Analyzing the Evolution of Organizational Knowledge Creation Theory and Research
Organizational knowledge creation involves making available and intensifying knowledge created by individuals and also shaping up and linking it with an organization’s knowledge system.
The description of knowledge and knowledge conversion triggered research on conducive organization for and the context for knowledge creation. Research particularly found that knowledge, vision, activism, organizational forms and leadership affect organizational knowledge creation.
With further evolution of organizational knowledge creation theory, the nature of the firm was made clearer and ‘knowledge strategy’ concept was furthered (Nonaka, Von Krogh & Voelpel, 2006).
The concept of ba exposed the challenges for the theory of organizational knowledge creation, yielding the concept of ‘knowledge activism’ (Von Krogh, Nonaka & Ichijo, 1997). The organizational knowledge creation lays emphasis on ‘knowledge visions’ development in firms (Nonaka et al., 2006).
Many organizations followed a combination of the hierarchy form that gave them the high ability needed to solve coordination problems associated with knowledge creation, hence the concept of a ‘hypertext organization’ which refers to a layered structure of activities.
The organizational form that best coordinates and enables knowledge creation is a combination of the business system, the project system and the knowledge system layers running in parallel. Scholarly research compellingly defined several theories of leadership by early 1990s (Nonaka et al., 2006).
Leadership is about enabling knowledge creation. The purpose of a theory of the firm must be to understand the nature of the firm.
This calls for a synthetic understanding of the firm, combining subjective perspectives of the firm with objective facts, encapsulating the premise of economic rationality with the principles of social behaviour (Nonaka et al., 2006).
Because of its vantage point in economic theory, such an analysis of the knowledge-based theory of the firm symbolizes the intention behind the project of a theory of organizational knowledge creation.
Future Advances in Organizational Knowledge Creation Theory
Ba is empirically under-explored. There should be more research on factors that potentially affect the effectiveness of ba across all organizations.
There should also be more explorations on the effect of plural epistemologies to understand the nature of knowledge, its origin, and the ba.
Theoretical and experimental work is needed to further understand possibilities of and limitations on the distribution of tacit knowledge, or the process of conversion from tacit to explicit knowledge (Gourlay, 2002).
There is critical need for more theoretical explanation on how leadership and ba are related in organizational knowledge creation theory.
The temporal dimension of organizational knowledge creation theory makes it dynamic. Success and failure of organizations need to be studied along the temporal dimension where disparities can emerge (Probst & Sebastian, 2005).
The study of the balance in organizational knowledge creation is not only a topic for cross-sectional research, but should also be studied as processes. Organizations could create, lose and restore their balance on the temporal dimension, and it is vital for future research to comprehend how these processes work.
This view is justified by the fact that comparing flourishing and unsuccessful firms will enable better forecasts on the adaptation of firms in times of internal and external changes.
A comprehension of relative success calls for a demonstrative view of entrepreneurial knowledge creation context, ba leadership, and eventually, the origin of organizational knowledge. Therefore, epistemology will always be of importance.
References
Gourlay, S., 2002. Tacit knowledge, tacit knowing, or behaving. Athens: OKLC Conference.
Nonaka, I. Von Krogh, G. & Voelpel, S., 2006. Organizational knowledge creation theory: evolutionary paths and future advances. Organization Studies, 27 (8), pp. 2-23.
Probst, G. & Sebastian, R., 2005. Organizational crisis: the logic of failure. Academy of Management Executive, 19(1), pp. 90–105.
Von Krogh, G. Nonaka, I. & Ichijo, K., 1997. Develop knowledge activists! European Management Journal, 15(5), pp. 475–483.