=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-34/paper-24
|storemode=property
|title=Knowledge Re-Use as Engineering Re-Use: Extracting Values from Knowledge Management
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-34/yeung_holden.pdf
|volume=Vol-34
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/pakm/YeungH00
}}
==Knowledge Re-Use as Engineering Re-Use: Extracting Values from Knowledge Management==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-34/yeung_holden.pdf
Knowledge Re-Use As Engineering Re-Use:
Extracting Values From Knowledge Management
Christopher Yeung and Tony Holden
Department of Engineering, Cambridge University
28 Trumpington Street, Cambridge CB2 1PZ, U.K.
ktcy2@eng.cam.ac.uk, holden@eng.cam.ac.uk
products, services and business processes attribute an
Abstract increasingly larger portion of total costs, effective sharing
of knowledge can give significant economic and lead-time
This paper presents a knowledge-sharing advantages that potentially provide the key differentiating
framework for achieving effective knowledge re- factor in any engineering re-use initiative. From a
use within industrial organisations. This practical KM perspective, reusable assets can be
knowledge re-use paradigm goes beyond knowledge of the know-how, know-why and know-what
traditional engineering re-use which focuses [Bla95] that constitutes an organisational memory
solely on re-applying tangible resources such as [Wal91] “in the business about customers, products,
hardware components, software objects or processes and competitors” [KPM98]. In this aspect,
information repositories in new situations. The knowledge is as much about whom you know as it is about
Knowledge-Sharing Management (KSM) what you know [Bad1991; Lot1998].
framework describes how managers can align
knowledge management strategy with corporate However, firms have hitherto often not considered the re-
core competence strategy by articulating the use of knowledge as part of the overall re-use strategy.
values and risks of knowledge re-use. A general The knowledge factor was either ignored as it would
knowledge-sharing process is abstracted into a somehow be ‘picked-up’ by the person who attempted to
five-stage process model (adoption, adaptation, re-use a component, or because knowledge could only be
absorption, integration, dissemination), supported re-used unconsciously through some hidden cognitive
by four pillar components (organisational processes and ad-hoc organisational routines that defy
infrastructure, actor, technological enabler, management. This study, conducted within a broader
sharing channel), which together guide the design framework of engineering re-use project involving
of the work environment and processes by Cambridge University Engineering Department and 8
integrating the concept of effective knowledge re- U.K. companies in the manufacturing engineering,
use. chemical, aerospace, automobile and defence industries, is
the initial work in developing the Knowledge-Sharing
Management (KSM) framework to articulate the salient
1 Introduction enablers and barriers to knowledge transfer. This initial
Engineering re-use is the business strategy of using the work leads to an engineering re-use approach which
firm’s existing assets in new applications to create new considers the presently missing factor of tacit knowledge.
assets. An asset can be a tangible or intangible resource,
possessed or otherwise controlled by the company used in 1.1 Beyond Re-Using Tangible Outputs
achieving corporate goals. In other words, re-use in
Traditionally, assets can be re-used in one of two ways,
general aims to exploit the value of economy of scale of
either through the re-use of hardware, such as physical
assets by leveraging resources spent in one application in
parts or components, or through the re-use of software,
multiple other situations to reduce time to market,
such as libraries of functions or objects [Mol99; Rei97;
development resources, costs and risks.
Sut00]. Such a re-use paradigm is invariably based on the
logic that development efforts can be minimised by re-
Given that the value of knowledge now embodied in
using the tangible outputs produced from previous
undertakings. Tangible outputs are often those where the
The copyright of this paper belongs to the paper’s authors. Permission to copy knowledge of technology, design, experience of use and
without fee all or part of this material is granted provided that the copies are not lessons learnt are embedded. This ‘black-box’ concept
made or distributed for direct commercial advantage. does not necessarily require thorough understanding of the
Proc. of the Third Int. Conf. on Practical Aspects of detail of designs, implementation or the inner workings of
Knowledge Management (PAKM2000) the re-used object. One only needs to understand its
Basel, Switzerland, 30-31 Oct. 2000, (U. Reimer, ed.) external interface as an individual component in order to
http://sunsite.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/Publications/CEUR-WS/Vol-34/ re-use it. This typically allows one to build upon others’
tangible outputs.
