a typology of knowledge management - strategic groups and r.pdf

7/22/2019 A typology of knowledge management - strategic groups and r.pdf

1/13

A typology of knowledge management:

strategic groups and role behavior in

organizations

Eliezer Geisler

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to develop a typology of people and organizations who transact

in knowledge.

Design/methodology/approach Based on structural interviews with 37 managers in three large

manufacturing companies a model is proposed which describes the processing of knowledge inorganizations.

Findings Four stages are identified: generation, transfer, implementation, and absorption. Similarly,

three types of transactors in knowledge are also identified: generators, transformers, and users. The

findings from the interviews arethe different motives that animate the different transactors in knowledge,

and the distinct behavioral roles that these transactors assume in their organizations.

Originality/value This paper contributes to the literature by proposing a new way of classifying the

roles of people and organizations in their transaction in knowledge.

KeywordsKnowledge management, Strategic groups, Organizational structures

Paper typeResearch paper

Introduction

The nascent field of knowledge management (KM) has largely focused on three majorstreams: the nature of knowledge; the organizational and managerial aspects of its

implementation; and the ways and means of creating and utilizing knowledge management

systems (KMS). The stream of the nature of knowledge has received attention in view of the

distinction between explicit and implicit knowledge (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Day,

2005). A good portion of the research in knowledge management has concentrated on the

ways in which organizations can extract and use implicit knowledge.

The organizational and managerial implementation and applications of knowledge in

organizations have also received attention from researchers (Jashapara, 2005; Gupta et al.,

2005). A few models have been proposed depicting the flow of knowledge in organizational

settings. Holsapple and Jones (2004, 2005) have advanced a knowledge chain model which

portrays primary and secondary activities of knowledge. The primary activities include

knowledge acquisition, selection, generation, assimilation, and emission. Secondaryactivities include knowledge measurement, control, coordination, and leadership. In this

model, the combined effort in the two categories of activities benefits the organization by

increasing its competitiveness in the environment.

The third stream focused on the creation, implementation, and utilization of knowledge

management systems (Rubenstein and Geisler, 2003). Viewed primarily as an organizational

topic of adoption and adaptation, this stream of research also included the examination of

the value accrued from the adoption and utilization of KMS (Muthusamy and Palanisamy,

2004).

PAGE 84 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 11 NO. 1 2007, pp. 84-96, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1367-3270 DOI 10.1108/13673270710728259

Eliezer Geisler is Professor

and Associate Dean for

Research at the Stuart

Graduate School of

Business, Illinois Institute ofTechnology, Chicago,

Illinois, USA.


2/13

In much of this prevailing literature there is a tendency to consider the organizational

agents who transact in knowledge as fixtures of the organizations processes. The

distinction made between explicit and tacit knowledge, originally proposed by Polanyi

(1966) has had the effect of concentrating much of the research effort into methods and

cultural barriers to attain and extract tacit knowledge. Organizational actors are thus

largely perceived as standard human subjects whose cognition one wishes to target

regardless of their role in the knowledge process in the organization. The motivation to

partake in such a knowledge process has also been lightly studied, particularly as part

of the research into barriers and facilitators to the effectiveness and performance of KM

systems.

A more detailed model is thus needed to configure who are the actors transacting in

knowledge in the organization: what are the factors that motivate them, and how would such

typology impinge upon our understanding of the process of knowledge and the outcomes

and benefits that may be derived from it.

This paper proposes a model of knowledge transaction and processes in which a simplified

three-stages framework links the generation of knowledge with its users. The model is then

shown to consist of three types of actors in the processing of knowledge. The final section of

the paper discusses the variables that motivate the actors in the processing of knowledge to

produce, diffuse, and use knowledge in organizations.

MethodologyThe model proposed in this paper was derived from interviews conducted with 37 managers

in three large companies. Two companies are very large global firms in the medical

technology market, and the third is a global multi-product, multi-divisional company. The

study was conducted in the construction products division of this corporation. This study

was aimed at the organizational needs and barriers to the installation of knowledge

management systems. The managers from the President to functional vice-presidents and

heads of divisions had been actively involved with the establishment of knowledge

management systems in their respective organizations.

Managers were asked to define and explain the role they play in knowledge

management in the firm, the factors that drive them or inhibit their effort in this regard,

and the link of this effort to perceived or actual benefits from knowledge in their

organizations. This study was extended beyond the usual arguments in favor ofknowledge and its obvious benefits (Stewart, 1997). The focus of these inputs to the

generation of the model of knowledge processing was therefore the individual actors.

