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

3. Theories <strong>of</strong> knowledge creation
Pamela Chidiogo Izunwanne
The promotion <strong>of</strong> knowledge creation as a source <strong>of</strong> competitive advantage(Choi and Lee, 2002) has
led to <strong>the</strong> generation <strong>of</strong> several knowledge creation <strong>the</strong>ories. A look at <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>ories most frequently
proposed by researchers reveals that most authors adopt an organic approach to studying knowledge
creation: adhoc freelance knowledge creation (Bartunek et al., 2001, Ba<strong>the</strong>lt et al., 2004, Choo,
1996). The idea promoted here is that flexibility encourages creativity which in turn, facilitates
knowledge creation (Lee and Cole, 2003). The emerging knowledge governance approach (KGA)
argues <strong>the</strong> opposite. According to this approach, formalization is beneficial in facilitating <strong>the</strong>
knowledge creation process and <strong>the</strong> knowledge creation process can be coordinated and better
organized using <strong>the</strong> formal aspects <strong>of</strong> organizational structure(Miner, 1990, Foss, 2007, Foss et al.,
2010). Some Authors present arguments based on a combination <strong>of</strong> both approaches in <strong>the</strong>ir study
i.e. flexibility and structure(Chua, 2001, Miner, 1990). While <strong>the</strong>se <strong>the</strong>ories are important in studying
knowledge creation in MNCs (Nonaka et al., 2000, Spender, 1996), past and recent studies have
shown that <strong>the</strong>re is much more to knowledge creation.
The concept <strong>of</strong> lead users by Hippel and utilization <strong>of</strong> contingent work by Hill and Matusik illustrate
how consumers directly and indirectly participate in <strong>the</strong> knowledge creation process (Hippel, 1986,
Matusik and Hill, 1998). Fur<strong>the</strong>rmore, communities <strong>of</strong> practice, virtual networks, clusters as well as
personal social networks have been found to play huge roles in facilitating knowledge creation by
enhancing problem solving for firms. Nowadays, <strong>the</strong> impact <strong>of</strong> external influence in <strong>the</strong> form <strong>of</strong>
personal social networks, social media etc. can not be overlooked. In addition, top management,
middle manager and employee perspective have become equally important.
The total sum <strong>of</strong> individual knowledge in an organization is not equal to <strong>the</strong> organizational knowledge
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> firm (Grant, 1996a, Roth, 2003). Grant suggested that firms engage in knowledge application
ra<strong>the</strong>r than knowledge creation (Grant, 1996a, Huang and Newell, 2003, Grant, 1996b). Expatriation
indicates that what an individual knows is <strong>of</strong>ten different from what <strong>the</strong> organization knows (Minbaeva
and Michailova, 2004, Bonache et al., 2001). It is <strong>the</strong>refore important for organizations to be
structured in ways that enhance knowledge creation (Dixon, 2000, Swee, 2002).
First conceptualized by Stene in 1940, organizational routines is how an organization chooses to run
its affairs (Feldman and Pentland, 2003). As far as knowledge creation is concerned, routines involve:
techniques (macro or micro) and frequency <strong>of</strong> knowledge creation projects. An MNC that allows
flexibility and diversity <strong>of</strong> knowledge creation techniques will benefit more in terms novel ideas than
MNCs that limitmethods or frequency <strong>of</strong> knowledge creation projects (Turner and Makhija, 2006).
3.1 The knowledge creation activity chain and processes
The Knowledge
creating input
The creation process
Output <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>
knowledge
creation activity
Implementation,
commercialization
adaptation
Outcome <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>
knowledge
creation activity
Figure 2: Knowledge creating activity chain
In practice, <strong>the</strong>re are several processes involved in <strong>the</strong> knowledge creation activity chain and <strong>the</strong>se
processes run continuously and interactively (Nonaka and Toyama, 2003). The illustration above
shows <strong>the</strong> stages and phases involved in knowledge creation. Input, output and outcome are referred
to as stages while translating from one stage to <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r is termed a phase (input to output and
output to outcome) and involves processes.
3.1.1 Input to output
This phase involves actual knowledge creation processeslike: research and development (Roth,
2003); socialization (Nonaka et al., 2000, Nonaka, 1994a); open dialogue and discussions coupled
with <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong> facilitators skilled at extracting useful knowledge (Fong et al., 2007); care (Krogh,
1998); cooperation (Choo, 1996); mentorship, openness and use <strong>of</strong> teams (Mitchell et al., 2009); and
455