C. Yeung, T. Holden 24-1
Recent attempts [Gru95; Pir95; Svi96] in the field of re- ‘black-box’ approach to re-use is thus insufficient in
use include ‘knowledge re-use’ from a knowledge allowing the knowledge user to understand and discern
engineering approach. In this approach, it is the (formal) contexts of application. Accustomed to a ‘black-box’
representations of knowledge that are really get re-used. approach, practitioners are often unaware of the part tacit
Such imperative symbolic or connectionist representations knowledge is playing in re-use. They either ignore it or re-
of knowledge are in fact static snapshots of elicited use it sub-consciously, preferring instead to grapple with
domain knowledge extracted from subject experts. tangibles. However, as knowledge increasingly commands
Another approach to ‘knowledge re-use’ are the attempts a larger portion of the total cost and value of the whole
to re-interpret codified knowledge by data-mining product package, it is important to go beyond merely re-
repositories of information, searching attributes of using the tangible outputs. To do so, knowledge re-use
scenarios to identify correlations of cases and repetitive requires situated understanding and interpretation of the
patterns [Bor97; Bru99; Kuh97; Lin99]. Knowledge has lessons learnt, organisational best practices and
to be codified with the use of a priori structured capabilities. It involves mobilising knowledge embedded
articulation processes. In other words, merely the tangible in decision-making processes and organisational routines
outputs are still being re-used. [Leo98; Nel82]. This implies re-using networks of
interlinking knowledge as a whole rather than individual
On the other hand, knowledge held by people is dynamic modules of knowledge. Effective re-use thus needs to
and context dependent. Human cognition, subject to its encompass a holistic KS methodology as an integral part
limited processing capability, is able to adapt the of the overall engineering re-use strategy. The following
conceptual model of knowledge to situate the application table summarises the different re-use approaches from a
context [Men98a]. The adaptation is often aided by tacit knowledge perspective:
knowledge developed through experience of use,
professional praxis, and repetitive practice. The above
Table 1: Different Re-use Approaches From A Knowledge Perspective
Re-use Codified Knowledge In Tangible Outputs Uncodified Knowledge
Hardware Software Intangible / Process
Reusable Assets Physical parts, modules, sub- Database, information Individual, group,
systems, or facilities. repository, component design, organisational, and inter-
or software object. organisational knowledge of
regulatory, functional,
positional and cultural assets.
Asset Characteristics ‘Black-box’ approach to re-use – definition of external interface Lessons learnt, experience,
determines reusability, design rationales are abstracted and skills, best practices and
information about implementation details are hidden inside the capabilities are re-used with
‘black-box’. historical, rational context
specific details.
Knowledge Embodiment Knowledge embedded in re- Knowledge encapsulated in Knowledge interwoven with
usable components as objects. objects, frames or codified in decision-making process or
repositories. organisational routines.
Unit Of Knowledge Re-Used Individual component level. Symbolic representations such Network of interlinking
as domain rules, models, knowledge.
frames or past cases.
Knowledge Re-Used Explicit and codified Elicited knowledge codified Explicit as well as tacit
knowledge of know-how. into symbolic representations. knowledge, can be either
codified or uncodified
knowledge of know-how,
know-why and know-what.
Meta-cognitive knowledge
[Kha98] with ability to
familiarise new contexts,
perspectives and roles in
problem solving, learning and
discovery.
C. Yeung, T. Holden 24-2
Re-use Codified Knowledge In Tangible Outputs Uncodified Knowledge
Hardware Software Intangible / Process
Solution Focus Technology oriented solution, with IT as the centrepiece. Human oriented solution,
Employ techniques of pattern matching, data mining or case- involving soft factors to
based reasoning to identify re-usable assets. facilitate resolution of
Employ techniques of artificial intelligence and knowledge organisational and cognitive
engineering to elicit and represent knowledge. issues.
IT as a technological enabler
to support the knowledge re-
use process.
Critical Success Factors Accuracy and speed of identifying relating reusable objects. Re-use strategy aligns with
Dimensions of success factors: traceability, storage, retrieval, business strategy.
and versioning. Situated re-use approach fits
with context of organisational
culture and tasks.
Re-use method not exceeding
the cognitive capabilities of
the work force.
The business implications from the above discussions are that organisations need to adopt two different strategies for re-
use, with one based on the codification of explicit knowledge embedded in tangible objects, and the other on
personalised sharing of tacit knowledge [Han99]:
Table 2: Knowledge Re-use Strategies
Codification Strategy Personalisation Strategy
Business Model Standardised products. Customised products.
Market Positioning Mature products, well-understood tasks. Product innovation.
Re-usable Knowledge Knowledge embedded in tangible objects Knowledge interwoven with decision-
of hardware or software. making processes or organisational
routines.
Knowledge Re-Use Strategy Articulation relies on explicit codified Tacit knowledge shared only through
knowledge, people-to-document person-to-person mentor.
approach.
Non91; Jen95; Bla95; Tee98a]. The knowledge typology
2 Knowledge Re-Use Analysis categorises the characteristics of knowledge content to be
shared, which, having considered the constraints of the
Current methods for knowledge re-use analysis can be characteristics, provides the basis for specifying
viewed from three perspectives. Firstly, units of appropriate technological tools and organisational
knowledge re-used from a stakeholder perspective along environment to support the sharing activities.