Similar models have focused on the approaches to knowledge management (Earl, 2001)

and activities that animate the knowledge management systems (Holsapple and Jones,

2004).

This study is based on qualitative research, where a model is derived from selected

interviews with corporate managers in the three companies in the research sample.

Qualitative research is an important and acceptable method when the emphasis of the

research is not on testing hypotheses but on the development of a conceptual framework

and the identification of critical factors and other key variables (Estabrooks et al., 2005;

Geisler, 2000; Michell, 2004). This approach has been used, for example, to study the

implementation of knowledge management (Nicolas, 2004), and in various topics ofhealthcare management (Sandelowski, 2004).

Since the seminal work by Campbell and Stanley (1963), it has long been recognized that

qualitative research generates findings that may be applicable beyond the selective group

thus studied to other and similar groups and situations. Although these findings cannot be

generalized to the extent possible with quantitative research (based on a random sample

and statistical analysis), the validity and reliability of qualitative studies is strong enough to

engender an emerging model, framework, or theory (Campbell and Stanley, 1963; Kirk and

Miller, 1985).

VOL. 11 NO. 1 2007 jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 85


3/13

A model of knowledge processes in organizations

The model that emerges from interviews with managers who were actively involved with

knowledge management in their organizations has four modes or stages of knowledge

processing: generation, transfer, implementation, and absorption. Table I shows these

modes.

The mode of generation of knowledge is the effort on the part of actors to assemble

knowledge from all available sources, including tacit knowledge embedded in their personal

and collective experience. Although developed uniquely from the empirical study described

above, this mode is similar to stages or activities in other models (Holsapple and Jones,2005; Kankanhali and Tan, 2004). In the generation of knowledge the actors translate the

assembled array of tacit and explicit knowledge into a form suitable for transfer to others.

This step includes verbalizing what they know, creating displays and visual formats, and

establishing or following standards for codified content, so that the receivers of this

knowledge downstream will be able to decode, understand, and use what they receive

(Heinrichs and Lim, 2005; Xiogiannis et al., 2004).

The mode of transfer of knowledge is a component of the process in which actors in the

organization transfer, share, and diffuse the knowledge they possess. Transfer is undertaken

by means of debriefings, audits, reports, statements, and the like. Recipients of such

transfer may be other organizational members, databases, knowledge systems, archives,

and a variety of external people and entities.

This component of knowledge processes has been the subject of some interest by scholars,particularly with regard to the barriers that impede the transfer and sharing of knowledge by

organizational members (Grant, 1996; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Polanyi, 1966;

Rubenstein and Geisler, 2003).

Transfer processes are only one component of an effective mechanism of sharing and

diffusion of knowledge. When actors receive knowledge transferred to them, they still need

to implement such knowledge in organizational procedures, policies, codes, activities,

methods, and practices. The degree to which implementation is feasible and successful will

determine the usefulness of the transfer effort. Current research has not yet established a

figure of how much knowledge transferred within the organization is actually implemented in

the processes, procedures, and workings of the organization.

In the study that generated the model described in this paper, interviewed managers

suggested that less than half of the knowledge they receive from all sources is actually

implemented in their work. They also tend to distinguish between types of knowledge they

receive, transfer, and implement. Interviewees identified five types of knowledge: technical;

administrative; experiential; inherent attitudes and beliefs; and strategic. The prevailing view

Table I Modes of knowledge processing in organizations

ProcessesActors Generation Transfer Implementation Absorption

Individual members of

the organization

Groups, units, project

teamsManagement/executives

External users

(community of

science/practice;

customers, vendors)

Parent agency, oversight

organization; regulators

Other (e.g. unauthorized

user, hackers)

Tacit knowledge

Explicit knowledge from

internal & external

sourcesSelection & integration

with existing pool of

knowledge

Translating knowledge to

form suitable for transfer

Debriefing

Audits

Periodic reports

MentoringEvaluations

Experts & consultants

Policy statements

embedded in other

systems

Lectures, lessons,

speeches

Routines

Rules, procedures,

& regulations

Policy & strategic

directionsCode of ethical behavior

Lessons for practice

Cultural tenets

Science & technology

methods, directions,

& practices

Managerial practices

& behavior

Organizational principles

Logic of organizational

life & practice

Structural architecture

Processes oforganizational

& managerial practice

(e.g. decision making,

communications)

Mission statement

Collaborative directives

Goals & purposes of

organization plans

PAGE 86 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT jVOL. 11 NO. 1 2007


4/13

is that technical and administrative knowledge is more easily transferred and implemented,

whereas experience, attitudes, and strategic thinking aremore difficult to articulate, hence to

transfer and implement (Rubenstein and Geisler, 2003).

