knowledge that is very much dependent on context). Knowledge can be articulated explicitly or manifested implicitly.
Social construction: Knowledge creation through social process. Learning occurs at the level of either the individual or the organization and may result from acquisition, sharing, and/or socialization via activities of the collective.
Schwandt (1997)
Knowledge continuum: Variance in knowledge depends on the level of action and the degree to which it is connected to the desired outcomes of the learning system (adapt via learning) and the performance system (adapt via performance).
Social construction: Knowledge creation occurs through dynamic interaction with the social action system (involving social and cultural exchanges) and is dependent upon the types of information obtained, structures that enable/inhibit the sharing of the information, and ways the culture makes sense of and assigns meaning to new information.
Seely-Brown & Duguid (1991); Seely-Brown (1998)
Collective-level knowledge: Focused on "how" knowledge is produced and shared at the collective level. Social nature of knowledge: internally generated, produced, and shared by the collective.
Social construction: Knowledge creation is a social phenomenon. Emphasis on "know-how" and "know-what" of knowledge. Knowledge can be internally generated when individuals work in closely connected groups termed "communities of practice."
Garud (1997) Nicholls-Nixon (1997)
Synthesis and critique of knowledge research: (a) "know-how"—understanding of the generative process; (b) "know-why"—understanding of the underlying concepts, assumptions, principles; (c) "know-what"—understanding of the kinds of phenomena worth pursuing; (d) "know-where"--understanding of the action and of who is doing what; (e) "know-when"—understanding of timing, e.g., industry foresight, and (0 "know-who"—understanding who the different actors are in the exchange. Associated with each type of knowledge is a learning process and further delineation in how each is created, stored, and used within the system. Linked to literature in cognitive sciences.
Hargadon & Fanelli (2002)
Knowledge in an organization seen as the result of continuous and recursive interconnected action; as both action and potential; and as both the genesis of change and a constraining force acting on it.
!143
(continued) Table 1. Summary of Theories of Organizational Knowledge and Knowledge Creation (continued)
Akgun, Lynn, & Byrne (2003)
Reciprocal interactions involving acquisition, dissemination, and implementation of information and knowledge; sense making; memory; cognition; unlearning; intellectual capacity; improvisational activity; and emotional factors; all of which are tied together by the culture of the organization.
Author Theory about the nature of knowledge Theory about how knowledge is created
Li & Kettinger, (2006)
The evolutionary aspect of knowledge/ rests on a problem-solving paradigm/
New knowledge is developed via the integration of knowledge elements of subproblems
Canary (2010)
Structurating activity theory: a synthesis of structuration theory with cultural-historical activity theory (CHAT). New knowledge is developed via the integration of knowledge elements of subproblems.
Building knowledge is a process that can be seen as communicative.
!144
APPENDIX B
Organization Action Survey
!145
!
!146
!
!147
!
!148
!
!149
!
!150
!
!151
!
!152
!
!153
APPENDIX C
Focus Group Script
!154
I am a doctoral candidate at The Argosy University in the Organizational Leadership Program. For the past 5 years, I have worked for with our company as a manager while researching knowledge management.
Purpose of Study As part of my doctoral studies, I am required to complete a research-
based study within an organization. Organization W has been kind enough to agree to support my research as part of their ongoing research efforts to better understand the organization and its various change and development initiatives.
My study will gather information from organizational members through focus groups, interviews, and document review relative to perceptions about organizational actions and stated strategic direction and decisions as Organization W adapts to its changing market. Specifically, the study focuses on Organization W transformation process for Division F as it moves from its traditional stand-alone process to the ERP process. The purpose of the study is two-fold: (1) to understand how {your company} as viewed by participants of the study, creates organizational knowledge about the change process; and (2) how this knowledge is shared throughout the organization
In order to build this understanding, I will be conducting this interview today. It will last approximately 30 minutes. Before we start, I want to make sure that you know that all of the aspects of this research project are completely confidential and that anonymity of participants will be maintained. The following elements have been carefully designed in this process: (a) all interview data has been designed to limit personal information and will be coded to remove identifying information; (b) data that could reveal a subject's identity will be stored in files accessible only to the researcher; (c) anonymity of the subjects will be preserved; (d) data will be reported in aggregate form and in cases where data cannot be aggregated, any information that could indirectly identify the subjects will be removed. In addition, if there are any publications beyond the dissertation publication, the organization will be notified and given the right to review any publication prior to release to ensure that the organization remains anonymous if the organization so chooses.