the supply chain [Por85], which may involve transferring
of individual, group and organisational knowledge Ruggles [Rug97] points out that information and
internal to the firm [Edv98; Nah98; Bak94] or communication technology tools are useful in augmenting
appropriation of external knowledge across firm KS activities by reducing the temporal, organisational,
boundaries [Bad91]. Knowledge stakeholder perspective spatial and social distances. But their limitations, that
can be used to map potential sources of knowledge and tools themselves do not encourage or otherwise
where are the recipients [Hol98] of identified knowledge discourage KS [Rug97; Fra98], need to be recognised. On
transfers. Secondly, knowledge development lifecycle the impacts of organisational environment, Sanchez &
[Sie99] is a useful guide to visualise the dynamic Heene [San97b], Senge et al. [Sen94] and many
development of knowledge over time [Non95; Rei96]. researchers [Gal94; Non94; Bah92; Dav98a; Che96;
The knowledge lifecycle captures the temporal dimension Chi96; Mag98; Mal98; Man97; Mat96] have agreed on
of dynamic knowledge development within the the importance of organisational forms on facilitating or
organisation. Knowledge demand and knowledge supply otherwise hindering the flow of knowledge from the
analysis can supplement to ensure availability of required knowledge carrier to the knowledge recipient. Jensen &
knowledge to the recipient at any particular point in the Meckling [Jen95] in particular proposes the use of agency
knowledge lifecycle, serving as a guide for setting KS and knowledge transfer costs to analyse the cost
targets and assessing results of knowledge development effectiveness of knowledge flow in terms of co-location of
over time. Thirdly is the dimension of re-usable decision rights and possessed knowledge – that is, the role
knowledge content from a typological perspective [Pol66; and responsibility structure delegating the decision-
C. Yeung, T. Holden 24-3
making authorities to the knowledge carriers. The design the sum of agency cost and knowledge transfer cost in
of organisational form should then take into consideration supporting KS.
Dynamic Knowledge Development
Lifecycle
Knowledge creation1, growth, re-use,
decay and attrition2 over time.
1
: [Non95]; 2: [Rei96]
Unit Of Knowledge Knowledge Asset [Hal97]
Individual: Regulatory assets:
Human capital1 of creativity, skills, Intellectual property, patent,
cognitive ability to learn, absorb and trademark, copyright, licence,
assimilate knowledge. registered proprietary designs.
Group: Functional assets:
Communities of practices. Employee, distributor, supplier
Transformed Into
Re-usable Assets
Organisational: know-how, know-why, know-what.
Knowledge
Social capital2,3 of culture. Innovation capability.
Structural capital1 of organisational Positional assets:
form and infrastructure. Reputation of company, product
Organisational capital1 of business brands, distribution network,
process and innovation. established market entry barrier,
Inter-organisational interface: customer base, unique access to
Relationship capital1,3 of customer- suppliers and partnership networks.
supplier network. Cultural assets:
Partnership / alliance network of Not-invented here culture of re-use
knowledge links4. versus originality, openness to share
1
: [Edv98]; 2: [Nah98]; 3: [Bak94]; re-usable assets.
4
: [Bad91]
Knowledge Typology
Tacit / Explicit [Pol66; Non91], General / Specific,
[Jen95] Know-How / Know-Why / Know-What
[Bla95], Positive / Negative [Tee98a], Autonomous
/ Systematic [Tee98a].
Figure 1: Transformation Of Knowledge Into Organisational Assets
It is the intention of organisations to transform knowledge into assets, which can be owned and possessed by firms
having longer lasting values. Hall [Hal97] gives a clear categorisation of knowledge assets in terms of regulatory asset,
functional asset, positional asset and cultural asset. However, though there are many existing theories on exploiting
inter- and intra-firm knowledge [Bad91; Fra94; Mow96; Non94; Non95; Szu96; Tee98a], the linkage between
knowledge as a resource and knowledge as an asset is under-developed. What is not clear is how the transformation
takes place, how knowledge content can become re-usable assets and how to design the environment to facilitates KS
activities so that knowledge can be transformed into assets and knowledge re-use can effectively take place. This is the
gap which the KSM framework intends to fill. Figure 1 captures the relationship between the three knowledge re-use
perspectives and the transformation of knowledge into knowledge assets.
3 Knowledge-Sharing Management Framework
Following on from the above knowledge re-use analysis, we have developed a holistic KSM framework focusing on the
re-use and sharing of knowledge. This new framework is illustrated below.
C. Yeung, T. Holden 24-4
Adopt
te
na
Ad
i
em
ap
ss
t
Sharing Organisational
Di Channel Infrastructure
Reduce Risk
(Lower Cost)
Knowledge Sharing Core Competence
(Knowledge Asset) Competitive Advantage
Enhance Productivity
& Effectiveness
(Higher Value)
Technological
Actor
Enabler
In
te
rb
gr
so
at
e
Ab
Figure 2: Knowledge-Sharing Management (KSM) Framework
3.1 Business Context Adoption: The recipient scans the environment, either
through informal socialisation or systematic search, to
The business context is provided by the competitive identify threats and opportunities in abstracted
advantages achieved through reduction of business risks knowledge, tacit or explicit, relevant to the tasks at
(costs) and enhancement of productivity and effectiveness hand. Background knowledge of the recipient is
(values). A mapping of knowledge resources to targeted helpful in the identification process (to be aware what,
re-usable knowledge assets can be used to support the where and who to look for). The knowledge identified
development of knowledge-based core competencies of could be fuzzy and not situated in the current context.