Absorption is the final component of the processing of knowledge. It is more than a nuance

of implementation. Knowledge is absorbed in the realities of organizational workings so that

it becomes an integral part of the cultural foundations and the shared direction of the

organization. Managers who participated in our study had indicated that although some

knowledge implemented may also be absorbed, it is difficult to isolate the precise nature

and elements of knowledge that reach this point of absorption. Nevertheless, they agree that

this component of knowledge processing is vital to the organization.

Typology of actors in knowledge processing

Any effort designed to understand why people in organizations produce, disseminate, and

use knowledge must first address the issue of actual and perceived benefits and impacts

derived from knowledge. Organizational members are impacted by knowledge and may

benefit from it in several ways. In the study reported here, managers had identified five

categories of impacts/benefits. These are shown in Table II.

In addition to benefits accrued to them in the form of improvements in what they do and how

they perform, organizational members may also gain personal and psychological benefits

from processing knowledge. Table III shows examples of such benefits as contributions to

satisfying intellectual curiosity and thirst for knowledge, mastery of the environment, andpersonal growth.

But, as Table I shows, there are different processes of knowledge (from generation to

implementation and absorptions by users). There are also different benefits and impacts

from knowledge, as shown in Tables II and III. Organizational members are therefore

involved in all modes of processing knowledge, and are recipients of a variety of potential

benefits.

Table II Illustrative impacts and benefits (perceived and actual) which may accrue to users and beneficiaries of knowledge

in organizations

Category of impacts/benefits Illustrative impacts/benefits

I. Individual/human resources benefits Improved level of education & literacy (technical & general)

Improved individual competence

Improved level of motivation & satisfaction

Improved sense of empowerment

Improved communications, relationships, & use of KMS

II. Project/work group & organizational

benefits (processes & proceeds)

Improved efficiency of operations

Reduced level of resistance to change

Improved exchange of S&T knowledge

Harmonized & improved standards

Improved decision-making processes

Added unit & organizational credibility

III. Economic benefits Increased productivity & t ime & cost savings

Improved growth & market share

Reduced barriers to innovation & tradeImproved rates of ideas generated

Improved competitiveness

IV. Social benefits Improved capacity to meet changing national needs

Improvements in regulatory compliance and in safety, reliability, and quality of products and

services

Improvements in health, transport, energy, and other social goods

V. System benefits Higher rate of dissemination of knowledge

Overall value-added to all users/beneficiaries



5/13

There emerge three distinct types or roles of knowledge processing that organizational

members play. As actors transacting in knowledge, they will have a unique role at any given

time, as: generators, transformers, and users of knowledge.

Actors acting in the capacity of generators of knowledge are collecting, assembling, andstoring quanta of knowledge. Actors playing the role of transformers prepare the knowledge

they possess, share it, diffuse it, and transfer it to other people and organizations. A third

type of processor is the users. There are organizational members who implement, absorb,

adopt, adapt, and otherwise use and exploit the knowledge they receive through the

mechanisms of transfer and diffusion. Table IV shows the types of processors and the factors

that motivate them.

Multiplicity of roles

Organizational members who transact in knowledge play the different roles intermittently.

They may generate, transform, and use knowledge in a manner where the clear distinction

among the various roles is not as obvious or clearly delineated. This may lead to role

ambiguities and role conflicts (Kelloway and Barling, 1990).

Role ambiguities arise when actors play a certain role where the parameters, rules, and

norms of behavior within the role are not clearly established, well communicated to the actor,

or unequivocally understood by the actors. In the case of generators of knowledge when

their role is ambiguous, there are questions and uncertainties regarding the acquisition,

selection, assembling, codification, and storing items of knowledge. Issues seem abundant

on methods of collection and assembly, sources to be procured, budgets to be expended,

and relevancy of the effort to generate knowledge (Sawyer, 1992).

