1007022

Title - Managerial Challenges of Change

13/5/2011

Author - Godslove O. Obamwonyi

Introduction

Fundamental influences of competitive advantage which

companies aggressively contend for and how they go about it1 | P a g e

1007022

depicts their level of understanding of Knowledge and

Knowledge management (Senge 2006, and Allen et al,. 2011), the

way an organization source, develops and disseminate knowledge

taking into consideration the strategy, structure and

culture/learning is paramount to its success plan (Nonaka et al

1994). This paper critically analyses the Pros and Cons of the

work of Goel et al (2010) a case study on NTPC: an Indian PSU,

and to provide alternative conclusions given in the case

study.

Key words: Knowledge Management (KM), Organizational Learning (OL), Organizational

Strategy (OSY), Organizational Structure (OST), Organizational Culture (OC).

Literature Review

The discourse on knowledge management cannot be over theorized

or undermined by any aspect of academics, individual or

organization. It is not a concept that was drawn from recent

phenomenon (David et al 2008). Its contribution has been assumed

to have a direct relationship with organizational innovation

(Liao et al 2010), with considerable impact on organizational

performance and effectiveness (Zheng et al 2010) which

translates to influence financial performance (Zack et al,. 2009

and Goh,. et al 2009). Thus, a source of competitive advantage

(Easterby-Smith et al 2007) and likely to guarantee sustained

competitive advantage if the organization is expected to learn

faster than its competitors, (all things been equal) (Lee-

Kelley 2007; Lopez et al 2005).

2 | P a g e

1007022

Tseng (2008) in his work argued that KM is not often utilized

as much as its relevance is announced, its most often a theory in

use rather than espoused, thus performance may not be guaranteed

because until Knowledge is applied it is not known and cannot

be said to influence performance.

Although Knowledge Management has been criticized to take on

ambiguity in relations to organizational learning, given that

it draws its origin from consultancy and Information

Technology (IT) and have of recent gained momentum (Alvesson et

al,. 2002, Mc Adam and Reid, 2001; Edge 2005). The intense and

aggressive competitive actions and internal change experienced

by organizations coupled with the changing customer

preferences (Garvin et al,. 2008 and Hay 2006) in a rapidly

changing complex and volatile environment, cannot present an

organizations’ vision on assumptions and guesses rather, there

have to be a systematic acquisition and application of

sustained knowledge that creates a conscious learning

atmosphere that gradually and continuously ignite a desire to

know more (Senge 2006, Liao et al,. 2010 and Yang and Chen

2007).

Various perceptions of KM have been literalized over the past

years some of which will be analysed by the writer to drive

the point in later part of this paper. In order to create a

foundation of this study, the author will consider the

intrinsic factors of Strategy, Structure, and Culture which

are the enabling conditions that propel KM effectiveness,

innovation and valuability. Zheng et al,. (2010) and

Aujirapongpan et al,. (2010). 3 | P a g e

1007022

They are the mediating factors that have to be right if KM is

to be effective within the context of its acquisition and

application (Moran 2011).

The impact of Strategy→ Structure→ Culture on efficient KM

Strategy – these may be seen as long and short term goals and

objectives of an organization.

Senge (2006) assert that when people lack direction on the

next line of action or when they are stuffed up with a certain

way of doing things and don’t appreciate change, may devalue

or undermine the purpose of learning and hamper its process.

Tacit and Explicit knowledge can to a certain degree be

efficiently captured if human strategy can be coined

effectively in the socialization process while the system

strategy more suitable for combination (Nonaka and Takeuchi

1995, Tseng 2008 p. 734). Although this classification

eliminates the external and cultural influences on KM (Nonaka

and Teece 2001; Choo 1998) which to a certain extent limits

its overall potential, firms strategy should be characterized

4 | P a g e

StrategyStructureCulture

1007022

by simplicity and understanding to encourage some level of

participatory interest (Easterby-Smith et al 2008).

Structure – may also be depicted to represent the operational

and interactive setup within the firm (Aujirapongpan et al,.

2010).

The ability of an organization to build commitment to learn is

of vital importance i.e. every individual has a capacity to

learn despite diverse assimilation and retention level (Lee et

al 2010; Lee-Kelley 2007) not all structures permits sound and

gradual learning. Some may be too rigid and mechanistic to

influence core individual and organizational learning (Senge

2006), the viability of KM depicts a structure that has less

hierarchies and influence core collective knowledge

(Aujirapongpan et al,. 2010) the structure is a reflection of

its culture and then learning (Moran 2011).