the firm. The mapping identifies required knowledge The recipient also may not have the level of
resources to be mobilised to attain core competence understanding in interpreting or applying the
development objectives. The targeted core competencies knowledge adopted.
can provide the business rationales for KS initiatives in Adaptation: The logical cognitive processes of the
terms of values of enhanced productivity and mitigated recipient, subject to a limited processing capability,
risks. The risks mitigated can be upside risk of loss of forces the adaptation of internalised conceptual models
business opportunities and core competence as well as of previously adopted knowledge to the current task
downside risk of knowledge attrition. Gaps identified specific context. Domains of adopted knowledge are
between the knowledge resource-knowledge asset-core analysed, either consciously or unconsciously, to
competences mapping and the corporate strategic targets eliminate uncertainty, fuzziness and internal
can be used to align the KS strategy with the business contradictions, resulting in ‘implicit conceptual’ or
strategy of the firm. Development of the KS strategy can ‘explicit interpretative’ changes [Men98a].
then be guided with the use of the above KS process Absorption: The recipient can start gaining experience
model and the four pillars, which are also part of the new and competence in the use of the knowledge adapted
approach, and are described in the next two sections. as it is situated to the environment and task. An
internalisation process starts to broaden the recipient’s
3.2 Knowledge Sharing Process Model tacit knowledge base as causality of effects and
To achieve re-use, knowledge needs to be effectively consequences are learned through applying the
shared between the knowledge carrier and the recipient. knowledge. The recipient’s perceptions of the world
An exposition of an abstracted knowledge-sharing process are framed by consultation with the adapted
is therefore useful. Previous attempts to describe the knowledge and interactions with its context. To have
process include Nonaka [Non91], Boisot et al. [Boi97], an effective internalisation process, the recipient must
Senge et al. [Sen94] and Rayport and Sviokla [Ray95]. By believe that the adapted knowledge is complementary
extending Lang’s [Lan97] work, we have devised the to helping achieve his personal goal, and within the
following five-stage KS process model: bounds of the organisational, social and professional
norms he is operating in.
C. Yeung, T. Holden 24-5
Integration: Discrete pieces of contextualised sharing of explicit knowledge can employ synchronous or
knowledge are combined into a new whole, giving asynchronous communications, either geographically co-
structures and coherence to shape the integration while located or dispersed. Sharing of tacit knowledge, whether
reconciling inconsistency due to imperfect information unilateral or bilateral, needs to employ personalised face-
from multiple sources of knowledge. Individuals with to-face interactions, socialisation and learning-by-doing as
integrated knowledge either possess the skill of in mentoring apprentices.
systematic problem solving with the ability to
articulate the reasoning model and scientific theories Organisational infrastructure refers to the organisational
behind, or already master the ‘art’ [Zub88] of the form and how the designed form fits with facilitating the
‘craft’ [Non91] capable of applying knowledge in flow of knowledge from the carrier to the recipient. The
aggregates even in novel circumstances. design of organisational forms for KS, rather than basing
Dissemination: Knowledge can be disseminated to on traditional segregations according to product,
other members of the organisation through geographic, or functional boundaries, one must consider
personalised transfer (tacit-to-tacit) or multidirectional the co-location of decision rights and possessed
diffusion (tacit-to-explicit, or explicit-to-explicit). The knowledge to balance the trade-off between sub-optimal
scale of knowledge re-use then depends on the decisions and resources required for knowledge transfer.
dissemination mechanisms employed, which are The design of the role and responsibility structure
supported by the four pillars of KS described below. delegating the decision-making authorities to the
knowledge carriers must fit with the cost-optimal point at
3.3 Four Pillars the minimum of the agency and transfer cost curves.
The barriers to KS implementation with respect to
Actor refers to those human issues that bring about the
knowledge re-use and sharing can be categorised into four
‘deep convictions’ and ‘changes in attitudes and beliefs’
key areas. The four pillars of this framework are designed
[Sen94]. Without such changes, sharing and learning
to help managers identify what focal areas need to be
cannot take place. Employees need to be convinced that
addressed in order to support the knowledge sharing
any KS initiative is essential and beneficial to achieving
process as exemplified in our model.
their personal goals yet without diminishing their political
power within the professional and social communities they
The sharing channel refers to the media selected and the
operate in. The barriers of divisiveness and self-ownership
modes of communication used to share knowledge. The
must be demolished to nurture a KS accepting culture
sharing mode can be either ‘unilateral co-operative’
where people are capable of absorbing knowledge
[Que97] – knowledge transfer is unidirectional when
received, through the fact they are motivated, committed
knowledge resides in one party but not in the other – or
and willing to share knowledge. The following table
‘bilateral co-specialised’ [Que97; Lan97] – when all
summarises three focal areas to achieving this.