In the case of transformers of knowledge, a variety of issues emerge because of the

ambiguities of the role. Actors often wonder how this role is translated into their position and

Table III Illustrative benefits from knowledge accrued to organizational mentors

Benefits Description

Intellectual curiosity Seeking answers to constant barrage of questions and unknowns

Quenching thirst for knowledge Seeking to quench the thirst for knowledge ingrained in the human psyche

Mastery of physical environment Dealing with the physical elements and search for a measure of control (from building roads to

confronting natural disasters)

Mastery of organizational environment Dealing with organizational needs, demands, and pressures: competitiveness, behavioral

issues, conflicts, and internal and external forces

Mastery of economic and social

environment

Dealing with market forces; competition and cooperation; social groups and social pressures

Reduction of uncertainty Search for security (Maslows lower-level needs), stability and feasibility in view of the

uncertainties of the future

Personal growth, satisfaction,

higher-level goals

Pursuit of Maslows higher-level needs; search for feelings of personal achievement, growth,

happiness, satisfaction, and fulfillment

Table IV Typology of actors transacting in knowledge

Type Description

Generators People, units, and organizations who procure, collect, acquire, assemble,

prepare, and store knowledge from all sources

Transformers People, units, and organizations who transfer, share, transmit, and exchange

knowledge to and from sources internal and external to the organizations

Users People, units, and organizations who implement, utilize, adopt, adapt, absorb,

and exploit the outcomes, benefits, and impact of knowledge



6/13

activities in the organization (Holsapple and Jones, 2005). They also wonder how their role

as transformers will impact their position of power in the organization, and their function as

change agents by virtue of the transfer and sharing of knowledge that are inherent in their

role as transformers (Perry, 2005).

Users of knowledge may also be confronted with problems associated with the ambiguity of

their role in the organization. Illustrative issues that tend to emerge are the extent to which

knowledge can and should be utilized, and what are the benefits and value accrued from

knowledge when compared with the economics of its generation and transformation.

Another issue is the function of the Knowledge Management System (KMS) as an instrument

for use, implementation, and absorption of knowledge.

Role conflict

The various roles played by actors as they transact in knowledge in their organization may

also conjure situations in which such roles will be in conflict (Srilatha and Harigopal, 1985).

Actors may find themselves in role conflict when there is a joint appearance of more than one

role. Generators of knowledge may also be simultaneously engaged in the transformation or

use of other quanta of knowledge, or serially may transform or use the knowledge they had

generated.

Issues that emerge in each role may be amplified and exacerbated due to the conflicting

roles played by the actors. For example, actors may generate knowledge in order to improve

their individual skills, to master their surroundings, and to attain personal growth. They are

also, however, asked or required to transform such knowledge, to share and transfer it to

others so that there are benefits accrued to work groups and to the organization with which

these actors are associated (Rubenstein and Geisler, 2003).

Similarly, transformers who are also users may find themselves in situations of role conflict.

When actors expend their effort to transform knowledge they may discover that some of the

knowledge they had transferred cannot be fully used in their work-group or organization.

Issues of intellectual property, confidentiality, and the economics of the transformation effort

may combine to limit the degree to which actors can or should transform knowledgeif they

are also planning to effectively utilize and exploit such knowledge.

Another set of factors which may impinge upon this conflict includes organizational

dimensions. Interdependence among units may become a driving force in compelling

people and work groups to cooperate and to exchange, transfer, and share knowledge. Thisorganizational reality may impinge upon their abilities to use knowledge or to generate new

knowledge.

In one case narrated by respondents in the study reported here, a conflict arose between

managers in the roles of transformers and users. In this example, a manager in possession

of knowledge about quality issues in a research and development project was reluctant to

transfer and share such knowledge in what he considered to be prematurely. The manager

wanted to use this knowledge to impose certain modifications to the project, so as to obtain

substantial improvements. He felt that premature disclosure of such knowledge might lead

to drastic and unintended consequences, perhaps even termination of the project by senior

management. The manager wondered: How soon should he share and transfer the

knowledge or if he should at all? He could only guess the reaction of management once they

became users of this knowledge, which he will transfer and share. Could he be certain thatother entities, such as competitors, would not be on the receiving end of the effort to share

and transfer this knowledge before he had the opportunity to make the corrections? The

conflict was not only ethical, but firstly it was organizational. This conflict robbed me of

several nights of sleep and much of my peace of mind recounted the manager.

The ambiguities and conflicts in the roles as transactors in knowledge also have implications

upon the behavior of actors in their organizations. They may curtail their activities and

confine them to one role at a time. In the example above, the manager decided to forego his

role as transformer and to focus on his role as user of the said knowledge. Actors may also



7/13

be reluctant to assume a certain role if they perceive potential ambiguities or conflicts within

and between roles. The net effect may be impediments to the flow of knowledge in

organizations and, to an extent, also explain the barriers to the generation, transformation,

and use of knowledge.

What motivates generators, transformers, and users?

A key distinction among the three types of actors who transact in knowledge is the difference

in the factors that motivate or drive these actors. Figure 1 shows examples of these factors.

