Knowledge management research

Knowledge Management Research  Wikipedia – Knowledge Management Knowledge management (KM) is the process of creating, sharing, using and managing the knowledge and information of an organisation It refers to a multidisciplinary approach to achieving organisational objectives by making the best use of knowledge Many large companies, public institutions and non-profit organizations have resources dedicated to internal KM efforts, often as a part of their business strategy, IT, or human resource management departments Several consulting companies provide advice regarding KM to these organizations Knowledge management efforts typically focus on organisational objectives such as improved performance, competitive advantage, innovation, the sharing of lessons learned, integration and continuous improvement of the organization These efforts overlap with organisational learning and may be distinguished from that by a greater focus on the management of knowledge as a strategic asset and on encouraging the sharing of knowledge KM is an enabler of organisational learning Knowledge management efforts have a long history, including on-the-job discussions, formal apprenticeship, discussion forums, corporate libraries, professional training, and mentoring programs With increased use of computers in the second half of the 20th century, specific adaptations of technologies such as knowledge bases, expert systems, information repositories, group decision support systems, intranets, and computer-supported cooperative work have been introduced to further enhance such efforts In the enterprise, early collections of case studies recognised the importance of knowledge management dimensions of strategy, process and measurement Key lessons learned include people and the cultural norms which influence their behaviours are the most critical resources for successful knowledge creation, dissemination and application; cognitive, social and organisational learning processes are essential to the success of a knowledge management strategy; and measurement, benchmarking and incentives are essential to accelerate the learning process and to drive cultural change In short, knowledge management programs can yield impressive benefits to individuals and organisations if they are purposeful, concrete and action-orientated KM emerged as a scientific discipline in the early 1990s It was initially supported by individual practitioners, when Skandia hired Leif Edvinsson of Sweden as the world's first Chief Knowledge Officer (CKO) Hubert Saint-Onge (formerly of CIBC, Canada), started investigating KM long before that The objective of CKOs is to manage and maximise the intangible assets of their organisations Gradually, CKOs became interested in practical and theoretical aspects of KM, and the new research field was formed The KM idea has been taken up by academics, such as Ikujiro Nonaka (Hitotsubashi University), Hirotaka Takeuchi (Hitotsubashi University), Thomas H Davenport (Babson College) and Baruch Lev (New York University) In 2001, Thomas A Stewart, former editor at Fortune magazine and subsequently the editor of Harvard Business Review, published a cover story highlighting the importance of intellectual capital in organisations The KM discipline has been gradually moving towards academic maturity First, is a trend toward higher cooperation among academics; single-author publications are less common Second, the role of practitioners has changed Their contribution to academic research declined from 30% of overall contributions up to 2002, to only 10% by 2009 Third, the number of academic knowledge management journals has been steadily growing, currently reaching 27 outlets Multiple KM disciplines exist; approaches vary by author and school As the discipline matured, academic debates increased regarding theory and practice, including: Techno-centric with a focus on technology, ideally those that enhance knowledge sharing and creation Organisational with a focus on how an organisation can be designed to facilitate knowledge processes best Ecological with a focus on the interaction of people, identity, knowledge, and environmental factors as a complex adaptive system akin to a natural ecosystem Regardless of the school of thought, core components of KM roughly include people/culture, processes/structure and technology The details depend on the perspective KM perspectives include: community of practice, social network analysis, intellectual capital, information theory complexity science, constructivism Different frameworks for distinguishing between different 'types of' knowledge exist One proposed framework for categorizing the dimensions of knowledge distinguishes tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge Tacit knowledge represents internalised knowledge that an individual may not be consciously aware of, such as to accomplish particular tasks At the opposite end of the spectrum, explicit knowledge represents knowledge that the individual holds consciously in mental focus, in a form that can easily be communicated to others Hayes and Walsham (2003) describe knowledge and knowledge management as two different perspectives The content perspective suggests that knowledge is easily stored; because it may be codified, while the relational perspective recognises the contextual and relational aspects of knowledge which can make knowledge difficult to share outside the specific context in which it is developed Subsequent research suggested that a distinction between tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge represented an oversimplification and that the notion of explicit knowledge is self-contradictory Specifically, for knowledge to be made explicit, it must be translated into information (i.e., symbols outside our heads) More recently, together with Georg von Krogh and Sven Voelpel, Nonaka returned to his earlier work in an attempt to move the debate about knowledge conversion forward A third proposed framework distinguishes between the exploratory creation of "new knowledge" (i.e., innovation) vs the transfer or exploitation of "established knowledge" within a group, organisation, or community Collaborative environments such as communities of practice or the use of social computing tools can be used for both knowledge creation and transfer Knowledge may be accessed at three stages: before, during, or after KM-related activities Organisations have tried knowledge capture incentives, including making content submission mandatory and incorporating rewards into performance measurement plans Considerable controversy exists over whether such incentives work and no consensus has emerged One strategy to KM involves actively managing knowledge (push strategy) In such an instance, individuals strive to explicitly encode their knowledge into a shared knowledge repository, such as a database, as well as retrieving knowledge they need that other individuals have provided (codification) Another strategy involves individuals making knowledge requests of experts associated with a particular subject on an ad hoc basis (pull strategy) In such an instance, expert individual(s) provide insights to requestor (personalisation) Hansen et al defined the two strategies Codification focuses on collecting and storing codified knowledge in electronic databases to make it accessible Codification can therefore refer to both tacit and explicit knowledge In contrast, personalization encourages individuals to share their knowledge directly Information technology plays a less important role, as it is only facilitates communication and knowledge sharing Multiple motivations lead organisations to undertake KM Typical considerations include: Making available increased knowledge content in the development and provision of products and services, Achieving shorter development cycles Facilitating and managing innovation and organisational learning Leveraging expertises across the organisation Increasing network connectivity between internal and external individuals Managing business environments and allowing employees to obtain relevant insights and ideas appropriate to their work Solving intractable or wicked problems Managing intellectual capital and assets in the workforce (such as the expertise and know-how possessed by key individuals or stored in repositories) References:  Nonaka, Ikujiro (1991) "The knowledge creating company" Harvard Business Review 69 (6): 96–104 Nonaka, Ikujiro; von Krogh, Georg (2009) "Tacit Knowledge and Knowledge Conversion: Controversy and Advancement in Organizational Knowledge Creation Theory" Organization Science 20 (3): 635–652 Addicot, Rachael; McGivern, Gerry; Ferlie, Ewan (2006) "Networks, Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management: NHS Cancer Networks" Public Money & Management Booker, Lorne; Bontis, Nick; Serenko, Alexander (2008) "The relevance of knowledge management and intellectual capital research" Knowledge and Process Management Rosner, D.; Grote, B.; Hartman, K.; Hofling, B.; Guericke, O (1998) "From natural language documents to sharable product knowledge: a knowledge engineering approach" Hayes, M.; Walsham, G (2003) "Knowledge sharing and ICTs: A relational perspective" Nonaka, I.; von Krogh, G & Voelpel S (2006) "Organizational knowledge creation theory: Evolutionary paths and future advances" Organization Studies "SSRN-Exploration, Exploitation, and Knowledge Management Strategies in Multi-Tier Hierarchical Organizations Experiencing Environmental Turbulence by David Bray" Is the Knowledge Society Gendered? – Walby – 2011 The article comprehensively reviews the theoretical and empirical work on gender and the knowledge society and introduces the articles of the special issue Three ways in which the knowledge society and economy are gendered are distinguished: the gendering of human capital; the gendering of networks and the gendering of the definitions of the knowledge society It finds that the choice of definition of the knowledge economy makes a difference to its gender composition: the more centred on technology and fixed capital, the more masculine, the more centred on human capital, the more gender balanced The knowledge economy provides better work and conditions Gender gaps are narrower in the knowledge economy than the overall economy: occupational hierarchies are narrowed to women’s advantage, while differences in work temporalities are narrowed to men’s advantage Is the knowledge society gendered? The development of the knowledge society has the potential to change the nature of gender relations, with implications for work and organization The knowledge society and economy draw on increases in human and social capital If human capital and social capital are gendered, then this has the potential to change the gendered nature of the workplace, with implications for work and organization There has been much celebration of the knowledge economy as the next stage of economic development (Castells, 1996), from early accounts of the coming of post-industrial society (Bell, 1973) and the second industrial divide (Piore and Sabel, 1984) that requires flexibility in working practices (Handy, 1994) and delivers human capital-rich work (Reich, 1993) with horizontal networks and personal autonomy replacing vertical hierarchies (Leadbeater, 2000, 2008) Some writers extend this celebratory approach to gender relations: Castells (1997) looks forward to the end of patriarchalism, with women’s employment leading to the transformation of family life Numerous