Technology management: a knowledge ecology perspective

Bowonder, B.; Miyake, T.

doi:10.1504/ijtm.2000.002841

Cited by 29 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Winter's (1987) and Kogut and Zander's (1992) work initiated a line of inquiry in strategic management often referred to as the "knowledge-based view of the firm" (e.g., von Krogh et al 1994, Spender and Grant 1996, Tsoukas 1996, Spender 1996, Szulanski 1996, Gupta and Govindarajan 2000; see also Foss 1996). The knowledge-based view included strategies for managing knowledge assets (e.g., Boisot 1998;Chou and He 2004;Nonaka et al 2000Nonaka et al , 2005bTeece 1998Teece , 2000Bowonder and Miyake 2000;Chen and Edgington 2005). Authors empirically tested the implications of these strategies for firm performance (e.g., Bierly and Chakrabarti 1996, De Carolis and Deeds 1999, Dröge et al 2003, Poppo and Zenger 1998, Sabherwal and Sabherwal 2005, Choi and Lee 2002 and provided empirical support for Winter's (1987) original conjecture.…”

Section: Organizational Knowledge Creationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perspective—Tacit Knowledge and Knowledge Conversion: Controversy and Advancement in Organizational Knowledge Creation Theory

Nonaka

Krogh

2009

Organization Science

1,452

1,008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

N onaka's paper [1994. A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organ. Sci. 5(1) 14-37] contributed to the concepts of "tacit knowledge" and "knowledge conversion" in organization science. We present work that shaped the development of organizational knowledge creation theory and identify two premises upon which more than 15 years of extensive academic work has been conducted: (1) tacit and explicit knowledge can be conceptually distinguished along a continuum; (2) knowledge conversion explains, theoretically and empirically, the interaction between tacit and explicit knowledge. Recently, scholars have raised several issues regarding the understanding of tacit knowledge as well as the interaction between tacit and explicit knowledge in the theory. The purpose of this article is to introduce and comment on the debate about organizational knowledge creation theory. We aim to help scholars make sense of this debate by synthesizing six fundamental questions on organizational knowledge creation theory. Next, we seek to elaborate and advance the theory by responding to questions and incorporating new research. Finally, we discuss implications of our endeavor for organization science.

show abstract

Section: Organizational Knowledge Creationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perspective—Tacit Knowledge and Knowledge Conversion: Controversy and Advancement in Organizational Knowledge Creation Theory

Nonaka

Krogh

2009

Organization Science

1,452

1,008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…not as a sample of one, it is evident that the learning mechanism underlying entrepreneurial action is enabled by key actors' legitimate social participation at intra-and interorganisational/intercommunal levels. Technological knowledge and capabilities underpinning entrepreneurial action are inextricably linked with social participation in a web of learning systems and ecologies of knowledge (Brown and Duguid, 1998;Bowonder and Miyake, 2000;Brown and Duguid, 2001). Importantly, the ability to effect entrepreneurial action and diversity into high-value manufacturing hinges on displaying a learning capability defined in social communities (Wenger, 1998(Wenger, , 2000Wenger et al, 2002).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diversifying into technical clothing manufacture as entrepreneurial learning

Theodorakopoulos

McGowan

Bennett

et al. 2014

Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose-The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate analytically how entrepreneurial action as learning relating to diversifying into technical clothing-i.e. a high value manufacturing sectorcan take place. This is particularly relevant to recent discussion and debate in academic and policy-making circles concerning the salvage of the clothing manufacture industry in developed industrialised countries. Design/methodology/approach-Using situated learning theory (SLT) as the major analytical lens, this case study examines an episode of entrepreneurial action relating to diversification into a high-value manufacturing sector. It is considered on instrumentality grounds, revealing wider tendencies in the management of knowledge and capabilities requisite for effective entrepreneurial action of this kind. Findings-Boundary events, brokers, boundary objects, membership structures and inclusive participation that addresses power asymmetries are found to be crucial organisational design elements enabling the development of inter-and intracommunal capacities. These together constitute a dynamic learning capability, which underpins entrepreneurial action, such as diversification into high-value manufacturing sectors. Research limitations/implications-Future research should undertake a multiple-case study involving firms of different age, in different development stage, operating in contrasting sectors and should focus on the organisational design elements advanced in this paper and their interplay. Practical implications-It is argued that optimising the function of these organisational design elements is pivotal in the development of the technological knowledge and capabilities required for effective diversification into technical clothing in particular and high-value manufacturing more generally. Originality/value-Through a refinement of SLT in the context of entrepreneurial action, the paper contributes to an advancement of a substantive theory of managing technological knowledge and capabilities for effective diversification into high-value manufacturing sectors.

show abstract

“…Hence, the ecosystem of a company comprises all the strong and weak ties to organizations involved in the process of value creation, often led by a focal company (Buciuni, Coro, & Micelli 2013, Adner & Kapoor 2010. In this process, not only suppliers and customers, but also competitors or research institutes, financial investors, policymakers, and regulators are involved (see also Bowonder & Miyake 2000). The interactions within an ecosystem are not limited to economic transactions.…”

Section: Box 2: the Innovation Ecosystem Conceptmentioning

confidence: 99%