Figure 1 Generators, transformers, and users of knowledge and examples of factors that

drive/motive them



8/13

Generatorstend to be motivated by more immediate benefits. They hope for outcomes that

will satisfy such proximal factors as personal growth and their own competitive position.

Generators of knowledge are less inclined to look beyond these immediate outcomes and

are less willing to foresee longer-term impacts of the knowledge they procure and assemble.

Transformersare motivated by the factors that contribute to the organization. They are driven

by their function in the larger organization and the benefits that the transfer and exchange of

knowledge will provide the work-flow and work entities. This set of motivators is very different

from the individual and proximal factors that drive generators of knowledge. In both cases

there should be some form of verification of benefits or, at the very least, a strong belief on

the part of the actors that their transaction in knowledge will indeed produce the outcomes

and benefits they envision or are promised (Perry, 2005; Rubenstein and Geisler, 2003). The

lack of these reassuring factors (actual or perceived) may gravely hinder the expenditure of

effort by actors to transact in knowledge in their organizations.

Reassurance is based on personal experience of organizational members who transact in

knowledge, and organizational culture, policies, and procedures aimed at the

encouragement of knowledge generation, transformation, and use (Grant, 1996; Heinrichs

and Lim, 2005).

Users of knowledge seem to be driven by both individual and organizational factors. A

possible area of future research might examine the differences between these two

categories of motivators. In the study reported here, individual benefits are less coveted by

users than organizational and corporate gains. Actors in the organization implement, use,

adopt, and absorb knowledge more often because of actual or perceived benefits that

would accrue to their work-group or the larger organization. Individual gains are secondary

in importance. The reasons for this phenomenon are not immediately clear in the study.

Plausible explanations include the individual gains already received in their role as

generators of knowledge, and the derivative benefits the individual users would gain when

the organization profits from the knowledge they implement, adopt, and absorb (Xirogiannis

et al., 2004).

Strategic groups

The types of organizational actors who transact in knowledge can be considered strategic

groups, in a mode similar to the Miles and Snow (1978) typology of defenders, prospectors,

analyzers, and reactors. In this manner, generators, transformers, and users are distinct

categories of approaches to the strategic adaptation to environmental changes (Zahra and

Pearce, 1990). When organizational members transact in knowledge in one of the typesdescribed in this paper, they engender a strategic approach to address organizational

problems of performance and competitive behavior (Holsapple and Jones, 2004). The

generation, transformation, and use of knowledge can be considered means to strategic

behavior (Connantet al., 1990).

Over time the distinct transactions in knowledge become stable behaviors in the life of the

organization. Rules, norms, procedures, and perceived relationships to performance and

competitiveness become an integral part of the organizations culture and its strategic

approach to solving problems. Knowledge is a crucial component of strategic management,

The model that emerges from interviews with managers whowere actively involved with knowledge management in theirorganizations has four modes or stages of knowledgeprocessing: generation, transfer, implementation andabsorption.



9/13

hence the need for the organization to support unfettered flow among its members and

structural units and work groups.

Central to accomplishing the flow of knowledge is the organizations ability to motivate its

members to participate in knowledge transactions. The different types of transactions are

driven by different incentives. Thus, the organization must tailor its offering of incentives to

the specific type of knowledge transaction (Harrigan, 1985).

Multiple roles and motivators

The complexity of the multiple roles played by organizational members makes it much more

difficult to tailor incentives. Ambiguities and conflicts in the roles of generators, transformers,

and users create situations in which short- and long-term incentives may weaken each

others power of persuasion (Nicolas, 2004; Stewart, 1997).

Moreover, transformers and users may be conceptually driven by longer-term motivators, yet

exhibit behavior that tends to prefer proximal incentives, as if they were generators. This

seemingly confused state of affairs is the result of multiple roles played simultaneously.

When actors in the organization are driven by a given factor, they find it difficult to relate this

factor to the specific role they may be playing at the time the incentive is activated. In the

case of research methodology, respondents have an easier mode of expressing their affinity

for organizational incentives when these are primarily short term and providers of individual

benefits. Long-term and organizational impacts are harder to articulate and to identify with,

when different roles are in a dynamic mix.

Extending the typology to organizational behavior

A similar manifestation of the typology of knowledge transactions is the different behaviors of

organizations. In the same vein as individuals, organizations may play a strategic role of

generators, transformers, and users of knowledge. In the case of generators of knowledge,

organizations focus on collecting and hoarding knowledge, whether they decide to transfer

and share or to keep accumulating and storing. In this respect, research and development

(R&D) organizations may behave as generators of knowledge, collecting it from within (their

own research) and from outside sources. The literature in R&D management has examined

the insufficiencies in the R&D/Marketing interface (Moenaert and Souder, 1996). Within

technology organizations, R&D units are respositories of knowledge, but may also be

inefficient transferers of such knowledge (Rowley, 2003).