governmental reports have asserted the simultaneous potential benefits of more women in science and technology for both gender equality and the economy in the UK (Blackwell and Glover, 2008), the European Union (EU) (European Commission, 2005) and internationally (UNESCO, 2007) In parallel, the EU’s Lisbon Agenda seeks to develop the European economy into the leading knowledge economy in the world (Kok, 2004; European Commission, 2005) and simultaneously to narrow gender gaps in employment & pay; these agendas overlapping in the European Employment Strategy (European Commission, 2005) and in policies for gender equality (Pascual et al., 2001; Rees, 1998; Walby, 2004, 2005, 2009) However, there are also hesitations, caveats and critiques Castells (1998) is careful to note that not all are likely to participate and that there will be areas without the skills and connections to benefit Boltanski and Chiapello (2005) show that autonomy can be recuperated to a fierce work ethic to the benefit of modern capitalism Quah (2003) notes that the sale of easily multiplied products made by a few can increase the gaps in rewards between the top and the bottom There has long been ambivalence as to the implications of science and technology for women and pessimism about the implications of deeply embedded gender inequality in its practices, cultures and institutions (Adam, 1998, 2005; Etzkowitz et al., 1994; Haraway, 1997; Wajcman, 1991, 2004) Reviews of the evidence on the emerging knowledge economy not suggest a clear increase in gender equality and suggest that governmental interventions have made little impact (Mósesdóttir et al., 2006; Stanworth, 2000; Walby et al., 2007) Firstly, is the increase in human capital that underpins much of the knowledge economy gendered? Secondly, are the networks through which the knowledge economy is increasingly organized gendered? Thirdly, what are the implications of the different definitions of the knowledge economy for gender relations? Fourthly, what are the gendered contours of the knowledge economy? Firstly, in a knowledge economy and society, human capital has an increased importance in production and many social activities Since women are increasingly more successful than men in gaining school-based and university-based education and qualifications they might be expected to well in the knowledge economy and society But many doubt that this has happened Is this due to women gaining the wrong sort of qualifications or cultural stereotypes, inappropriate governmental regulation or for other reasons? These issues are addressed in the articles in this issue by Mósesdóttir and Caprile and Pascual Secondly, in a knowledge economy and society there is a shift in organizational form away from domestic relations, markets and hierarchies towards networks Since women are often seen as more likely than men to possess the social skills that make for successful networking, this change in organizational form might be expected to be advantageous to women But has this occurred? Do the informal practices in networks instead facilitate various forms of informal social closure against women? These issues are addressed in articles in this issue by Banks and Milestone and by Durbin Thirdly, what are the different definitions of the knowledge society and economy and what are their implications for the understanding of gender relations here? Does a more technological focus produce a more masculinist picture than one that includes a wider range? How explicit and formal must knowledge be in order to be counted as such? Boundary issues in the definition & construction of knowledge are addressed by Nishikawa in this issue This addresses gendered inequalities in occupational hierarchies and the gendered variations in the quality of work conceptualized as spatialities, contractualities and temporalities, and multiple engagements with space, different forms of contracts, and different ways of organizing working time Distinctive spatialities include working at or from home, especially with the use of information and communication technologies (ICT) such as computers and telephones Contractualities include distancing from the employer in practices such as self-employment and temporary rather than permanent contracts Temporalities include parttime working, special working hours’ arrangements, overtime and shift working (Aneesh, 2006; Gottfried, 2003; Gottschall and Kroos, 2007; Holtgrewe, 2007; Huws et al., 1999; Sassen, 2000; Walby, 2009; Walby et al., 2007) The early understanding of capital was developed in relation to fixed capital: capital institutionalized in machines, buildings and technologies However, it is possible to identify three additional major forms of capital that are becoming more important in the information age: finance capital (Soros, 2008), human capital (Becker, 1964) and social capital (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992; Putnam, 2000) There is an increasing separation between fixed or industrial capital and finance capital Finance capital is not made up of fixed objects but circulates in a virtual form as money, credit, debt, mortgages, shares, including stock options and securitized debt obligations (Strange, 1986; Tavakoli, 2003) Its increased prominence is dependent upon the development of electronic information, communication and computing technologies that increase the speed of transactions and facilitate specific forms of risk and speculative assessments, as well as a specific politico-regulatory environment that allows (or did allow, until 2009) new financial instruments to operate and be deployed at a distance from other forms of capital (Stiglitz, 2006; Krugman, 2008) Knowledge can be understood as a form of capital, as human and social capital, when