Culture – is tied up in every one, its subject identity cannot

be 100% managed but there can be a minor or considerable level

of management or control, it may not be possible that culture

be considered a singularist because it is encompassed with

diversities and dynamics, however when the culture is

appropriate, it permits a conducive atmosphere for learning

(Aujirapongpan et al,. 2010 and Senge 2006).

An organization needs its strategy to be right and its

structure and culture to support it to stay in business,

although these may not guarantee success into the future due

to uncontrollable factors like resource despondency which

results in aggressive source for resources and perhaps a

5 | P a g e

1007022

likely scarce period may alter the Strategy, Structure and

Cultural makeup at that point in time (Moran 2011 and Nazari et

al,. 2011).

The influence of Organizational Learning (OL) enabling factors

on KM is to extract tangible knowledge gained by the

organization and individual in the learning process to enable

the organization be proactive in time of gradual rather than

spontaneous change (Lee Kelley et al,. 2007 and Haldin -

Herrgard 2000).

Aujirapongpan et al (2010) however argued that Information

Technology (IT) and Technological knowledge like the

automation of human functions are likely to flatten

organizational structures and the analysis of Personnel

relationships and communication that may aid the understanding

of people within and outside the organization are also very

important factors that may influence KM, but IT in its quest

to take credit for technical Knowledge, fell short in its

inability to codify Tacit knowledge.

Theoretical Foundation of the theory of KM and OL

From the above highlight of the factors influencing KM,

further analysis of KM induce the writer to consider relevant

theoretical framework and to critique the different aspects of

each perspective, identifying and evaluating the pros and cons

of constructs, proposing and justifying a more suitable theory

6 | P a g e

1007022

that may help provide an in-depth understanding into KM

(Easterby-Smith, 2007).

Peter Senge (2006) – a foremost campaigner of Organizational

Learning proposed five disciplines that a learning

organization should master, he categorised them as Systems

Thinking, Personal Mastery, Mental Models, Building Shared

Vision and Team Learning.

Furtherance to his analysis, the underpinning of his theory

can be summarised that certain universal principles aligns

every possible aspect of an organization and may affect

actions. However, most organizations and management theories

apply simplistic models to very complex managerial issues.

According to him, no organization operates in isolation, these

calls for conscious and gradual learning process from the

individual to the organization, geared by a sense of

commitment achievable outside predictive assumption. Mental

Models enables the development of new ideas and processes

immersed in the business strategy in broad context and still

retain control. The impact of shared vision is the ability of

a leader to hold collective picture of the future of the

organization that drives individual desire to learn and act.

Team learning encourages simple dialogue that eliminates

likely assumptions and creates room for collective thinking

(Senge 2006).

Although, his theory has been beautifully intertwined into

organizational learning process, the framework which is built

from theoretical antecedents may not be easy to quantify (Bui

7 | P a g e

1007022

and Baruchy 2010) thus assumed, using these concepts to

conceal complex issues of practical management problems

(Wilson 2002).

Choo (2004) in his first publication proposes that an

organization has obtained three types of Knowledge; as opposed

to the limitation of Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) model:

Tacit knowledge is the knowledge inherent in the internal

membrane of an individual, and can only be transferred via

interaction and communication; it is thus un-codified and

likely un-predictable. Explicit Knowledge, are easily captured

and transferred. Cultural Knowledge on the other hand maybe

expressed in mannerisms, artefacts, shared beliefs, norms and

values etc. It depicts ‘the way things run around here’. An

understanding of the culture within an organization creates

opportunity for managers to extract collective understanding

and knowledge interpretation (Moran 2011, and Roberts 2006).

As much as Choo’s concept concedes the types of knowledge

which streamlines KM understanding, the author however, argues

that the theory fail to put into consideration the paramount

importance of the social relations of production in form of

exchange, power and control that permits people to manipulate

their knowledge and keep it to themselves and only through

exchange/reward it likely be expressed.

Lave and Wenger (2002) and Oberty and Perez (2006) in their

contribution to KM proposed Knowledge Transfer-Communities of

practice which emphasises an activity of collaborate network

of individuals that permits shared understanding about work

8 | P a g e

1007022

functions and its impact on the totality of employee lifestyle

and community, which integrates perceptions of work

responsibilities and actions.

This practice recognizes the medium of obtaining, developing

and transferring knowledge (Roberts 2006) however, cogitation

draws attention to lapses which may occur during the process

of acquisition to dissemination and possible disruption

scenario in process (Marshall and Rollinson 2004) and the

idyllic integration of understanding and actions of

individuals same way depicts a unitarist framework.

