Measuring knowledge in organizations: a knowledge-in-practice approach

Abstract

Purpose This paper aims to develop a reliable and valid scale for measuring the underlying knowledge involved in work. To do so, it builds on the knowledge-in-practice (KIP) framework that suggests different types of work have different underlying knowledge characteristics. This allows us to answer two important questions: What are the underlying characteristics of KIP that are important to effectively manage a firm’s knowledge resources? How do we measure these characteristics? The answers help to build theoretical and empirical understanding of the construct of KIP. Design/methodology/approach The study uses a discovery-oriented survey design methodology to design the survey instrument, followed by a mixed-methods approach to validate the scale. Findings A new scale is developed for measuring the tacitness and learnability of the knowledge involved in work. It allows work units to be evaluated based on the underlying knowledge involved in different types of work. Research limitations/implications The KIP scale can be used for measuring the type of knowledge characteristics in organizations. Academics can use this study as a basic model to explore knowledge across different contexts and focus on the different characteristics within and across work contexts. Practical implications The study provides a clearer and more granular understanding of knowledge in organizations that can be used as a guideline to refer to when measuring and assessing knowledge requirements. Originality/value Scholars have pushed to understand work from a knowledge and collaboration perspective. A measurement scale for the KIP framework provides a critical first step towards this outcome.

Effects of knowledge management on unit performance: examining the moderating role of tacitness and learnability

“…To test the situational conditions of contingency theory, we develop hypotheses to explore the specific contingent effects of a critical, yet untested contextual variable – the predominant type of knowledge involved in the work of a unit (McIver et al , 2013; McIver and Wang, 2016). In its initial formulation, McIver et al (2013) describe KIP as the underlying knowledge characteristics involved in practices – that is, the actions engaged in by individuals, groups, units and firms to accomplish the ongoing work.…”

“…Thus, all work involves tacit knowledge, but it varies in degree, which is consistent with Polanyi’s (1966) original contribution. In this respect, tacit and explicit knowledge are not two different constructs but opposite ends of the same continuum (McIver and Wang, 2016). This can be controversial as KM research has debated this fact.…”

Critical types of knowledge loss in military organisations

“…Various other knowledge classification used in literature includes embedded/encoded, catalogue/explanatory/social/experimental etc. (AF Ragab and Arisha, 2013; McIver and Wang, 2016).…”

Performance appraisal of knowledge workers in R&D centers using gamification

“…Wake (2015) identified conditions that preclude measurement-based management and are likely to be observed in knowledge work including non-routine work in ill-defined or structured situations where output measurability and an understanding of the means-ends relationship of the work is not evident. Mclver and Wang (2016) have developed a new scale for measuring organizational knowledge involved in work based on the tacitness and learnability of work contexts. Hu, Wen, and Yan (2015) have proposed a theoretical framework integrating an analytic network process (ANP) with a balanced scorecard (BSC) to measure the performance of knowledge resources under value perspective.…”