Organizational memory and intellectual capital
| Published date | 01 December 2002 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/14691930210448314 |
| Date | 01 December 2002 |
| Pages | 393-414 |
| Author | Mark N. Wexler |
| Subject Matter | Accounting & finance,HR & organizational behaviour,Information & knowledge management |
OM and
intellectual
capital
393
Journal of Intellectual Capital,
Vol. 3 No. 4, 2002, pp. 393-414.
#MCB UP Limited, 1469-1930
DOI 10.1108/14691930210448314
Organizational memory and
intellectual capital
Mark N. Wexler
Faculty of Business Administration, Simon Fraser University,
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Keywords Organizations, Intellectual capital, Memory
Abstract Organizational memory (OM) is a branch of collective memory studies tied to
instrumental action which seeks to enhance the organization's intellectual capital by aiding
organizations in using both routine practices and imbedded information to anticipate and solve
problems. Within an intellectual capital perspective, OM involves the encoding of information via
suitable representation and retrieval systems which are filtered through the three forms of
intellectual capital ± human, structural and relational. This paper explores how these three forms
of intellectual capital, when put into mnemonic practice, generate four interrelated but distinct
models of OM ± the storage bin model, the narrative model, the innovative model, and the
political resource model. Emphasis is placed on discussion of how each of these models of OM
impacts efforts to effectively manage an organization's intellectual capital.
Recent discussions of intellectual capital (Ehin, 2000; Pike, 2001; Teece, 2000)
stimulate and serve as a launching pad for those interested in:
.updating standard accounting practices to reflect the value of
intangibles in the valuation of a firm (Clare and DeTore, 2000; Miller,
1996);
.managing knowledge to increase the adaptive and/or innovative
capacity of administered systems (Amar, 2001; Burton-Jones, 1999); and
.pursuing the competitive advantage of effectively transforming a
system's intangible assets into profitable outcomes (Best, 2001; Dillon,
1998).
This is an ambitious but plausible mandate. Its ambitiousness stems from the
recognition that, in the ``so called'' new economy (Brennan, 2000; Leadbetter,
1999), capital is no longer synonymous with the physical assets or the financial
capital of the managed system but requires a concerted effort to both account
for and effectively manage intangible assets. Its plausibility stems from the
recognition throughout the 1990s that the book value was not equivalent to the
market value of a firm.
Intellectual capital is the intangible material ± knowledge, information, data,
experiences, routines, structures, cultural apparatus and relationships ± that
can be put to use by a collectivity to create wealth (Davis and Harrison, 2001;
Imparato, 1999; Stewart, 1997). The emerging field of intellectual capital
studies is conceptually very rich but suffers from a relative lack of meta-level
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/1469-1930.htm
The author would like to thank Betty Chung and Jean Donald for their indispensable assistance
in working through drafts of this work.
JIC
3,4
394
concepts which help one put intellectual capital into practice. It is one thing to
point towards the importance of knowledge (Brauverhjelm, 2000; Sullivan,
2000), social capital (Cohen and Prusak, 2001; Gabbay and Leenders, 2001),
corporate reputation (Fombrun, 1996; Smythe et al., 1992), organizational
culture (Martin, 2001; Rollins and Roberts, 1998), and strategic relationships
(Greenhalph, 2001; Knoke, 2001) as intangible assets in the development of
intellectual capital, and it is another to encapsulate them in an example of a
concept which illustrates the practice of intellectual capital.
To this end, this paper utilizes the literature on organizational memory (OM)
to explore four models of OM and concomitant mnemonic practices ± the
storage bin model, the narrative model, the innovative model and the political
resource model ± as illustrative of the practices used to attempt to turn an
intangible asset into one with economic value. To accomplish this, the paper
adheres to the following three-phase agenda: first, attention will be paid to OM
as an intangible asset with the potential to add economic value to the firm;
second, the tripartite division of intellectual capital into-human, structural and
relational forms of OM will be seen as generating four models of mnemonic
practices; third, turning to the four models of OM in practice, consideration will
be given to how each generates both operating costs and benefits. The paper
concludes with speculation as to why, using the four models of OM as an
illustration, it is difficult to arrive at a consensus regarding the practices
necessary to implement intellectual capital in organizations.
OM, an intangible asset
OM is a branch of collective memory studies (Connerton, 1989; Middleton and
Edwards, 1990; Pennebaker et al., 1997) tied to instrumental group action in
formal organizational contexts (Brooking, 1999; Kransdorf, 1998; Schwartz et
al., 2000). The idea of collective memory, aided by the technologically derived
ability to externalize biological memory, has taken hold in the discussion of the
role of intangible assets in organizations. The original concept of collective
memory, as used in the social and behavioral sciences, was introduced by early
Durkheimians like Halbwachs (1926, 1941, 1950). In the lexicon of Halbwachs
and his more contemporary followers (Douglas, 1986; Olick and Robbins, 1998),
collective memory is a supra-individual concept which cannot be reduced to the
memories in the mind of the individual. With collective memory, what is
remembered and the process engaged in to remember are neither those of the
biological nor psychological individual but are rooted in the sociological
understanding of the collectivity or community and working groups. The
contemporary literature on collective memory or memory studies runs along
paths bearing different names: ``social memory'' (Fentress and Wickham, 1994;
Valinerser and Veer, 2000); ``popular memory'' (Rosensweig and Thelen, 1998;
Smith, 2000); ``cultural memory'' (Bal et al., 1999; Ben-Amos and Weissberg,
1999) and the central focus in this paper, ``organizational memory'' or OM
(Ackerman and Mandel, 1999; Sandoe, 1998; Wijnhoven, 1999).
To continue reading
Request your trial