When assuming the role of transformers, organizations behave as gatekeepers (Klobas

and McGill, 1995). They transact in knowledge by focusing on its transfer to others. As

industry and the economic environment become increasingly more knowledge intensive,

gatekeeping is a strategic behavior with business implications and a growing economic

value (Lippert and Forman, 2005).

Harada (2003) has proposed a distinction between R&D organizations in which gatekeepers

gather and transfer information. He suggested that gatekeepers have an additional function

of transforming knowledge. Harada argued that this function often requires distinctive skills

that impede information gathering activities. There is therefore a role of transformer which is

different from that of the generator of knowledge.

Role ambiguities arise when actors play a certain role wherethe parameters, rules and norms of behavior within the roleare not clearly established, well communicated orunequivocally understood.



10/13

Organizations engaging in transformation behavior tend to compete in their environment by

leveraging knowledge as a product or service, and the effort of transfer and exchange of

knowledge as a business transaction. In those organizations where many processes havebeen outsourced, the transformation of knowledge gains added importance in the business

portfolio of the organization.

The role of users is a type of behavior of organizations in which the focus is on the structure

and efficiencies of knowledge utilization. This is the case of organizations whose strategic

competencies depend to a large extent on the implementation, absorption and use of

knowledge from external sources (Klobas and McGill, 1995). These organizations improve

their competitiveness by striving for efficiencies in the use of knowledge. They are more

concerned than generators or transformers in the successful implementation of knowledge

management systems (KMS). They are also engaged in assuring that there are effective

structural and process linkages between their KMS and other functions and units

(Sabherwal and Becerra-Fernandez, 2005).

Conclusions

This paper proposed a typology of people and organizations who transact in knowledge.

The paper identified three distinct types of behavior: generators, transformers, and users.

These types have unique factors that motivate and drive the organizational actors who

transact in knowledge. The typology contributes to the analysis of the management of

knowledge in organizations in the following ways. First, the typology helps to distinguish

between the roles that people and organizations play in managing knowledge, and the

complexities associated with these roles and their behavioral manifestations. Second, the

typology provides an analytical framework in which organizational strategies and policies

regarding knowledge management can be better studied and explained. Thus, policies on

incentives to the generation, transfer, and use of knowledge can be now examined through

the prism of types of transaction in knowledge and the roles played by organizational actors.

Finally, the typology offers a conceptual framework in which organizations may tailor their

policies and procedures regarding KMS and the links between knowledge transactions and

organizational performance.

The limitations of this study and its findings are threefold. First, contextual variables such as

size of the organization may contribute to difficulties in distinguishing among the various

transactors in knowledge. In smaller-sized organizations, members may interchangeably

engage in the generation, transfer, and use of knowledge. The distinct roles that make the

typology may thus be masked by the multitasks assumed by members of small and

emerging organizations.

A second limitation would be in view of the effect of the structure of the organization. For

example, in a structure by functions (referred to as departmentation by function or unitary

form of organization) the units or individual members will transact mostly in knowledgelimited to their functional area. Conversely, in a structure by product, customer, or region, the

members will transact in a much more varied spectrum of knowledge as generators,

transformers, and users.

Third, the model may be limited by the degree to which the roles of transactors in knowledge

impact the utility of knowledge transactions and the performance of members and the

organization in which such knowledge is transacted. Although the latter limitation is true for

any typology, in this case it is important to identify the nature of the utility of the typology of

knowledge transactions. One reason for this need is the link between the types of

Transformers who are also users may find themselves insituations of role conflict.



11/13

transactions and the management of knowledge systems. Another reason is the link

between the typology and strategies, policies, and procedures regarding knowledge

management and knowledge systems.

Further research would empirically examine the linkages between the types identified in this

paper and value created from knowledge transactions. Another research topic would be the

study of organizations as distinct types of knowledge transactors. For example, future

research may study universities in their roles as generators and transformers of knowledge,

and the benefits and value they provide to society. Similarly, business organizations may be

studied in their roles as generators, transformers, or users of knowledge and the relationship

between the effectiveness of the role with their competitive position and commercial

success.

References

Campbell, D.T. and Stanley, J.C. (1963),Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research,

Rand McNally, Chicago, IL.