parties involved do not possess the complete knowledge
required, but each shares their individual separate pieces
of knowledge to form a synergistic new whole. Unilateral
Table 3: Soft Issues Relating To Actor
Area Of Focus Compensation And Rewards Culture Training & Cognitive
Evaluation
Soft Issues Motivation 5,6,7,8,9,10, Hiring policy 10,14,19,27, Absorptive capability 1,2,3,4,
Commitment 5,6,8,10,11,12,13,14, Mindset 5,25,26, Integrative capability 2,
Loyalty 2,8,14,15,16, Willingness 6,10,11,23,27, Marginal utility 4,22,24 of
Value system and incentives 6,10,11, Professional/community knowledge re-use and
14,17,18,27
. norms 19,20,21, sharing,
Management attitude and Divisiveness of knowledge 6,
leadership 5,6,10,19,25,28,29,
14,23
.
Originality versus not-
invented-here culture 19,20.
1
: [Kla97]; : [Que97]; : [San97a]; : [Tee98a]; : [Arg91]; : [Van98]; 7: [Mye96]; 8: [Tam93]; 9: [Dav98a]; 10: [Mar96];
2 3 4 5 6
11
: [KPM98]; 12: [Non91]; 13: [Non98]; 14: [Dav96]; 15: [Rei96]; 16: [Pru97]; 17: [Rug98]; 18: [Dow98]; 19: [Han99]; 20: [Dav98b];
21
: [Hal97]; 22: [Tee98a]; 23: [Pra90]; 24: [Mil98]; 25: [Ear99]; 26: [Bei99]; 27: [Sta89]; 28: [Sen94]; 29: [Edv97];
Technological enabler is the employment of information addition to the general performance criteria of accuracy,
and communication technologies to augment KS relevancy, speed and reliability:
activities. Technology tools must have the support of the Discovery: Re-usable knowledge must be accessible to
other three pillars and the following characteristics, in systematic search to retrieve relevant bodies of
C. Yeung, T. Holden 24-6
knowledge by matching seekers’ requests with the best world, then re-use is logically impossible, since there is no
sources of knowledge. one model of knowledge known that can fit in all
Filtering: Explicit knowledge retrieved from situations. As Menzies [Men98b] eloquently pointed out,
repositories must be filtered to extract pieces of any knowledge engineering approach excluding the
knowledge that situates in the current context to avoid modelling of the environment within which a knowledge
overloading the seeker’s cognitive processing base must operate will fail. The piece that solves the
capability. Hypertext annotations to attach knowledge puzzle is the tacit knowledge embedded in the KS
with compound objects of relating knowledge or process. Tacit knowledge provides the clue allowing
versioning to capture historical background are individuals to adapt the conceptual model in their minds
example devices to convey the context. and also clarifies the contextual correlations between the
Storage: Explicit knowledge captured must be original and the current situation. The search for re-usable
represented by an efficient codification scheme, knowledge must therefore be found within the KS process
thereby forming an organisational memory generating model described in (2.2). To elaborate, values attributed
longer last value to the organisation. The attrition of to re-usable knowledge depends on the context as well as
knowledge can be reduced when knowledge is the internalisation of the context imposed by the
externalised and made available to others when knowledge ‘re-user’. It is in this sense difficult to attribute
needed. quantitative consensual values directly to re-usable
Collaboration: Tools can intermediate to broker knowledge. Any risks and rewards analysis of knowledge
knowledge seekers with carriers by bringing the two re-use should thus base on indictors that measures the
together in knowledge activities by reducing the effect of knowledge re-used to the specific tasks at hand,
temporal, organisational, social and spatial distances in that is, an indirect measurement approach with its
collaboration. valuation subject to fluctuations with changing application
Organisational Scale: KS tools can provide consistent contexts and to how well the knowledge is internalised.
integrated architecture of structures and
representations enabling uniform access to Thirdly, IT delivers its values by efficiently packaging
standardised knowledge repositories. Knowledge and knowledge into objects, making distributions for re-use in
its outputs can be leveraged throughout the scale possible with explicit knowledge. IT enhances the
organisation to benefit from economy of scale of re- productivity of knowledge ‘re-user’ through the five key
use through mass distribution. roles of discovery, filtering, storage, collaboration and
organisational scale. However strong is IT’s ability to
4 How Knowledge Re-Use Adds Value raise the process speed and level of standardisation, IT
needs to be able to support the other three pillars to realise
The re-use of knowledge beyond tangible outputs has the full benefits of the richness and dynamism of KS
implications for businesses in three ways. Firstly, any activities.