Lastly, I would like your permission to tape-record this session to ensure that I accurately capture your insights and to allow me to focus on what you're saying. I will give you back the tape and a copy of the transcript for your review.
Are there any questions regarding my study? Let me set up the scenario for you. You've just been given an assignment to do an expose show like the TV program
"48 Hours." Your assignment is to create a documentary about (your companyts efforts to move from a decentralized business model with semi-autonoumous sub-groups to a Centralized Business model using ERP; e.g., what was happening (at that phase of the
!155
project) relative to the strategic transformation. The focus of this documentary is on how a "self sustained sub-sidiary" "rapidly tranforms to a part of a larger operation."
Step 1: Individual notes and thoughts (5 minutes). Researcher: I've provided some paper if you need to write down some ideas. Please keep in mind that this is based on your experience of what is currently happening (not what should be happening). As you're constructing this story line, remember to delineate some of the different dimensions of the story: what, why, when, where, who, and how.
Step 2: Beginning the story line (15 minutes) After the respondent takes the time allotted to think through and/or write some notes on the story, the researcher turns on the tape recorder and asks the participant to begin telling the story. If necessary, probes will be used e.g., can you tell me more; can you make that more concrete for me please; can you say that another way.
Step 3: Dimensionalizing the story (15 minutes) Researcher: Considering the story that you've just told.... ■▪ Can you describe how the firm translated its strategic direction or decisions
into specific actions within the organization? ■▪ Can you identify how the firm created knowledge internally about this
process? ■▪ Can you describe how this is shared and/or understood throughout the firm?
!156
APPENDIX D
Interview Questions
!157
Researcher: Considering the story that you've just told....
■▪ Can you describe how the firm is currently translating its strategic direction
or decisions into specific actions within the organization?
■▪ Can you identify how the firm is creating knowledge internally about
this process?
■▪ Can you describe how this is shared and/or understood throughout the firm?
!158
APPENDIX E
Permission to Conduct Research
!159
From: Oldham, Carole Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 3:25 AMTo: Chitturi, Ravi [Wolseley] - 0018 Wolseley Cc: Beasley, Andrew G [Wolseley] - 0018 Wolseley; Jones, Oliver E [Ferguson] - 0018 HQSubject: RE: Doctoral Study Introduction
Ravi – thanks for the note and yes I can confirm that Oliver has Rod’s authorisation to carry out this research as part of his Doctoral Study, I am acting as Oliver’s primary point of contact within the I & P team for exactly this type of authorisation
I can also confirm that we too have a clear expectation (as does Oliver) that this is a case of “both parties gain” i.e. Oliver does the work and gets access to material and conclusions that he can pursue for his thesis, Wolseley and the programme get the benefit of his findings
Oliver – we’ve talked this through but I’m assuming you are comfortable with the concept of your delivering a formal report of findings to us (the programme) for our use at the end of your research period ?
Thanks Carole
Carole Oldham Director of Business Change Deployment
www.wolseley.com
!
Oliver – I can confirm approval for you to progress with the next phase of your research as outlined in your email below
Regards
Carole Oldham Director of Governance & Management Services
From: Jones, Oliver E - 0018 HQ Sent: 21 September 2010 17:55 To: Oldham, Carole Subject: Formal Aproval Request to Perform Study
Oliver E Jones
!160
6231 Burbage Acres Dr Suffolk, VA 23435 585.704.1931
Carole Oldham
Director of Governance and Management Services
Wolseley plc
September 21, 2010
Dear Madam,
I am currently pursuing a Doctoral Study in Organizational Leadership at Argosy University in Washington DC. My dissertation focuses on how organizations manage knowledge held by individuals during transformation period. Given that fact Wolseley/Ferguson is formally undertaking a change management strategy, this must be an issue of concern to the organization. Since some Frishkorn locations completed the ERP migration, the study will be focused on this area of the company.
These Ferguson locations was selected for the study because of the uniqueness of the organization and its success in a time when many competitors continue to perform poorly. This success in a sense can be attributed to the ability of the organization to recycle its critical knowledge as such achieving operational continuity. Protecting these knowledge assets of the organization is even more critical to improve on organizational performance and the bottom-line.
I plan on administering a survey to about 60 employees (including HQ employees affiliated with the implementation) and on conducting interviews with about 3 management level employees. To protect the confidentiality of the respondents, the survey will be administered by a third party. However, I will conduct the interviews personally in order to obtain the specific information that could support the intended study. In addition, I welcome the opportunity to review any available archival records or documents, in order to validate the information obtained through surveys.
