C H A PT E R 3
Theorizing Knowledge in
Organizations
This chapter provides an
overview of the development of research findings and theories related to knowledge
management. In order to better understand the notion of “managing” knowledge,
there is a need to better understand what it is about knowledge flow in
organizations that lends itself to any form of management. The literature has
discussed organizational knowledge both as a resource [Grant, R., 1996] and a process of learning
[Argyris and Schon, 1978, Senge, P., 1990], often emphasizing one aspect over the other. In the resource
view, knowledge is conceptualized as an object that exists largely in formal
documents or online artifacts amenable to organizing and manipulation.The
process view, on
the other hand, largely emphasizes the emergent nature of
knowledge that is often embedded within a person or within organizational
routines, activities, and outcomes, or arises from the interplay of persons and
existing information or knowledge.While both perspectives may vary
significantly in terms of the scope for the “management” of knowledge, it is
still worth exploring the issues and debate surrounding the practice of
creating, gathering, and sharing knowledge within organizations.
KNOWLEDGE AS RESOURCE AND PROCESS
Through the resource
perspective, organizations view knowledge as a fundamental resource in addition
to the traditional resources of land, labor, and capital. It is held that the
knowledge that the firm possesses is a source of sustainable competitive
advantage, and is, accordingly, regarded as a strategic resource of the firm in
need of management attention. On the other hand, through the process view,
organizations are thought of as information processing and knowledge generating
systems [Grant, R., 1996]. In the course of innovation and production of goods and
services, information and knowledge are regarded as central inputs to
organizational processes.
3. THEORIZINGKNOWLEDGE INORGANIZATIONS
tise), and,
explicit-collective (rules). Grounding the use of the quadrants in observations
of exemplar case-study organizations, Baumard suggests that the creation of
organizational knowledge can be tracked by locating actors’ responses (knowing)
within the appropriate quadrants of the matrix.
3.2 INTERACTIONS FORKNOWLEDGE CREATION
While knowledge itself may
be perceived as a resource, its creation occurs through human interactions, whether
physical or virtual. For example, for knowledge to emerge from within a group, interactions
that occur among its members shape the knowledge that emerges from the mutual engagement
and participation of the group members. Those with a communication and
interaction
perspective have argued that through discourse and dialectics,
individuals shape and re-shape the thought processes of others, eventually
leading to a situation of negotiated ormutually co-constructed reasoning for
action and knowledge [von Krogh et al.,1998].Sense-making [Weick, K.,1995] is then seen as an activity that reaffirms whether the
decisions and actions taken are rational in hindsight, constituting the “knowledge”
that is created.
3.3 ACTIVITY AS CONTEXT
Instead of examining
knowledge per se, Blackler, F. [1995] and others propose that attention should focus on systems
through which knowing and doing are achieved. By suggesting an alternative stance
of knowing as mediated, situated, provisional, pragmatic, and contested, as
opposed to a more classic viewof knowledge as embodied, embrained, encultured,
and encoded, Blackler recognizes that knowledge permeates activity systems
within the organization. Building on Engeström,
Y. [1999] general model of socially distributed activity systems, Blackler, F. [1995] proposes that knowledge can
be observed as emerging out of the tensions that arise within an organization’s
activity systems, that is, among individuals and their communities, their
environment (rules and regulations), and the instruments and resources that
mediate their activities. Through immersion in joint activity,
3.3. ACTIVITY AS CONTEXT 21
individuals in
organizations gain tacit knowledge, the sharing of which occurs as a result of
the mutual participation [Tsoukas, H., 1996].