knowledge re-use strategy must recognise the limitation of
mass volume transfer of tacit knowledge. As tacit
knowledge underpins the understanding, evaluation and
5 Future Work
application of all knowledge, it is the key component in Faced with intense competitive pressure from
any knowledge re-use process. But since tacit knowledge globalisation and shortened product development
is more difficult than tangible assets to imitate and lifecycle, companies need methods to exploit maximum
replicate, its marginal cost of re-use can be difficult to values from their existing knowledge assets to provide the
justify. Such difficulty limits the values of economy of edge in competition. This paper describes our work to
scale achieved from the mass volume re-use of tacit date in extending the established idea of engineering re-
knowledge. This issue should then draw management use to include the more intangible concepts of knowledge
attention to geographic and decision authority co- re-use. It describes a generic Knowledge-Sharing
locations. In practical terms, the former is the Management framework demonstrating how knowledge
organisational hierarchy designed to align the roles and management can realise practical business benefits in the
responsibilities of knowledge carriers with decision area of knowledge re-use. Our next step is to apply and
makers and implementers. The latter are the organisational further develop this framework by operationalising it with
infrastructures designed to bring together knowledge our industrial partners in the financial and manufacturing
carriers and recipients. sectors, refining the framework based on the feedbacks
and empirical data gathered in the process. Our final aim
Secondly, the implication of the context dependent nature is to provide a knowledge sharing management
of knowledge is that it is futile to decontextualise methodology that provides practical guidance on the
knowledge. In such a case, knowledge will become design of organisational environments that facilitates the
information, and a knowledge carrier will lose the ability implementation of knowledge sharing and re-use
to discern whether knowledge possessed is relevant to the programs.
tasks at hand. The situated cognition argument concerning
re-use is, if knowledge is context dependent, and context
is ever changing in a constant state of flux in the real-
C. Yeung, T. Holden 24-7
References [Dav98a] Davenport, T. H. and K. Pearlson (1998). “Two
Cheers for the Virtual Office.” Sloan Management
[Arg91] Argyris, C. (1991). “Teaching Smart People How Review 39 (4): 51 - 65.
To Learn.” Harvard Business Review 69 (3): 99 - 109.
[Dav98b] Davenport, T. H., D. W. De Long, et al. (1998).
[Bad91] Badaracco, J. (1991). The Knowledge Link: How “Successful Knowledge Management Projects.” Sloan
Firms Compete Through Strategic Alliances. Boston, Management Review 39 (2): 43 - 57.
Harvard Business School Press.
[Dow98] Dowd, K. (1998). Beyond Value At Risk: The
[Bah92] Bahrami, H. (1992). “The Emerging Flexible New Science Of Risk Management. Chichester, John
Organisation: Perspectives from Silicon Valley.” Wiley & Sons.
California Management Review 34 (4): 33 - 52.
[Ear99] Earl, M. J. and I. A. Scott (1999). “What Is a
[Bak94] Baker, W. (1994). Networking Smart. New York, Chief Knowledge Officer?” Sloan Management
McGraw-Hill. Review 40 (2): 29 - 38.
[Bei99] Beinhocker, E. D. (1999). “Robust Adaptive [Edv97] Edvinsson, L. (1997). “Developing Intellectual
Strategies.” Sloan Management Review 40 (3): 95 - Capital At Skandia.” Long Range Planning 30(3): 366
106. - 373.
[Bla95] Blackler, F. (1995). “Knowledge, Knowledge [Edv98] Edvinsson, L. and M. S. Malone (1998).
Work And Organisations: An Overview And Intellectual Capital: The Proven Way To Establish
Interpretation.” Organisation Studies 16 (6): 1021 - Your Company's Real Value By Measuring Its Hidden
1046. Brainpower. London, Piatkus.
[Boi97] Boisot, M., D. Griffiths, et al. (1997). The [Fra94] Fransman, M. (1994). “Information, Knowledge,
Dilemma of Competence: Differentiation Versus Vision And Theories Of The Firm.” Industrial and
Integration in the Pursuit of Learning, in Sanchez & Corporate Change 3 (3): 713 - 757.
Heene 1997.
[Fra98] Frappaolo, C. (1998). “Defining Knowledge
[Bor97] Borghoff, U. M. and R. Pareschi (1997). Management: Four Basic Functions.” ComputerWorld
“Information Technology For Knowledge 32 (8): 44 - 60.
Management.” Journal Of Universal Computer Science
3(8): 835 - 842. [Gal94] Galbraith, J. R. (1994). Competing With Flexible
Lateral Organisations. Massachusetts, Addison-
[Bru99] Brusic, V. and J. Zeleznikow (1999). Wesley.
“Knowledge Discovery And Data Mining In Biological
Databases.” Knowledge Engineering Review 14(3): [Gru95] Gruber, T. R. (1995). “Toward Principles For
257 - 277. The Design Of Ontologies Used For Knowledge
Sharing.” International Journal Of Human-Computer
[Che96] Chesbrough, H. W. and D. J. Teece (1996). Studies 43(5-6): 907 - 928.
“When Is Virtual Virtuous? Organising for
Innovation.” Harvard Business Review 74 (1): 65 - 73. [Hal97] Hall, R. (1997). Complex Systems, Complex
Learning, and Competence Building, in Sanchez &
[Chi96] Ching, C., C. W. Holsapple, et al. (1996). Heene 1997.
