Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Knowledge ...

Max Erik Rohde and David Sundaram
information intensive knowledge support systems (section 3). Lastly, a possible implementation <strong>of</strong>
<strong>the</strong>se guidelines in an exploratory prototype is presented (section 4).
2. Literature review
2.1 Perspectives on sustained knowledge capability in organizations
While <strong>the</strong>re is general agreement that knowledge is an important source <strong>of</strong> sustained economical
advantage for organizations (Spender & Grant 1996), <strong>the</strong> nature <strong>of</strong> this knowledge or <strong>the</strong> related
organizational capability is subject to continued disagreement (Kraaijenbrink, Spender, & Groen 2010;
Spender & Scherer 2007). In order to explore in how far information intensive systems are suitable to
support organizations in establishing and maintaining sustained knowledge-based capabilities, a
number <strong>of</strong> popular yet <strong>of</strong>ten conflicting perspectives on several important properties <strong>of</strong> organizational
knowledge and knowledge capability are portrayed.
(1) Knowledge is sometimes understood as having objective characteristics, sometimes
knowledge is understood as inherently tacit (Objectiveness)
Since Polanyi’s work (1966) and various earlier philosophical discussions (Spender & Scherer 2007),
it is understood that <strong>the</strong>re are important aspects <strong>of</strong> knowledge, which cannot be brought into explicit
representations. Consequently, knowledge should not be treated as an ‘object’ but in consideration <strong>of</strong>
its tacit properties. However, despite aforementioned insights, knowledge is <strong>of</strong>ten given objective
characteristics. For instance, knowledge and associated organizational capabilities are described as
being ‘created’, ‘stored’, ‘transferred’ and ‘shared’ (Alavi & Leidner 2001) in various works <strong>of</strong>
organizational literature.
(2) Some perspectives imply that knowledge is a strategic and slowly changing
capability, o<strong>the</strong>rs emphasize that knowledge is inherently bound to its situational
application (Dynamicity)
Among <strong>the</strong> manifold epistemological positions in <strong>the</strong> context <strong>of</strong> organizational knowledge, Cook and
Brown (1999) have identified two popular and <strong>of</strong>ten exclusively different interpretations: some
organizational scientists believe knowledge to be possessed by organizations (‘epistemology <strong>of</strong>
possession’), while o<strong>the</strong>rs believe that knowledge is closely bound to its application in <strong>the</strong>
organization’s practices (‘epistemology <strong>of</strong> practice’). For knowledge as a ‘possessed’ resource <strong>of</strong>
organization, it is <strong>of</strong>ten argued that capabilities based on this resource are difficult to imitate by
competitors and difficult to attain (Teece, Pisano, & Shuen 1997). Knowledge bound to practices
shares <strong>the</strong> fluid nature <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se practices; it has, for instance, been argued that each execution <strong>of</strong> a
practice is unique caused by specific environmental conditions during execution (Pentland & Feldman
2005).
(3) Some authors see knowledge as closely bound to individuals or ‘knowers’, o<strong>the</strong>rs
stress <strong>the</strong> collective nature <strong>of</strong> strategic knowledge capabilities (Collectivity)
In <strong>the</strong>ir popular definition <strong>of</strong> organizational knowledge, Davenport and Prusak (1998) pose knowledge
as being inseparable from <strong>the</strong> mind <strong>of</strong> “knowers”; individuals who mindfully apply <strong>the</strong>ir experiences
and skills. Conversely, Kogut and Zander (1992) argue that <strong>the</strong> overall knowledge-related capability <strong>of</strong>
an organization does not depend on single individuals; according to <strong>the</strong>m, if one individual leaves <strong>the</strong>
organization, its overall capability is only marginally affected. Later research emphasizes that <strong>the</strong> key
in utilizing knowledge capabilities lies in <strong>the</strong> coordination <strong>of</strong> individuals (Grant 1996; Orlikowski 2002),
<strong>the</strong>rewith conceptualizing <strong>the</strong> capability as collective but rooted in <strong>the</strong> practices individuals engage in.
(4) While mostly it is agreed upon or implied that knowledge capability is beneficial for
organizations, some studies portray knowledge capabilities as possibly detrimental for
organizations (Value)
It is <strong>of</strong>ten implied that an increase in knowledge or <strong>the</strong> ‘creation’ <strong>of</strong> new knowledge is positively
related to strategic organizational capabilities (Nonaka 1994). However, knowledge related
capabilities have been said to be mostly <strong>of</strong> long-term benefit (Cohen & Levinthal 1990) and expensive
to ‘create’ (Hill & Hoskisson 1987). Moreover, dormant knowledge (not unlike o<strong>the</strong>r organizational
resources) is <strong>of</strong> little use unless applied (Makadok 2001; McDermott 1999). Fur<strong>the</strong>rmore, a knowledge
related capability can turn into a non-capability as a result <strong>of</strong> environmental changes (Orlikowski
2002). Consequently, knowledge not only creates costs for organizations, potentially outweighing <strong>the</strong>
benefits it provides (Prieto & Easterby-Smith 2006), but might also require a resource- and timeintensive
‘unlearning’ process (Autio, Sapienza, & Almeida 2000; Bettis & Prahalad 1995).
850