If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.Abstract Current conceptions of how to measure and manage intellectual capital (IC) suffer from a failure to take``social capital'' rigorously into account. This is a shortcoming of current thinking in the IC arena. Of particular concern is the absence of``social innovation capital'' (SIC) from the scope of leading IC schemes. SIC, the collective capacity of a firm to innovate, is arguably the most valuable form of IC because it underlies a firm's fundamental capacity to learn, innovate, and adapt. Using one leading IC scheme as a basis for analysis (Skandia's), the absence of social capital, and SIC in particular, is highlighted, along with a description of what Skandia's taxonomy would look like if it were to take social capital fully into account. Finally, recommendations are offered on how managers can build and manage SIC, thereby enhancing their organizations' capacities to learn, innovate, and adapt in the marketplace.The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

Chronicles the unfolding convergence of thinking and practice behind knowledge management, organizational learning and complexity theory. Of particular interest are the roles that knowledge management and complexity theory play in this impending consilience of ideas. On the one hand, knowledge management is anxious to rid itself of its overly technology-centric reputation in favor of promoting the role it can play in furthering organizational learning. On the other, complexity theory, a confident solution in search of unorthodox problems, has discovered its own true place in the world, an explanation for the means by which living systems engage in adaptive learning ± the seminal source of social cognition in living systems.

No abstract

No abstract

To many in the fields of organizational learning (OL) and knowledge management (KM), the relationship between the two is something of a small mystery. The authors are practitioners coming from the KM side, who in the course of their work developed a process framework to delimit the scope of KM. They believe this framework also provides a context for viewing OL and for relating it to both social knowledge processing and KM