Collison and Parcell (2005) model portrays vast strength in

terms of application which is assumed to be relevant in

today’s setting and may also fit into any organization despite

differences of territory and size.

The methodology buttresses the impact of socialization in

terms of people and communication when backed with suitable

structure and environmental intervention; it also prevents

mistake reoccurrence and considers cultural barrier which

often exist within the organizational context (Collison and

Parcell 2005). Although the theory assumes a pluralist

framework, the author observes that the rationale for monetary

reward as the final outcome is not justified, sometimes

reputation and goodwill may replace financial outcomes,

similarly there’s no rational that depicts the explanation of

captured knowledge. (Appendix 1)

Critiques and Limitations of KM Concepts.

9 | P a g e

1007022

Lopez et al (2005), pointed out that most organizations and

theorist may be truly interested in acquiring knowledge that

better influences their strategy and operations, but little

emphasis is placed on who is learning what, most often

organizational strategy operates outside its structure and

culture, and the concept of time may result in drawback for

organizations who takes the integration of the entity of the

system into consideration, as the influence of culture change

which is often slow may disrupt strategic actions.

Herrgard-Haldin (2000), highlighted certain aspects of

knowledge acquisition and implementation that most authors in

their equivocality fail to address, he concurred that though

KM may contribute to competitive advantage, the different

methods of knowledge transmission and flow within

organizations, language, time and distance are often not

analysed as much as it affects KM within and outside the

organization.

Alvesson et al,. (2002), pointed out that fragmented problems of

KM in terms of equivocality of the concept that fail to put

into consideration the impact of conflict and personality, as

supported by Collins (1998), lack of coherence in theory and

in use and the theoretical migration from Knowledge to

Knowledge Management eliminates the in-depth analysis of KM.

Furthermore, Svieby (2007), argued that the emphasis on KM has

not produced evident and viable result in practice. He

observed negligence on the issue of resistance to participate

in the sharing of one’s Knowledge whether tacit or explicit.

10 | P a g e

1007022

According to him, the biggest problem of KM is the inherent

culture of Hoarding knowledge; learning and sharing emits from

a desire that encourages one’s participation in social

activities. No KM theory puts into consideration the

difficulty of knowledge acquisition from an individual who

wants to do his thing and don’t get in the way of others.

Nazari et al (2011), opines that the organizational culture

which is often slow to change and difficult to predict which

is one of the opposing factor to organizational success if not

carried along effectively the concept of KM, while Lowe

(2007), considered the issue of structure a negating factor if

not participatory.

According to Burgess (2005), The compensating reward of KM by

organization may result in following scenario; employees who

are likely to gain hierarchical promotion gather as much

information beneficial to their aspirations instead of sharing

while employees who are likely to gain financial rewards share

information beyond their work groups or teams to gain

attention, therefore disrupting the sharing and flow of

information (Friesl et al 2011 and Tseng 2011), which

contradicts the concept of KM.

Finally, Wilson (2002), states that information is different

from knowledge, this contradicts the definition of Knowledge

by Goel et al (2010), and the concept of knowledge management,

in addition he identified the diversities in internal

structures of sharing parties which often alters the knowledge

base. He further stated that since data and information are

11 | P a g e

1007022

possible products for manipulation, it is not possible to

manage what is known internally only the owner may be able

assert some form of control. This argument considers the

social relations of production and acknowledges obsolete and

forgotten knowledge.

For the purpose of this study the author will adopt the work

of Lustri et al (2007), ‘Knowledge management model: practical

application for competency development’.

Lustri et al (2007), in his model acknowledges that the overall

organization knowledge creation begins with the individual

knowledge which stems from blending and diffusion of

information, interpretation, reflection and experience of

particular phenomena. He asserted that there has to be purpose

driven learning process that impels an individual learning

commitment, people must understand the reason for knowledge

creation and what necessary information is needed, and the

reason for shared vision.

To buttress his point, he implored Senge (2006) ‘ the fifth

discipline’ concept from the dimension of shared vision,

suggesting that shared perception of a mental picture gives

room for broader ideas to be shared, and a collection of these

ideas which can be trusted and void of univocal framework.

Furthermore, focusing on the impact of externalization by

Nonaka et al (1993), he opined that once an atmosphere for the

combination of tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge through

externalization is supported by a learning organization; group

12 | P a g e

1007022

learning is enhanced resulting in a continuum of learning and

innovation (Kaizen).