“Toward IT Support For Co-ordination In Network
Organisations.” Information & Management 30 (4): [Han99] Hansen, M. T., N. Nohria, et al. (1999). “What's
179 - 199. Your Strategy For Managing Knowledge? .” Harvard
Business Review 77 (2): 106 - 116.
[Cho95] Choi, J.-I. and M. Hannafin (1995). “Situated
Cognition And Learning Environments - Roles, [Hol98] Holtshouse, D. (1998). “Knowledge Research
Structures, And Implications For Design.” Educational Issues.” California Management Review 40 (3): 277 -
Technology Research And Development 43 (2): 53 - 280.
69.
[Jen95] Jensen, M. C. and W. H. Meckling (1995).
[Dav96] Davenport, T. H., S. L. Jarvenpaa, et al. (1996). “Specific and General Knowledge, and Organisational
“Improving Knowledge Work Processes.” Sloan Structure.” Journal of Applied Corporate Finance 8
Management Review 37 (4): 53 - 65. (2): 4 - 18.
C. Yeung, T. Holden 24-8
[Kha98] Khan, T. M., J. E. M. Mitchell, et al. (1998). [Men98a] Menzies, T. and W. J. Clancey (1998). “The
“Situated learning using descriptive models.” Challenge Of Situated Cognition For Symbolic
International Journal Of Human-Computer Studies 49 Knowledge-Based Systems.” International Journal Of
(6): 771 - 796. Human-Computer Studies 49 (6): 767 - 769.
[Kuh97] Kuhn, O. and A. Abecker (1997). “Corporate [Men98b] Menzies, T. (1998). “Towards Situated
Memories For Knowledge Management In Industrial Knowledge Acquisition.” International Journal Of
Practice: Prospects And Challenges.” Journal Of Human-Computer Studies 49 (6): 867 - 893.
Universal Computer Science 3(8): 929 - 954.
[Mil98] Miles, G., R. E. Miles, et al. (1998). “Some
[Kla97] Klavans, R. and D. L. Deeds (1997). Competence Conceptual And Research Barriers To The Utilisation
Building in Biotechnology Start-ups: The Role of Of Knowledge.” California Management Review 40
Scientific Discovery, Technical Development, and (3): 281 - 290.
Absorptive Capacity, in Sanchez & Heene 1997.
[Mol99] Molina, M., J. L. Sierra and J. Cuena (1999).
[KPM98] KPMG (1998). Knowledge Management “Reusable Knowledge-Based Components For
Research Report, KPMG. Building Software Applications: A Knowledge
Modelling Approach.” International Journal Of
[Lan97] Lang, J. W. (1997). Leveraging Knowledge Software Engineering And Knowledge Engineering
Across Firm Boundaries: Achieving Strategic 9(3): 297 - 317.
Flexibility Through Modularisation and Alliances, in
Sanchez & Heene 1997. [Mow96] Mowery, D. C., J. E. Oxley, et al. (1996).
“Strategic Alliances And Inter-Firm Knowledge
[Leo98] Leonard, D. and S. Sensiper (1998). “The Role Transfer.” Strategic Management Journal 17 (SISI):
Of Tacit Knowledge In Group Innovation.” California 77 - 91.
Management Review 40(3): 112 - 132.
[Mye96] Myers, P. S. E. (1996). Knowledge Management
[Lin99] Linger, H., F. Burstein, A. Zaslavsky and N. and Organisational Design. Boston, Butterworth-
Crofts (1999). “A Framework For A Dynamic Heinemann.
Organisational Memory Information System.” Journal
Of Organisational Computing And Electronic [Nah98] Nahapiet, J. and S. Ghoshal (1998). “Social
Commerce 9(2-3): 189 - 203. Capital, Intellectual Capital, And The Organizational
Advantage.” Academy Of Management Review 23
[Lot98] Lotus (1998). Knowledge Management White (2): 242 - 266.
Paper, Lotus.
[Nel82] Nelson, R. R. and S. G. Winter (1982). An
[Mag98] Magretta, J. (1998). “Fast, Global and Evolutionary Theory Of Economic Change.
Entrepreneurial: Supply Chain Management - Hong Cambridge, Belknap Press.
Kong Style.” Harvard Business Review 76 (5): 102 -
114. [Non91] Nonaka, I. (1991). “The Knowledge-Creating
Company.” Harvard Business Review 69 (6): 96 - 104.
[Mal98] Malone, T. W. and R. J. Laubacher (1998). “The
Dawn of the E-Lance Economy.” Harvard Business [Non94] Nonaka, I. and H. Takeuchi (1994). “A Dynamic
Review 76 (5): 144 - 153. Theory Of Organisational Knowledge Creation.”
Organisation Science 5 (1): 14 - 37.
[Man97] Manasco, B. (1997). SUN's Knowledge Network
Enhances Its Selling Skills. Originally appeared in May [Non95] Nonaka, I. and H. Takeuchi (1995). The
1997 issue of Knowledge Inc. URL Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese
http://webcom.com/quantera/Sun.html. Companies Create The Dynamics Of Innovation. New
York, Oxford University Press.