In the event that you grant positive consideration to my request, I tentatively plan on beginning the data-gathering process by Monday, October 16, 2010, and anticipate completing the process within a two-week timeframe. During the entire process, I intend to be minimally disruptive to the participants’ work day.
Once the data is collected, consolidated, and analyzed, I shall provide a copy to your office to ensure the integrity of the information. This information will then be
!161
incorporated into a doctoral research paper. It is my wish that upon the release of the final report, that might gain insight on the implementation of quality management in a succession planning program.
Since this study will involve employees affiliated with the business change under your supervision, I hereby request your approval to engage in the study. Your emailed response will be represent a “Letter of Cooperation”. Your response will remain confidential and be discarded at the end of the process. I welcome the opportunity to discuss the planned data collection with you, and am available to answer any questions you might have relating to this matter. I can be reached either by email at [email protected] or via phone at +1.585.704.1931.
Thanks in advance for your cooperation.
Sincerely Oliver E Jones, Doctoral Candidate
!162
APPENDIX F
IRB Approval to Conduct Research
!163
!
!164
APPENDIX G
Permission to Use Survey Instruments
!165
Date: January 11, 2011 To: Oliver JonesFrom: Dr. Margaret Gorman, Assistant
Professor of Human & Organizational Learning; [email protected],
202-425-7111
Re: Permission to use Schwandt's OLSM
This letter is to confirm that Oliver Jones has received permission to use Dr. Schwandt's
Organizational Learning Survey (OLSM) per the following agreement:
• You will use the survey only for your dissertation research; it will not be be resold or
used with any compensated management activity or curriculum development projects
• You will include a copyright statement on all copies of the survey • You will send 2 copies of your completed dissertation to GWU (one for our ELP and one
for our library); along with any subsequent reports or article
• You will send 1 copy of a clean-data set to GWU-ELP attention Drs. Schwandt & Gorman
• We will be notified prior to any submissions for publication or referred journals, and will
make sure to include appropriate footnotes or acknowledgements to use of the
instrument
• Drs.Schwandt or Gorman to be considered as examiners or reviewers for final
dissertation defense, or atleast review of document before final dissertation defense
approval to ensure accuracy of information and representation.
Best Wishes for a successful dissertation process.
Please sign and fax back to: 703-726-3730, att: Dr. Gorman
George Washington University's Executive Leadership Doctoral Program, 44983 Knoll Square
Drive, suite 147, Ashburn, VA 20147. 703-726-8396,
I!
!166
APPENDIX H
Formal Letter to Potential Research
!167
[Subject: ****** Formal Letter to Potential Research Participant***** Oliver JonesImportance: HighSensitivity: Confidential
Dear Potential Research Participant:
This letter is to solicit your participation in a research study. I am a fellow associate at Ferguson Enterprise. I also am a Doctoral degree candidate at Argosy University/ Washington DC in the Organization Leadership program specializing in Knowledge Management. This study is part of the research requirement for the completion of the degree program
I plan to conduct a case study on the following topic:
Knowledge Creation in Organizational Transformation: Case Study Analyzing Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Implementation
I have identified your organization as being involved in a Business Change (Shift from E21 to SAP), and would like to understand the role knowledge management (how insights and experiences were adopted) played in the process.
This study will examine your processes (information / training / communication etc) during implementation. Your identity and the information you provide about your specific case and organization will be kept confidential.
If you think you will be a potential participant for this study, and are willing to participate in a survey or an interview within the next few weeks, please contact me as soon as possible. My contact information is noted below. Participants will also qualify for a drawing to win a $50 gift certificate to Olive Gardens or Red Lobster. Your consideration to participate in this study is greatly appreciated (just simply respond to the email). I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Should you have any question about the authenticity to the request, please feel free to contact Carole Oldham (E: : [email protected])
Sincerely,
Oliver Jones, Doctoral Candidate Argosy University/ Washington DC Email: Oliver. Jones@xxxxxxxx,comDaytime Phone: +1 (757) 696-4362 Evening Phone: +1 (585) 704-1931
Mailing Address: Oliver Jones 6231 Burbage Acres Drive Suffolk, VA 23434
[Type a
!168
APPENDIX I
Site Research Plan
!169
!