However, Lustri et al (2007), recognizes the difficulties of

practically managing and controlling an individual knowledge

and capabilities. They suggested that organizations strategies

should adequately sustain the development of individual

learning, geared by a structure that is less rigid and

mechanistic, which altogether reckons with the influences of

the environment, and sustains constructive relationship that

propels the extraction of relevant knowledge required by the

organization to carry out its strategy.

Lustri et al (2007), illustrated his work diagrammatically

depicting stages that demonstrates the factors of KM.

(Appendix 2), these can be explained thus:

1st Stage: this stage brings to bear the preparatory juncture

of knowledge creation, it portrays the conceptualization of

strategies and how it is perceived, it reflects an environment

where new and existing model of thinking are fostered the

individual knowledge and information being processed which

encourages cognitive and emotive influences and limits the

impact of unilinear decision making.

2nd Stage: Illustrates the process of socialization that

influences the expression of tacit knowledge, via interaction

in formal and informal modes of communication, resulting in

group learning as diversity in opinion and a flexible learning

environment propel alternative solutions to complex client and

organizations issues. However the concept of the broken lines

13 | P a g e

1007022

within the cyclical stage may cause possible interference

which may disrupt the learning process and cause information

loss not easily recoverable.

3rd Stage: this stage conceptualizes the distribution of

knowledge from the perspective of mentoring. It promotes and

encourages training within the organization and creates a

platform for consideration and attentiveness.

4th Stage: instigates the process of knowledge acquired into

practical terms which is more closely to the factors that can

influence its operations, thus more vulnerable and likely to

be affected adversely.

The criteria for selecting this methodology is that the theory

takes into consideration the influence of the environment,

strategy and structure outside the continuum of knowledge

creation, and culture, within the initial stage of knowledge

formulation. The concept of the broken lines suggests

possible disruptions and changes which may emit from factors

outside the application process.

Although the theory may be criticised to suggest a formulaic

and systematic recipe for knowledge creation, and likely hood

of equivocality of complex issues which may take longer time

for the organization to arrive at viable solution, the theory

puts all negating factors into consideration, and the

institutionalization of practical concept of dissemination and

application, propels author’s choice.

Analysis of the case study on NTPC by Goel et al (2010)

14 | P a g e

1007022

Coined from the analysis of KM above, and a preceding thorough

perusal of the case study, the author observed fundamental

deduction from the abstract statement of the case.

Attention was drawn to the fact that no methodology was

employed during the course of the study resulting in the

author’s repudiation of the findings, reducing it to mere

guesses, assumption and uni-vocality. According to Kothari

(2008), a good research method can be characterised by the

utilization of one or more research methods (Specter 2006).

This help to eliminate the excessive simplification of the

true state of things.

Furthermore, Goel et al (2010) definition and explanation of

knowledge is rather ambiguous, being that a lot of

organization do not disclose their entire knowledge let alone

describe how to use it (Svieby 2007), taking into

consideration the inflow and outflow of employees results in

information sabotage, also given the diversities of individual

structure, the level of retention and assimilation is

different and cannot be generalised (Wilson 2002). Again,

highlights of Goel et al (2010), concept of organization

knowledge storage evidently support routine and mechanistic

structure, resulting in change resistance and less innovation

(Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995).

Goel et al (2010), nevertheless acknowledges the significant

contribution of KM in terms of implementing strategies that

recognizes the environmental and social context. However the

structure that permits gradual and evolving application of

15 | P a g e

1007022

knowledge is not recognised. They considered the exploitation

of resource by an organization through KM that enables the

organization achieve results better than its competitors in

order to address the industry’s future success factors. The

author nonetheless dispute that, there is a significant

difference between organization and industry, stating that

there’s no available resource sufficient enough for an

organization to be able to tackle an industry’s future, the

statement seems to contain some form of ambiguity, a dualist

framework presented as a mono-concept.

However Goel et al (2010), observed the diversities and

perception of ideologies about KM, which according to Alvesson

et al (2002), results in uni-directional, sequential

dependence on the minor elements of KM, to avert tangible

criticisms on the core of the subject matter, an example of

which can be traced to Goel et al description of ‘Knowledge

Management (KM), as the management of knowledge, this approach

carries on a reductionist and simplistic framework.

In Goel et al (2010), quest to relate KM to other field of study

opined that KM has become the most sought after (key) economic

dominant resource, but the author argues that this statement

is a generalization of a mono-causal and univocal assertion,

because in natural sense, the quest for KM may never replace

the need for basic necessities or want of monetary gains. An

example according to the World Food Programme (WFP) (2011),

claim that rising food prices have pushed 44 million people

into intense poverty and hunger since June 2010, undoubtedly

the quest of these people will be to meet their basic demand. 16 | P a g e

1007022

An understanding of the classification of knowledge into

Tacit, Explicit and Culture by Choo (2004), draws the author’s

attention to possible lack of in-depth research by Goel and

his counterparts on the subject matter, given that the

rationale for adopting Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995), types of

knowledge, which was rectified in latter publication by Nonaka

and Teece (2001), before Goel et al research was conducted in

2010, was not mentioned thereby legitimizing a univocal

concept.