[Mar96] Marshall, C., L. Prusak, et al. (1996). “Financial
Risk And The Need For Superior Knowledge [Non98] Nonaka, I. and N. Konno (1998). “The Concept
Management.” California Management Review 38 (3): Of "Ba": Building A Foundation For Knowledge
77 - 101. Creation.” California Management Review 40 (3): 40 -
54.
[Mat96] Mathews, J. (1996). Organisational Foundations
Of The Knowledge-Based Economy, Employment And [Pir95] Pirlein, T. and R. Studer (1995). “An Environment
Growth In The Knowledge-Based Economy, OECD. For Reusing Ontologies Within A Knowledge
Engineering Approach.” International Journal Of
Human-Computer Studies 43(5-6): 945 - 965.
C. Yeung, T. Holden 24-9
[Pol66] Polanyi, M. (1966). The Tacit Dimension, [Sta89] Stata, R. (1989). “Organisational Learning - The
reprinted in Prusak 1997. Key To Management Innovation.” Sloan Management
Review 30 (3): 63 - 74.
[Por85] Porter, M. E. and V. E. Millar (1985). “How
Information Gives You Competitive Advantage.” [Sut00] Sutcliffe, A. (2000). “Domain Analysis For
Harvard Business Review 63 (4): 149 - 160. Software Reuse.” Journal Of Systems And Software
50(3): 175 - 199.
[Pra90] Prahalad, C. K. and G. Hamel (1990). “The Core
Competence Of The Corporation.” Harvard Business [Svi96] Sviokla, J. J. (1996). “Knowledge Workers And
Review 68 (3): 79 - 91. Radically New Technology.” Sloan Management
Review 37 (4): 25 - 40.
[Pru97] Prusak, L. E. (1997). Knowledge In
Organisations. Boston, Butterworth-Heinemann. [Szu96] Szulanski, G. (1996). “Exploring Internal
Stickiness: Impediments To The Transfer Of Best
[Que97] Quelin, B. (1997). Appropriability and the Practice Within The Firm.” Strategic Management
Creation of New Capabilities Through Strategic Journal 17 (SISI): 27 - 43.
Alliances, in Sanchez & Heene 1997.
[Tam93] Tampoe, M. (1993). “Motivating Knowledge
[Rap98] Rappaport, A. T. (1998). “Constructive Workers - The Challenge for the 1990s.” Long Range
Cognition In A Situated Background.” International Planning 26 (3): 49 - 55.
Journal Of Human-Computer Studies 49(6): 927 - 933.
[Tee98a] Teece, D. J. (1998). “Capturing Value from
[Ray95] Rayport, J. F. and J. J. Sviokla (1995). Knowledge Assets: The New Economy, Markets for
“Exploiting the Virtual Value Chain.” Harvard Know-how and Intangible Assets.” California
Business Review 73(6): 75 - 85. Management Review 40 (3): 55 - 79.
[Rei96] Reichheld, F. F. and T. Teal (1996). The Loyalty [Tee98b] Teece, D. J. (1998). “Research Directions For
Effect: The Hidden Force Behind Growth, Profits, and Knowledge Management.” California Management
Lasting Value. Boston, Harvard Business School Press. Review 40 (3): 289 - 292.
[Rei97] Reifer, D. J. (1997). Practical Software Reuse - [Van98] Van De Ven, F. J. I. M. (1998). Knowledge
Strategies For Introducing Reuse Concepts In Your Management: Common Sense, But Is It Also Common
Organisation. New York, John Wiley & Sons. Practice? Knowledge Management Feedback Report,
KPMG.
[Rug97] Ruggles, R. L. E. (1997). Knowledge
Management Tools. Boston, Butterworth-Heinemann. [Wal91] Walsh, J. P. and G. R. Ungson (1991).
“Organisational Memory.” Academy Of Management
[Rug98] Ruggles, R. (1998). “The State Of The Notion: Review 16 (1): 57 - 91.
Knowledge Management in Practice.” California
Management Review 40 (3): 80 - 89. [Zub88] Zuboff, S. (1988). In the Age of the Smart
Machine: The Future of Work and Power. Oxford,
[San97a] Sanchez, R. (1997). Managing Articulated Heinemann Professional.
Knowledge in Competence-Based Competition, in
Sanchez & Heene 1997.
[San97b] Sanchez, R. and A. E. Heene (1997). Strategic
Learning and Knowledge Management. New York,
John Wiley.
[Sen94] Senge, P. M., C. Roberts, et al. (1994). The Fifth
Discipline Fieldbook: Strategies and Tools for
Building a Learning Organisation. London, Nicholas
Brealey.
[Sie99] Siemieniuch, C. E. and M. A. Sinclair (1999).
“Organizational Aspects Of Knowledge Lifecycle
Management In Manufacturing.” International Journal
Of Human-Computer Studies 51 (3): 517 - 547.
C. Yeung, T. Holden 24-10