Connant, J., Mokwa, M. and Varadarajan, D. (1990), Strategic types, distinctive marketing

competencies, and organizational performance: a multiple measures-based study, Strategic

Management Journal, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 365-83.

Day, R. (2005), Clearing up implicit knowledge: implications for knowledge management, information

science, psychology, and social epistemology, Journal of theAmericanSociety for Information Science

and Technology, Vol. 56 No. 6, pp. 630-6.

Earl, M. (2001), Knowledge management strategies: toward a taxonomy, Journal of Management

Information Systems, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 215-34.

Estabrooks, C., Rutakumwa, W., OLeary, K., Profetto-McGrath, J., Milner, M., Levers, M. and

Scott-Findlay, S. (2005), Sources of practical knowledge among nurses, Qualitative Health Research,

Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 460-72.

Geisler, E. (2000),The Metrics of Science and Technology, Greenwood Publishing Group, Westport, CT.

Grant, R.M. (1996), Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm, Strategic Management Journal,

Vol. 17 No. 10, pp. 109-22.

Gupta, S., Bhatanagar, V. and Wasan, S. (2005), Architecture for knowledge discovery and knowledge

management,Knowledge and Information Systems, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 310-19.

Harada, T. (2003), Three steps in knowledge communication: the emergence of knowledge

transformers, Research Policy, Vol. 32 No. 10, pp. 1737-51.

Harrigan, K. (1985), An application of clustering for strategic group analysis, Strategic Management

Journal, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 55-73.

Heinrichs, J. and Lim, J. (2005), Model for organizational knowledge creation and strategic use of

information, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 56 No. 6,

pp. 620-31.

Holsapple, C. and Jones, K. (2004), Exploring primary activities of the knowledge chain, Knowledge

and Process Management, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 155-74.

Holsapple, C. and Jones, K. (2005), Exploring secondary activities of the knowledge chain,

Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 3-31.

Jashapara, A. (2005), The emerging discourse of knowledge management: a newdawn for information

science research,Journal of Information Science, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 136-48.

Kankanhalli, A. and Tan, B. (2004), A review of metrics for knowledge management systems and

knowledge management initiatives, in Sprague, R.H. Jr (Ed.), Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii

International Conference on Systems Science,Big Island, HI, January, IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA.

Kelloway, K. and Barling, J. (1990), Item content versus wording: disentangling role conflict and role

ambiguity, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 75 No. 6, pp. 738-45.

Kirk, J. and Miller, M. (1985), Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.



12/13

Klobas, J. and McGill, T. (1995), Identification of technological gatekeepers in the information

technology profession, Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Vol. 46 No. 8,

pp. 581-90.

Lippert, S. and Forman, H. (2005), Utilization of information technology: examining cognitive and

experiential factors of post-adoption behavior,IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 52

No. 3, pp. 363-81.

Michell, J. (2004), The place of qualitative research in psychology, Qualitative Research in

Psychology, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 307-19.

Miles, R. and Snow, C. (1978), Organization Strategy, Structure, and Process, McGraw-Hill, New York,NY.

Moenaert, R. and Souder, W. (1996), Context and antecedents of information utility at the

R&D/marketing interface, Management Science, Vol. 42 No. 11, pp. 1592-610.

Muthusamy, S. and Palanisamy, R. (2004), Leveraging cognition for competitive advantage:

a knowledge-based strategy process, Journal of Information and Knowledge Management, Vol. 3

No. 3, pp. 259-72.

Nicolas, R. (2004), Knowledge management impacts on decision making process, Journal of

Knowledge Management, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 20-31.

Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies

Create the Dynamics of Innovation, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Perry, I. (2005), Knowledge as process, not data: the role of process-based systems in developing

organizational knowledge and behavior, International Journal of Healthcare Technology Management,

Vol. 6 Nos 4/5/6, pp. 420-30.

Polanyi, M. (1966), The Tacit Dimension, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.

Rowley, J. (2003), Knowledge management: the new librarianship? From custodians of history to

gatekeepers to the future, Library Management, Vol. 24 Nos 8/9, pp. 433-40.

Rubenstein, A.H. and Geisler, E. (2003), Installing and Managing Workable Knowledge Management

Systems, Praeger Publishers, Westport, CT.

Sabherwal, R. and Becerra-Fernandez, I. (2005), Integrating specific knowledge: insights from the

Kennedy Space Center, IEEE Transactions in Engineering Management, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 301-15.

Sandelowski, M. (2004), Using qualitative research, Qualitative Health Research, Vol. 14 No. 10,

pp. 366-74.