Goel et al (2010), claim that the usefulness of knowledge can

be traced to sharing and a community that collaboratively

explores technology at a given time and place; a concepts that

depicts a community that does things together same time and

place in the author’s view is mechanistic predictive and

disregards the diversities in culture also the individual

level of understanding and assimilation is not considered a

possible negating factor, this idea supports a unitarist

framework that assumes collectivism and similarities amongst

individuals.

Another aspect of Goel et al (2010), study as stated in concept

of real-time KM scenario pointed out that tacit knowledge

cannot be captured nor documented; if this is true what is the

rational for socialisation as advocated by Nonaka and Takeuchi

(1995), in the SECI model (Appendix 3) and why is key

attention placed on learning if tacit knowledge cannot be

extracted and diffused.

17 | P a g e

1007022

However, the concept of continuous invention mentioned by Goel

et al (2010), as KM criteria for making processes better

(kaizen) is a good propeller of his thoughts. Nevertheless the

bases of categorising organisations unique resources on

specialised assets, without mentioning accurate implementation

of these resources makes the author argue that the acquisition

of resources is one advantage and the effective implementation

and utilisation is another. This reflects homeostatic

dynamics, a dependent and independent factor equilibrated to

produce effectiveness and efficiency.

To compound this problem Goel et al (2010), provided examples of

companies assumed to utilize KM concepts but the rationale

for selecting these examples of sky scraping jet flying,

capital intensive based, private and western corporations,

made the author query if KM has any meaningful contribution

to medium and small enterprises; what is the criterion behind

the conclusion that these large corporations truly focus on

storing their business best practices- wo der beweis ist

(where is evidence) and was kostete es (what does it cost),

the above example then assumes that organisations that cannot

afford KM may never benefit from the fruit of its labour. This

is a common example of a lucid assumption that results from

confused perception.

Furtherance to the case, a one stop knowledge sharing process

asserted by Goel et al (2010), supports Lakshya a means of

NTPC cataloguing, tracking, and assessing organisational wide

knowledge and disseminating this information via a central

source. However the author contends with the viability of the18 | P a g e

1007022

functions of Laksya, arguing with reference to Wilson’s

perception, in his publication ‘the nonsense of KM’ (2002),

that no organization encodes its entire knowledge in a central

system for all to readily see and analyse. Furthermore, the

author assumes NTPC is not proactive given that they often

wait for their competitors to act before they react, depicting

an organization that retrieve and assimilate stale ideas or

strategy from competitors, thus less innovative, presenting

NTPC as a single–loop learning organization. More also, the

codification and storage approach deployed by NTPC assumes

that the organization largely relies on technological means of

storing knowledge (Lakshya) but the back-up system necessary

in case of loss of information or system damage was not

mentioned, reducing the importance of its existence, if it

ever does exist.

Further perusal into the case study identified some viable

suggestions of Goel et al were he made mention NTPC’s

strategy and vision of becoming a learning organization, a structure

and a recognition of social relations of production when he

advised incentives for contributions and users and a mention

of culture, but the impact of the environmental and social

factors was not considered, thereafter Goel et al (2010),

convinced of noticing some level of cultural transformation in

NTPC during their research, provoked the query of how long

the study was carried out given that NTPC has about 6000

staffs, to actually recognise a change so quickly, citing from

the work of renowned authors like (Senge 2006, and Lee Kelley

et al,. 2007), cultural changes although very possible, often

19 | P a g e

1007022

commences in slower pace, putting into consideration time and

cost.

He further proposed a regimented work structure using

analogies and the concept of reification; that employees

should be coined into KM system without taking into

consideration the Social relations of production (Wilson

2002).

Finally, the author observed that although the NTPC processes

listed by Goel et al (2010), addresses a vast aspects of KM

dissemination procedure, however no process was listed that

address cases of error or mistake e.g. system breakdown and an

alternative line of action; no referral to previous steps in

order to monitor progress, which portrays a mechanistic

process, less likely to induce learning.

Conclusion

As a result of the short comings observed in the research

carried out by Goel et al (2010), the author suggest that any

mechanistic structure and process adopted by an organization

will not influence innovation that is birth via socialization.

