thesis_Daniela Noethen_print final - Jacobs University

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Knowledge, Knowledge Management, and Knowledge Transfer 1.1.2. Knowledge in organizations Unfortunately, just like the more philosophical concept of knowledge, knowledge in the context of organizations lacks a general, agreed-upon definition. Nevertheless, there exists a striking similarity that the various definitions share and that we can build on: The fact that knowledge is usually demarcated from information. This constant demarcation is owed to the circumstance that one of the disciplines that have been very active in knowledge management research is information technology (IT). IT approaches usually distinguish three entities: data, information, and knowledge, and these they order hierarchically (Alavi & Leidner, 2001; Davenport & Prusak, 1998). Data is typically described as raw, discrete, and objective numbers and facts (Alavi & Leidner, 2001; Davenport & Prusak, 1998). As such, data provides neither judgment nor interpretation, it rather builds the raw material for the creation of information (Davenport & Prusak, 1998). Information is processed data, i.e., data to which meaning or purpose has been added by contextualization, categorization, calculation, correction, or condensation (Alavi & Leidner, 2001; Davenport & Prusak, 1998). Knowledge is information that is connected, compared, and authenticated with reference to a whole network of other pieces of information (Alavi & Leidner, 2001; Davenport & Prusak, 1998). 1 The distinction between information and knowledge is a tricky one and less obvious than the distinction between information and data. Many organizations already have IT systems for information management in place, such that the necessity arises to explain why knowledge is so much different and has to be managed on its own. The clue to the distinction is that knowledge is tied to the individual. Alavi and Leidner (2001) for example describe knowledge as “information possessed in the mind of individuals: it is personalized information” (p. 109); while Nonaka and 1 This distinction between data, information, and knowledge was also used to answer questions about what was considered knowledge in study one as well as in the introductory information sessions for participants in study two. 18
Knowledge, Knowledge Management, and Knowledge Transfer Takeuchi (1995) call it a “dynamic human process of justifying personal belief toward the ‘truth’ ” (p. 58). Knowledge is created and resides within the mind, and heavily relies on the individual’s beliefs, values, judgment and experience (Alavi & Leidner, 2001; Davenport & Prusak, 1998; Nonaka, 1994; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). According to Davenport and Prusak (1998), the knowledge existing within a person provides a framework for evaluating and incorporation new information. Thus, knowledge in organizations is not seen as an objective truth as in the traditional philosophic discussions, but is rather subjective (which is why it is so hard to transfer, as we will see later). Furthermore, knowledge is rather dynamic, as it changes depending on new information and experiences (Machlup, 1983; Nonaka, 1994). 2 But knowledge can not only exist at the level of the individual, it can also become embedded in groups (e.g., social knowledge) or in organizations. At the organizational level, knowledge can be created by a process that “amplifies the knowledge created by individuals and crystallizes it as a part of the knowledge network of the organization.” (Nonaka, 1994, p.17). It is then embedded in documents and repositories, but also in organizational routines, processes, practices, and norms (Davenport & Prusak, 1998). For its role in organizations, it is important to note that knowledge is closely related to action and increases the capacity for effective action, respectively (Alavi & Leidner, 2001; Davenport & Prusak, 1998; Nonaka, 1994; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). “Better knowledge can lead, for example, to measurable efficiencies in product development and production.” (Davenport & Prusak, 1998, p. 6). Summing all this up in one or two sentences is all but easy, but for the purpose of the present dissertation, my working definition of knowledge reads as follows: 2 Despite all efforts to distinguish between information and knowledge, there is a certain overlap, and in practice, the line between these two constructs is sometimes impossible to draw. Therefore, when addressing question of participants, I opted rather for a broader, comprehensive definition of knowledge. 19
Page 1 and 2: Knowledge Transfer in Teams and Its
Page 3 and 4: Table of Contents Contents Acknowle
Page 5 and 6: Acknowledgements Acknowledgements T
Page 7 and 8: Acknowledgements Last but not least
Page 9 and 10: General Introduction and of older w
Page 11 and 12: General Introduction in the smooth
Page 13 and 14: Outline Outline The core of the pre
Page 15 and 16: Outline on knowledge sharing, as we
Page 17: Knowledge, Knowledge Management, an
Page 21 and 22: Knowledge, Knowledge Management, an
Page 39 and 40: Multilevel Investigation of Anteced
Page 69 and 70:
Multilevel Investigation of Anteced
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Intergenerational Knowledge Transfe
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Preventing Knowledge Loss When Empl
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
the demographic change. Accordingly
Page 177 and 178:
analysis was dyadic knowledge trans
Page 179 and 180:
questions. The limitations that wil
Page 181 and 182:
would be very different than for a
Page 183 and 184:
“there are situations where knowl
Page 185 and 186:
employing the distinctions recommen
Page 187 and 188:
valuable addition to the existing l
Page 189 and 190:
covers a very specific area of know
Page 191 and 192:
the importance of including lower l
Page 193 and 194:
Foss, N. J., Husted, K., & Michailo
Page 195:
Watson, S., & Hewett, K. (2006). A
show all

thesis_Daniela Noethen_print final - Jacobs University

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?