A Study of Knowledge Management Enablers across Countries

Abstract

Knowledge has been long cited as a strategic asset and a source of competitive advantage for organizations. However, the creation of knowledge is a complex process that is influenced by several factors beyond the typical practice of knowledge management. In this research, we assess the effects of leadership, Ba (shared context in motion), organizational culture, organizational control and work style on knowledge management defined in terms of the SECI process of socialization, externalization, combination, and internalization. Based on data gathered from a questionnaire survey of a Japanese pharmaceutical company and its subsidiaries in the United States, France, and China, we compare how the aforementioned organizational factors influence the processes of knowledge management in these organizations. The results show that organizational factors affect knowledge management practices differently in each of the targeted countries, and suggest that knowledge management activities need to be tailored to the organizational idiosyncrasies of each local office, without betraying the global vision of the corporation.

Unravelling knowledge creation and management in educational organisations: barriers and enablers

“…Prior research on KCM has analysed some of its key concerns, including the nature of knowledge (e.g., Mingers, 2008); knowledge acquisition, transfer, creation or sharing (e.g., Nonaka & von Krogh, 2009); KCM's impact on organisational performance (e.g., Zheng et al, 2010); the relation between KCM and other organisational theories, such as organisational learning, organisational development and intellectual capital (e.g., Easterby-Smith & Lyles, 2011); contributions of information technology to KCM (e.g., Tseng, 2008); KCM strategies and methodologies (e.g., OECD, 2003); the use of community of practice to promote KCM (e.g., Hamel et al, 2012); and, of course, factors affecting KCM (e.g., Donate & Guadamillas, 2011;Maganier-Watanabe et al, 2011).…”

Tacit Knowledge for the Development of Organizations

“…Tacit knowledge is difficult to write down, visualize or transfer from one person to another (Magnier-Watanabe et al 2011). It plays an important role in the knowledgeoriented research in management (Phelps et al 2012).…”

Elements influencing knowledge management in university–business–government collaboration: Case studies in National Institutes of Science and Technology

“…Among the factors of the structural dimension, we can also highlight organizational control. Magnier‐Watanabe et al () consider it one of the aspects that influences knowledge creation and characterize it by clarity in defining organizational objectives, at both the individual and corporate level, guiding the knowledge to be created and shared in order to achieve the organizational objectives. In addition, they emphasize the relevance of autonomy, which allow employees to freely search for new methods and knowledge and creative chaos, a prerequisite for knowledge creation, because without it, the status quo is maintained and new knowledge and innovation are created.…”

“…Their behavior can be grouped in communication and control roles. Communication refers to collecting and disseminating information, both internally and externally, and their job is essentially speaking and listening; through control, the manager causes general actions on the part of those who relate to him through developing systems, projecting structures and setting guidelines. Level of people (interpersonal): Managing through people is focusing on “affect rather than effect” (Mintzberg & Quinn, ); influencing and motivating people replaces information. Level of action (decisional): managing actively and instrumentally through direct involvement in the action (Mintzberg & Quinn, ). Magnier‐Watanabe et al () also conceived two leadership styles: result‐oriented leadership, with greater focus on organizational objectives and people‐oriented leadership, covering team dynamics and, consequently, encouraging sharing of knowledge between members.…”

“…Knowledge is not propagated in a vacuum, but within a “contextualized space,” known as ba . It can be classified as formal ba , referring to the opportunity formally provided by the organization such as scheduled meetings and institutionalized forums for interactions with others; informal ba , related to opportunities for casual communication and not defined by the organization or work process; and cyber ba , corresponding to interactions via electronic media (Magnier‐Watanabe et al, ).…”