This has been observed to be synonymous with Government

organizations categorised with ambiguous hierarchical

20 | P a g e

1007022

structures. The awareness of the inherent diversities and

uniqueness of organizations should induce NTPC to carry out

thorough analysis of its strategy, structure, and Culture

supported by good leadership that takes into consideration the

social relations of production thus willing to make exchange

in form of reward to avoid Knowledge hoarding and also the

recognition of environmental influences that are likely to

disrupt the process of learning.

Also NTPC as a knowledge driven organization should pay

attention to their knowledge bank and opt for backup systems

and also utilize their knowledge in been proactive rather than

expect competitor’s action or strategy before action.

21 | P a g e

1007022

References

Case Study Analysis of NTPC by Goel et al:

Goel A, Sharma G and Rastogi R, (2010) "Knowledge management

implementation in NTPC: an Indian PSU", Management Decision, Vol. 48,

No: 3, pp.383 – 395 online available

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?issn=0025-

1747&volume=48&issue=3&articleid=1858066&show=abstract&PHPSESS

ID=40ls1n72dr88b6ab2vpm7fu4f7 accessed 28/02/2011

Moran, P. (2010), Managerial challenges of change, Lecture Notes, The

University of Bolton

Books

Allen, P., Maguire, S. and Mckelvey, B. (2011) The sage handbook

of complexity and management. 1st Edition. pp. 436. Online available

http://books.google.co.uk/books?

hl=en&lr=&id=1gigO0XpXiEC&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=The+sage+handbook+o

f+complexity+and+management.

+&ots=mc_R3rHv1B&sig=PO001oA23zauptM4TUcZujkxrtI#v=onepage&q&f

=false accessed 13/04/2011

Collins, D., (1998) Organizational change: Sociological Perspective. 1st

Edition.

22 | P a g e

1007022

http://books.google.co.uk/books?

hl=en&lr=&id=qS9glOO5BQEC&oi=fnd&pg=PR6&dq=Collins,+D.,+

%281998%29+Organizational+change:

+Sociological+Perspective&ots=MYMsdsrhSY&sig=RL7pRbyYC4Al27CCJ

p1-_ck8Q70#v=onepage&q&f=false accessed 02/05/2011

Easterby-Smith, M., and Lyles, M.A. (2005) Handbook of

Organisational Learning and Knowledge Management. Oxford Blackwell

Publishing, Review 1.Online available

http://books.google.co.uk/books?

hl=en&lr=&id=pXaULQiORPQC&oi=fnd&pg=PR8&dq=Easterby-Smith,+M.,

+and+Lyles,+M.A.+

%282005%29+Handbook+of+Organisational+Learning+and+Knowledge+M

anagement.+&ots=-

cClPzsLeD&sig=91ZaPrqrtQt_9lnIpY1aILvWgjY#v=onepage&q&f=false

accessed 05/04/2011

Kothari, C.R., (2008) Research methods: Methods and techniques. 2nd

Edition. Online available

http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=8c6gkbKi-

F4C&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=Kothari,+C.R.,+

%282008%29+Research+methods:+Methods+and+techniques.

+2nd+Edition&ots=iGfDoXP7qL&sig=gaoKqsE9kJDgsnKzhRLPnIgKsec#v=

onepage&q&f=false accessed 10/04/2011

23 | P a g e

1007022

Lave, J., and Wenger, E. (2003) Situated Learning Legitimate

Peripheral Participation. Cambridge, Cambridge University

Press. Online available

http://books.google.com/books?

hl=en&lr=&id=CAVIOrW3vYAC&oi=fnd&pg=PA9&dq=lave+and+wenger&ots

=OAkDst2JIq&sig=stmmMk9xJGEhLHKKB-

5_bar4adM#v=onepage&q&f=false

Nonaka, I., and Takeuchi, H. (1995): The Knowledge-Creating

Company, OUP, New York. Online available

http://km.camt.cmu.ac.th/phdkm/2004_3_cw/Anukul/4%20Literature

%20and%20Critical%20Reviews/4.1%20Critical%20Reviews/18-

Knowlege%20Creating%20Company%20Summary.pdf assessed

16/04/2011

Nonaka, I., and. Teece, D.J. (2001). Managing Industrial Knowledge:

Creation, Transfer and Utilization. Sage, London. Online

available

http://books.google.co.uk/books?

hl=en&lr=&id=TUPP_a7ICK4C&oi=fnd&pg=PA229&dq=Nonaka+and+Teece&

ots=XqJTBtVngY&sig=lyaw_LPgc62s2HMP_ieuLWSWxpg#v=onepage&q=Non

aka%20and%20Teece&f=false accessed 10/04/2011

24 | P a g e

1007022

Senge, P. M. (2006) The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the

learning organization, London: Random House, 2nd edition.