!170
APPENDIX J
Survey Results
!171
Strongly
agree AgreeUndecide
d DisagreeStrongly disagree
Total Responden
ts
1 Membersofyourorganiza2onshareexternalinforma2on(informa2onfromoutsideyourorganiza2on)
9.7% (6) 64.5% (40)
17.7% (11)
8.1% (5) 0% (0) 62
2 Yourorganiza2onpredictsthechangesoccurringintheindustry?
14.5% (9) 66.1% (41)
16.1% (10)
3.2% (2) 0% (0) 62
3 Yourorganiza2oncon2nuouslytrackhowyourcompe2torsimprovetheirproducts,servicesandopera2ons?
11.3% (7) 58.1% (36)
19.4% (12)
11.3% (11)
0% (0) 62
4 Yourorganiza2ondeliberatelyreflectuponandevaluateexternalinforma2on?
19.4% (12)
61.3% (38)
14.5% (9)
4.8% (3) 0% (0) 62
5 Yourorganiza2onprovidesopportuni2esforemployeestodeveloptheirknowledge,skills,andcapabili2es?
25.8% (18)
59.7% (37)
9.7% (6) 4.8% (3) 0% (0) 62
6 Yourorganiza2on'sleaderssupportquickandaccuratecommunica2onamongallemployees?
33.9% (21)
51.6% (32)
4.8% (3) 9.7% (6) 0% (0) 62
7 Yourorganiza2onhassetgoalsforresearchinganddevelopingnewproductsand/orservices?
12.9% (8) 48.4%(30)
27.4% (17)
9.7% (6) 0% (0) 62
8 Membersoftheorganiza2oneffec2velyusetheorganiza2onalstructures(e.g.,chainofcommand,personalnetworks)whensharingideasandinnova2ons?
17.7% (11)
53.2% (33)
24.2% (15)
4.8% (3) 0% (0) 62
9 Yourorganiza2onusesideasandsugges2onsfromitsemployees?
14.5% (9) 66.1% (41)
17.7% (11)
1.6% (1) 0% (0) 62
10 Thisorganiza2onbelievesthatcon2nuouschangeisnecessary.
38.7% (24)
48.4% (30)
6.5% (4) 4.8% (3) 1.6% (1) 62
11 Thereareestablishedwaystosharenewopera2onalprocessesandproceduresthroughouttheorganiza2on.
16.1% (10)
56.5% (35)
14.5% (9)
12.9% (8)
0% (0) 62
!172
12 Peopleinthisorganiza2onbelievethatevalua2ngwhatcustomerssayiscri2caltoreachingorganiza2onalgoals.
48.4% (30)
48.4% (30)
1.6% (1) 1.6% (1) 0% (0) 62
Strongly
agree AgreeUndecide
d DisagreeStrongly disagree
Total Responden
ts
13 This organization has established work groups, networks, and other collaborative arrangements to help the organization adapt and change.
12.9% (8) 56.5% (35)
19.4% (12)
11.3% (7)
0% (0) 62
14 This organization has a strong culture of shared values that support individual and organizational development.
25.8% (16)
53.2% (33)
14.5% (9)
4.8% (3) 1.6% (1) 62
15 This organization has clear goals for individual and organizational development.
9.7% (6) 58.1% (36)
19.4% (12)
9.7% (6) 3.2% (2) 62
16 To what extent does your organizational structure encourage and facilitate the sharing of knowledge between individuals (e.g. easy access to appropriate internal resources, time for consideration and discussion of information)?
14.5% (9) 37.1% (23)
43.5% (27)
4.8% (3) 0% (0) 62
17 To what extent do you feel free to offer up information in response to internal requests surrounding specific issues (e.g. focus on team solutions to issues)?
26.2% (16)
42.6% (26)
26.2% (26)
3.3% (2) 1.6% (1) 61
18 To what extent are you willing to offer up information in response to internal requests surrounding specific issues (e.g. focus on team solutions to issues)?
30.6% (19)
50.0% (31)
14.5% (9)
3.2% (2) 1.6% (1) 62
!173
19 Managers in your organization support sharing of knowledge and information across teams and units?
22.6% (14)
66.1% (41)
4.8% (3) 6.5% (4) 0% (0) 62
20 The core values of your organization support and encourage the sharing of information and knowledge within the organization?
22.6% (14)
70.0%(44)
3.2% (2) 3.2% (2) 0% (0) 62
21 Whichofthefollowingcategoriesbestdescribesthedepartmentwhereyoucurrentlywork
16.1% (10)
22.6%(14)
3.2% (2) 30.6%(19)
27.4% (17) 62