Sawyer, J. (1992), Goal and process clarity: specification of multiple constructs of role ambiguity and a

structural equation model of their antecedents and consequences, Journal of Applied Psychology,

Vol. 77 No. 2, pp. 130-42.

Srilatha, P. and Harigopal, K. (1985), Role conflict and role ambiguity: certain antecedents and

consequences,ASCI Journal of Management, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 77-109.

Stewart, T. (1997), Intellectual Capital: The New Wealth of Organizations, Doubleday Publishers,

New York, NY.

Xirogiannis, G., Glykas, M. and Staikouras, C. (2004), Fuzzy cognitive maps as a back end to

knowledge-based systems in geographically dispersed financial organizations, Knowledge and

Process Management, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 137-54.

Zahra, S. and Pearce, J. (1990), Research evidence on the Miles-Snow typology, Journal of

Management, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 751-68.

Further reading

Armour, P. (2000), The five orders of ignorance, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 43No.10, pp. 17-20.

Brandon, D. and Hollingshead, A. (2004), Transactive memory systems in organizations: matching

tasks, expertise, and people, Organization Science, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 633-45.

Colonia-Willner, R. (1999), Investing in practical intelligence: ageing and cognitive efficiency among

executives,International Journal of Behavioral Development, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 591-614.



13/13

Gambrill, E. (2000), Honest brokering of knowledge and ignorance,Journal of Social Work Education,

Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 387-97.

Gray, D. (2003), Wanted: chief ignorance officer, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 81 No. 11, pp. 22-9.

Harvey, M., Novicevic, M.M., Buckley, M.R. and Ferris, G.R. (2001), A historic perspective on

organizational ignorance, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 449-68.

Hazlett, S., McAdam, R. and Gallagher, S. (2005), Theory building in knowledge management:

in search of paradigms,Journal of Management Inquiry, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 31-43.

Hines, P., Rich, N. and Hittmeyer, M. (1998), Competing against ignorance: advantage through

knowledge, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 28 No. 1,

pp. 18-33.

May, T. (1998), Strategic ignorance: the new competitive high ground, Information Management

& Computer Security, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 127-9.

Nerkar, A. and Paruchuri, S. (2005), Evolution of R&D capabilities: the role of knowledge networks

within the firm,Management Science, Vol. 51 No. 5, pp. 771-85.

Raghu, T. (1991), Perceptions of role stress by boundary role persons: an empirical investigation,

The Journal of Applied Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 490-515.

Rogers, W., Fisk, A. and Hertzog, C. (1994), Do ability-performance relationships differentiate age and

practice effects in visual search?, Journal of Experimental Psychology, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 710-38.

Ungar, S. (2003), Misplaced metaphor: a critical analysis of the knowledge society, The Canadian

Review of Sociology and Anthropology, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 331-47.

Wenger, J. and Carlson, R. (1996), Cognitive sequence knowledge: what is learned?, Journal of

Experimental Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 599-619.

Wildemuth, B., de Bliek, R. and Friedman, C. (1995), Medical students personal knowledge searching

proficiency, and database use in problem solving, Journal of the American Society for Information

Science, Vol. 46 No. 8, pp. 590-8.

About the author

Eliezer Geisler is Professor and Associate Dean for Research at the Stuart Graduate Schoolof Business, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, Illinois, USA. He holds a doctorate fromNorthwestern University. Dr Geisler is the author of nearly 100 papers in the areas of

technology and innovation management, the evaluation of R&D, science and technology,and the management of healthcare and medical technology. He is the author of eight books,includingThe Metrics of Science and Technology(2000),Creating Value with Science andTechnology(2001),Technology, Healthcare and Management in the Hospital of the Future(2003), and Installing and Managing Workable Knowledge Management Systems (withRubenstein, 2003). He consulted for major corporations and for many US federaldepartments, such as Defense, Agriculture, Commerce, EPA, Energy, and NASA. Hisforthcoming books are Knowledge Management: Concepts and Cases (withWickramasinghe (2006) and The Structure and Progress of Knowledge (2006). Dr Geisleris the co-founder of the annual conferences on the Hospital of the Future, and the HealthCare Technology and Management Association, a joint venture of several universities in tencountries. He co-founded the systematic research of the management of medicaltechnology, and serves on various editorial boards of major journals. In addition to themanagement of medical technology, his current research interests include knowledgemanagement in general and in complex systems, such as healthcare, in particular. He can

be contacted at: [email protected]


To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

a typology of knowledge management - strategic groups and r.pdf

Documents