Online available

http://pages.suddenlink.net/acgoodman/ALEC_609/ARTICLES/peter

%20senge%20and%20the%20theory%20and%20practice%20of%20the

%20learning%20organization.pdf accessed 05/04/2011

Journals

Alvesson, M., Karreman, D. and Swan, J. (2002) Departures from

Knowledge and / or Management in Knowledge Management. Management

Communication Quarterly; Vol.16, No: 2, pp. 282-291. Online

available

http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?

_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ659011&ERICExtSearc

h_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ659011 accessed 23/04/2011

Aujirapongpan, S., Vadhanasindhy, P. and Chandrachain T.

(2010) Indicators of Knowledge Management capability for Knowledge

Management Effectiveness. Journal of Information and Knowledge

Management System, Vol. 40, No: 2, pp.183-203.

Bui, H., Baruch, Y. (2010) Creating learning organizations in higher

education: applying a systems perspective, The Learning

Organization, Vol. 17 No.3, pp.228 – 242. Online available

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?

articleid=1853416&show=abstract accessed 10/04/2011

25 | P a g e

1007022

Burgess, D., (2005) What motivates employees to transfer

outside their work unit. Journal of Business Communication.

Vol. 42, No: 4, pp. 324-348. Online available

http://job.sagepub.com/content/42/4/324.short assessed

10/04/2011

Choo, C., (2001), The Knowing Organization as Learning

Organization. Journal of Education and Training, Vol. 43, No: 4/5,

pp. 197-205. Online available

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?issn=0040-

0912&volume=43&issue=4/5&articleid=837682&show=html assessed

18/04/2011

Friesl, S., Sackmann, S. and Kremser, S. (2011) Knowledge sharing

in new organizations entities: The impact of hierarchical

organizational context, micro politics and suspicion. Cross

Cultural Management journal: An International Journal, Vol.

18, No: 1, pp. 71-86. Online available

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?issn=1352-

7606&volume=18&issue=1&articleid=1905647&show=html assessed

16/04/2011

26 | P a g e

1007022

Haldin-Herrgard, T., (2000), Difficulties in diffusion of

tacit knowledge in organizations, Journal of Intellectual

Capital, Vol. 1, No: 4, pp. 357. Online available

http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?

did=82396335&sid=4&Fmt=3&clientId=48146&RQT=309&VName=PQD

accessed 24/04/2011

Hay, I., (2006) Transformational Leadership: characteristics and

Criticisms, Vol. 5, No: 2. Pp. 45-59. Online available

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a71570

0726 assessed 30/04/2011

Lee, J., and Choi, B. (2010) Determinates of Knowledge management

Assimilation: An empirical investigation. Engineering Management,

IEEE Transactions, Vol. 57, No: 3, pp. 430-449. Online

available

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?

arnumber=5357438 assessed 04/04/2011

Lee-kelley, L., Blackman, D. and Hurst, J. (2007) An exploration of

the relationship between Learning organizations and the retention of knowledge

workers. The Learning Organization, Vol. 14, No: 3, pp. 204-221.

Online available http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?

issn=0969-6474&volume=14&issue=3&articleid=1602482&show=html

assessed 17/04/2011

27 | P a g e

1007022

Liao, S.H., Wu, C.C. (2010) System perspective of knowledge

management, organizational learning, and organizational

innovation. Expert Systems with Applications Vol. 37 No: 2,

pp. 1096 –1103. Online available

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?

_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V03-4WSHK20-

1&_user=788780&_coverDate=03%2F31%2F2010&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_or

ig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchS

trId=1750127609&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000043322&_

version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=788780&md5=b258210e50d8804d794

d139ca0af4f27&searchtype=a accessed 18/04/2011

López, S. P., Peón, J. M., and Ordás, C.J. (2005)

Organizational learning as a determining factor in business

performance, The Learning Organization, Vol. 12 No: 3, pp.227

– 245. Online available

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?

articleid=1464398&show=abstract accessed 05/04/2011

Lowe, A., (2007) Knowledge management in a New Zealand tree

farming company: Ambiguity and resistance to the “Technology

Solution”. Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol.

20, No: 4, pp. 539-558. Online available

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?

articleid=1615748&show=abstract

28 | P a g e

1007022

Lustri, D., Miura, I. and Takahashi, S. (2007), Knowledge

management model: practical application for competency

development, The Learning Organization, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp.