capital is understood broadly as a set of resources and a social relationship that is stabilized and institutionalized One advantage of using the concept of capital is that it embeds the concept of social relations at the centre of discussions of economic forms The knowledge economy and society is distinctive in the increased use of knowledge as a factor of production (Castells, 1996) and in the reflexive constitution of social relations and institutions (Beck, 2002; Beck et al., 1994) The concept of human capital is intended to capture the resources brought by workers to their jobs It is composed of the skills, qualifications and experience owned by individuals and embedded in their person, which can be sold on the labour market Human capital can be acquired through education in schools, universities and adult education courses and also through training on the job (Becker, 1964) In the ‘old’ economy the most important form of capital was that of fixed capital, though there has always been some small presence of the other three forms In the ‘new’ economy there is an increase in the significance of human capital, finance capital and social capital, as well as changes in the form of fixed capital The knowledge economy and society privilege those with greater amounts of human capital In both qualifications and social skills women appear to be advantaged Young women have not only closed the gender gap in enrolments and exam passes at school and university but have overtaken young men in most countries of the global North, although among older people, gender gaps in education remain Women more often than men have highly developed and effective social skills This might mean that women would well in the knowledge economy However, this does not appear to be happening (Mósesdóttir et al., 2006) There are several potential explanations for this, including gaps in education policy, specialized rather than general human capital, motherhood, occupational segregation, gender stereotypes and the devaluation of women’s human capital Are there still significant gendered educational gaps resulting in gender gaps in human capital? Although gender gaps among young people not favour men there are still gender gaps that favour men among older people Educational policy in the UK that is supposed to increase educational levels among older people through a strategy of life-long learning is not as focused on older people, as might have been expected Instead it benefits most those aged 16–19, thereby doing little to address gender inequalities among older people (Appleby and Bathmaker, 2006) While women well in acquiring the general forms of human capital that can be acquired in formal education, they less well in acquiring the specific technical skills that appear most relevant to science, engineering and technology (SET) They may achieve high levels of general human capital, but not necessarily the specific types of human capital needed for high technology jobs (Tam, 1997; Tomaskovic-Devey and Skaggs, 2002) The gender segregation in education and training can feed through to segregation in employment The debates here are not so much over the fact of segregation but, more importantly, over the reasons for the lesser value placed on women’s skills and areas of work and the reasons for the segregation of women in areas other than SET Why are the skills and qualifications that women possess treated as being of so little value in the knowledge economy? Why women acquire the wrong sort of skills for the knowledge economy? The traditional explanation for the absence of women from higher levels of jobs and pay is that motherhood precludes the equal development of women’s human capital (Budig and England, 2001) Blackwell and Glover (2008) find that women in science-based employment have both low rates of motherhood and very low retention rates, suggesting that women leave such occupations when they have children and have lower rates of return than in other sectors of the economy This implies that SET occupations are worse than others in providing the environment needed to combine paid work and care work One explanation for the relative absence of women in higher positions is that the value of their human capital is underestimated as a result of the cultural devaluation of women’s skills (Kilbourne et al., 1994), which is often considered to be a general process This type of explanation focuses on culture and gendered stereotypes In this approach, educational and occupational sex segregation is said to be due to gendered culture, ideas and stereotypes while technology is seen to be masculine These gendered ideas, stereotypes and discourses about women’s capabilities that limit women in SET can be held by women (their choice, their fault), employers or male colleagues, or by all of these groups (Erwin and Mauratto, 1998; Frenkel, 2008; Knights and Kerfoot, 2004; Phipps, 2007) In many cases the focus of the analysis is largely on the stereotypes of SET work held by girls and women This approach has long been important in UK programmes that seek to increase the proportion of women in science and engineering, offering as a remedy a revisioning of science and engineering as gender neutral and the provision of additional routes of access to education and training (Henwood, 1996) In other cases the approach to cultural stereotypes focuses instead on the beliefs held by dominant groups, thereby avoiding the tendency to blame the victim One way in which this process operates is by the naturalizing of skills found in women’s work, treating them as if they are always available to women as a consequence of their human nature, so they not need a financial or status reward This approach is found in a wide variety of works in the literature, as discussed