Knowledge systems and value creation. An action research investigation
| Pages | 166-182 |
| Date | 20 March 2007 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/02635570710723796 |
| Published date | 20 March 2007 |
| Author | Yacine Rezgui |
| Subject Matter | Economics,Information & knowledge management,Management science & operations |
Knowledge systems and value
creation
An action research investigation
Yacine Rezgui
Informatics Research Institute, University of Salford, Salford, UK
Abstract
Purpose – The paper aims to explore the role of knowledge management systems (KMS) in
promoting value creation in the construction sector.
Design/methodology/approach – An action research methodology using a multiple case study
approach, which includes participant observation and semi-structured interviews.
Findings – The findings indicate that KMS promote value creation when they embed and nurture
the social conditions that bind and bond team members together. Also, to be effective KMS should be
incorporated within a change management programme that promotes a “participatory” type of culture
while taking into account the team-based structure and discipline-oriented nature of the construction
industry. Therefore, much more consideration should be given to organisational change issues prior to
deployment of KMS.
Research limitations/implications – The study is limited to organisations from the construction
industry, but can be generalised to organisations from other sectors that exhibit similar
characteristics.
Practical implications – Thefindings can be used to guide management teams in deploying KMS
to foster value creation as part of a wider change management programme.
Originality/value – While related research tends to adopt an objectivist or subjectivist approach to
knowledge management (KM), the present research argues that a third approach is required where
issues related to technology, culture, and organisation must be blended successfully to address
complex organisational barriers to effective KM leading to value creation.
Keywords Knowledge managementsystems, Value analysis, Social control,Change management,
Information systems,Construction industry
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
A knowledge-based perspective of the organisation has emerged in the strategic
management literature (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Alavi and Leidner, 2001).
Organisational knowledge is recognized as a key resource and a variety of perspectives
suggest that the ability to marshal and deploy knowledge dispersed across the
organisation is an important source of organisational advantage (Teece, 1998; Tsai and
Ghoshal, 1999; Ju et al., 2006). Furthermore, it is widely acknowledged that a key
sustainable advantage comes from what a firm collectively knows, how efficien tly it
uses what it knows, and how readily it acquires and uses new knowledge (Davenport
and Prusak, 1998). In this context, traditional organisations are beginning to
comprehend that knowledge and its inter-organisational management, and individual
and organisational capability building, are becoming crucial factors for gaining and
sustaining competitive advantages (Preiss et al., 1996).
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0263-5577.htm
IMDS
107,2
166
Industrial Management & Data
Systems
Vol. 107 No. 2, 2007
pp. 166-182
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
0263-5577
DOI 10.1108/02635570710723796
The gaining popularity of knowledge management (KM) has been reinforced by the
quest for innovation and value creation (Aranda and Molina-Fernandez, 2002; Huseby
and Chou, 2003). In this context, KM is perceived as a framework for designing an
organisation’s goals, structures, and processes so that the organisation can use what it
knows to learn and create value for its customers and community (Choo, 2000).
Conversely, change management plays an increasingly important role in sustaining
“leading edge” competitiveness for organisations in times of rapid change
and increased competition (Wheatcroft, 2000; Reddy and Reddy, 2002; McAdam and
Galloway, 2005). The future has only two predictable features – “change and
resistance to change” and the very survival of organisations will depend upon their
ability to adapt to, and master, these challenges.
While the preponderance of KM theory stems from strategy and organisational
theory research, the majority of KM initiatives involve, to a lesser or greater degree,
information technology (IT) (Alavi and Leidner, 2001; Lee and Hong, 2002; Huysman
and Wulf, 2006). Such IT structures are now commonly known as knowledg e
management systems (KMS).
Limitations of current approaches to managing knowledge have been constantly
reported in the literature (Sor, 2004; Huysman and Wulf, 2006; Yeh et al., 2006).
A number of studies proposed the so-called “knowledge gap” to depict the misfit
between the capability and implementation of KMS for enterprises (Tiwana, 2001; Lin
and Tseng, 2005). Lin and Tseng (2005) propose a holistic framework for the “KM Gap”
to fully illustrate the management gaps that might occur during KMS implementation.
They argue that these gaps originate from lower degrees of fitness between an
enterprise’s KM activities and both the external and internal environments confronting
the enterprise.
While current KM approaches have raised complex technical, organisational,
cultural and political issues, this paper argues that further research is nee ded to
explore deployment and adoption of KMS and their effectiveness in enabling
innovation and value creation.
Knowledge and knowledge management
KM is a broad and expanding topic (Scarbrough et al., 1999). In reviewing the theory
and literature of this field, it is necessary to commit to an identifiable epistemic
approach. Many such approaches to KM are identified, and have been categorized in
various ways (Schultze, 1998; Alavi and Leidner, 2001; Earl, 2001). Schultze (1998)
engages Burrell and Morgan’s (1979) framework in order to identify a two-fold
typology of knowledge within the debate about KM: objectivist and subjectivist.
An objectivist approach views knowledge as objects to be discovered. In identifying
the existence of knowledge in various forms and locations, technology is employed
in the codification of such knowledge objects (Hansen et al., 1999). In contrast,
a subjectivist approach suggests knowledge is inherently identified and linked to
human experience and the social practice of knowing (Brown and Duguid, 1998).
In adopting such a stance, it is contended that knowledge is continuously shaped by
the social practice of communities and institutions.
Conversely, Alavi and Leidner (2001) note that knowledge may be viewed from five
different perspectives:
Knowledge
systems and
value creation
167
To continue reading
Request your trial