186-202. Online available

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?

articleid=1597946&show=abstract accessed 16/04/2011

Marshall, N., and Rollinson, J. (2004) Maybe bacon had a

point: the politics of interpretation in collective sense

making. British Journal of management, Vol.15, No: 51, pp.71-

86. Online available

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-

8551.2004.00407.x/full accessed 20/04/2011

McAdam, R., and Reid, R. (2000) A Comparison of Public and

Private Sector: Perceptions and Use of Knowledge Management.

Journal of European Industrial Training Vol. 24, No: 6, pp.

317. Online available

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?issn=0309-

0590&volume=24&issue=6&articleid=837027&show=html accessed

20/04/2011

Nazari, J., Herremans, I. Isaac, R. Manassian, A. and Kline,

T. (2011) Organizational culture, climate and IC: an

29 | P a g e

1007022

interaction analysis. Journal of intellectual capital, Vol.

12, No: 2, pp. 224-248. Online available

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?

articleid=1918097&show=abstract accessed 23/04/2011

Oberty, C., and Perez, P. (2006) Work Teams to Favour

Knowledge Management: Towards Communities of Practice.

European Business Review; Vol.18, No: 1, pp. 60-76.

Roberts, J., (2006) Limits to Communities of Practice. Journal of Management Studies,

Vol. 43, No: 3, pp.623-639. Online available

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00618.x/full

assessed 01/05/2011

Spector, P., (2006) Method variance in Organizational Resource.

Organizational Resource Methods. Vol. 9, No: 2, pp. 221-22.

Online available

http://orm.sagepub.com/content/9/2/221.short assessed

03/05/2011

Svieby, K., (2007) Disabling the context for knowledge work:

the role of managers behaviour. Management Decision Journal,

Vol. 45, No: 10, pp. 1636-1655. Online available

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?

articleid=1637361&show=abstract

30 | P a g e

1007022

Tseng, S., (2008) Knowledge management system performance

measure index. Expert Systems with Applications Vol. 34 No: 1,

pp. 734 – 745. Online available

http://kplab.fei.tuke.sk/hardwiki-mz/images/d/db/Shu-

Mei_Tseng.pdf accessed 16/04/2011

Wilson, T.D. (2002) "The nonsense of 'knowledge management'"

Information Research, Vol. 8, No: 1, pp. 144.   Online

available

Online available http://informationr.net/ir/8-1/paper144.html

accessed 29/04/2011

Zack, M., Mckeen, J. And Singh, S. (2009) Knowledge Management and

Organizational performance: an exploratory analysis. Journal of Knowledge

management, Vol. 13, No: 6, pp. 392-409. Online available

http://ilovecisers.kaist.ac.kr/Research/file/125.pdf assessed 05/05/2011

Zheng, W., Yang, B. and McLean, G.N. (2010) Linking

organizational culture, structure, strategy, and

organizational effectiveness: Mediating role of knowledge

management. Journal of Business Research, Vol. 63 No: 7,

pp.763 – 771. Online available

31 | P a g e

1007022

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?

_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V7S-4WRKF7T-

2&_user=788780&_coverDate=07%2F31%2F2010&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_or

ig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchS

trId=1750113482&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000043322&_

version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=788780&md5=e9810778124d1de0a01

7b7f0ec4b3658&searchtype=a accessed 18/04/2011

Articles

Garvin, D., Edmondson, A. and Gino, F. (2008) Is Yours a

Learning Organization. Harvard Business Review. Online

available

http://matrixworkscorporate.com/images/R0803H-PDF-ENG.PDF

assessed 19/04/2011

Goh, S., Elliott, C. and Quon, T. (2009) The learning organization and performance:

Meta-analytical findings and implications for research. ASAC 2009. Niagara Falls.

Ontario. Online available

http://ojs.acadiau.ca/index.php/ASAC/article/viewFile/556/465 assessed

16/04/2011

World Food Programme (WFP), (2011) The Food Price

Rollercoaster. Online available

http://www.wfp.org/stories/rising-food-prices-infographic?

gclid=COzW04-44qgCFQoZ4QodXwjvCQ accessed 12/04/2011

32 | P a g e

1007022

Appendixes

33 | P a g e

1007022

Appendix 1: Illustration of Collison and Parcell (2005) theory

Appendix 2 illustration of Lustri et al (2007) theory

Ref: Source Lustri et al (2007)

Appendix 3

34 | P a g e

1007022

SECI model: Propounded by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995)

35 | P a g e