by Adkins (1995, 1999) and Adkins and Lury, (1999) In some studies it is suggested that women, bosses and co-workers share these cultural stereotypes Ruiz Ben (2007) considers the continuing gender gap in software development and Germany’s information technology (IT) sector more broadly, finding that women are a very small proportion of workers in the technical side of the software industry Although she is interested in the use of the concept of profession and its relationship to power, her reported empirical findings concern the definition of expertise: the ideas held by men and women about technology and customer service The women defined themselves as using social rather than technical skills, and this corresponds with the expectations of the personnel managers Thus, the article focuses on the ideational world, on the role of stereotypes In a similar way Peterson (2007) focuses on the way stereotyped images of gendered qualities are used to justify the exclusion of women from IT consultancy While some studies appear to show men and women agreeing on gendered valuations of science and technology, others find diverse multiple co-existing gendered discourses that indicate a less than perfect mapping of practice and ideology This is perhaps made most visible when jobs are restructured and there are potentially new opportunities for new gender configurations An example of this is the development of new hybrid positions in information systems that need not only high level technical skills but also social skills to engage appropriately with the user and customer (Woodfield 2002; Moore et al., 2008) Woodfield (2002) investigates whether this was an opportunity in which women who have both technical and social skills could better than men who only have technical skills and much poorer social skills The outcome, however, was not one in which women did better This was despite the official rhetoric celebrating the opportunities the new hybrid positions offered to women while simultaneously meeting an industry need Rather, two alternative discourses became dominant In one women’s social skills were treated as naturally available to women and thus not important enough to be rewarded, while in the other, men’s social skills to ‘close the deal’ and to shine with wizardry were fêted Woodfield draws the conclusion that the general devaluation of women’s skills in society is the main cause of the disappointing outcome for these female hybrid workers However, while Woodfield’s description of this situation is fascinating, her explanation is unpersuasive The curious absence at the heart of this work is any analysis of power While the perception that science and technology are culturally masculine clearly exists in some locations, it is a leap too far to conclude this is a major cause of the gender composition of this field This is because the gendered culture of science and technology might be a consequence rather than a cause of its gendered composition, a mere correlation, or they might be mutually determining Critical discourse analysts, such as Fairclough (1992), caution against simple cultural determinism, suggesting that the relationship between discourse and the social environment requires investigation Hegemonic discourses are the outcome of struggles in which a variety of resources are deployed by contesting groups (Gramsci, 1971) In some accounts the contestation between competing discourses is made more visible Henwood (2000) finds that young women did just as well as if not better than young men in educational courses in technology in terms of their exam results but did not report to the interviewer the same level of confidence in their abilities as did the young men, describing themselves as less competent despite their exam achievements Henwood (1996) draws attention to studies (such as Devine, 1992) that show prejudice, negative attitudes, discrimination and active hostility towards women from the ‘male culture of the workplace’ in science and engineering To conclude: human capital is gendered in various ways Although women are increasingly gaining educational qualifications this has not had the significant impact on their position in employment that might have been expected This is partly because education and training are themselves gendered, so that women are slightly less likely than men to acquire the specialized human capital that is needed for jobs in science and technology A further aspect of this is the devaluation of women’s human capital as a consequence of the uneven distribution of gendered power that allows masculinist discourse to become hegemonic despite multiple competing discourses on gender and human capital The development of the knowledge society and economy is linked with the development of networked forms of the organization of work There are four main forms of work organization: domestic, markets, hierarchies and networks The increase in the network forms of organization is linked with the increased significance of social capital as compared with human capital: ‘who you know, not only what you know’ These changes have complex and contested implications for gender relations The most traditional form of work organization is the domestic form; not all work organization is modern Knowledge work still depends on the performance of care work (Perrons, 2007) Further, there are remnants or reinventions of domestic relations in some contexts, such as the use of couples as the employment unit in some aspects of the hospitality trade (Adkins, 1995, 1999) With modernity, the major form of work organization is that of markets However, alongside markets there exist also hierarchies and networks The very existence of the firm implies the existence of practices to organize work other than markets (Coase, 1937; Williamson, 1975) Networks are the form of work organization most often associated with knowledge work (Leadbeater, 2008) While there is often a presumption that there is an ongoing change from hierarchies to networks, the changes in the organization of highly educated labour are not entirely one way In some universities there has been an increase in commodification and marketization, on the one hand, and an increase in bureaucratization (linked to an increase in audit) on the other (Fletcher et al., 2007) There appear to be contrary trends in the industrialization of the academy and the collegialization of industrial research, suggesting a partial or asymmetrical convergence While traditional hierarchical management practices are entering the academy, collegiality and networking are increasingly found among some workers in some high technology firms (Kleinman and Vallas, 2001) The most important new form of organization in the knowledge economy is that of networks (Castells, 1996) Networks are linked to informal, flexible working practices that enable nimble responses to rapidly changing economic opportunities (Powell, 1991) The concept of network is linked to that of social capital; indeed, access to networks is the key resource that constitutes social capital (Portes, 1998) Networks have been seen as producing more egalitarian forms of working relations than markets or hierarchies (Leadbeater, 2008) Much of the enthusiasm for the knowledge economy is built around its potential for a better quality of working life But are network forms of work organization more egalitarian than other forms; they deliver a better quality of working life (Gill, 2002; Walby et al., 2007)? There are strong divides in the literature as to the implications of networked organizational forms for equality in general and gender equality in particular A key contrast is between hierarchical and networked forms of organization Are formal hierarchies worse than networks for gender equality? The answer to this question depends on whether the hierarchies are governed by principles that support or reduce gender equality Traditionally it has been the former (Walby, 1986; Witz, 1992) However, the bureaucratic nature of hierarchical work organization has proved more open than networks to recent intervention by states and other polities such as the EU that seek to regulate inequalities in the workplace The documentation and evaluation of work tasks and the regularization of recruitment and promotion means that equalities issues can be made visible and subject to controls (Walby, 1999) Powell (1991) compares networks with markets and hierarchies He suggests that networks have methods of conflict resolution that involve norms of reciprocity, as compared with haggling, court enforcement, administrative fiat and supervision The tone or climate of networks is open-ended with mutual benefits, as compared with precision, suspicion, formal and bureaucratic structures Leadbeater (2000, 2008) is a leading proponent of the advantages of networked organizational forms, in that they deliver creativity, sharing, egalitarian, independent and fulfilling working lives He celebrates the development of horizontal connections between people in networks, rather than hierarchal relations.While noting that there are some inequalities due to variations in connectedness to the e-world, he counters this with the advantages to the global South of easier access to knowledge However, networks are not only about horizontal connections and sharing but concern resources and power Varied access to networks that have power and uneven power resources available from different networks means that power is central to the operation and consequences of networks (Burt, 1992) Indeed, the concept of social capital is predicated upon networks collectively providing access to resources to those who are in the network and not to those who are not (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992; Putnam, 2000) Often, networks are made up of people of the same sex, the same ethnicity, the same religion and the same sexual orientation Networks may be centred on occupational groups, professions, trade unions and professional associations, which use their resources to maintain and enhance their positions (Devine, 1992) Networks can thus act as forms of gendered social closure in a variety of ways Male subcultures in employment can act as old boys’ networks that create barriers to women in technical areas of work (Lindsay, 2008) Their exclusiveness can be maintained by informal practices and shared leisure activities, from golf to football to lap-dancing clubs, as financial services work in the City (of London) involves various shared post-work activities (McDowell, 1997) They can: provide privileged access to information about job and promotion opportunities to members of strong or weak networks (Burt, 1992; Granovetter, 1973); create informal rules of preferment that contain criteria that benefit insiders, such as long hours and presenteeism that are hard for care givers to meet (Rutherford, 2001); provide support and encouragement to insiders to help them over difficulties, but offer a hostile (Devine, 1992) or chilly climate (Blickenstaff, 2005) to others; as well as gang up on, bully, or harass outsiders (Stanko, 1988) New organizational forms can be associated with new contractualities, new spatialities and new temporalities There is a tendency to shift away from long-term employment by a single employer with standard hours of on weekdays towards shorter contracts with more employers and unsocial hours In this way, workers rather than employers tend to bear the risks associated with employment, such as the costs of sickness, unemployment and pensions The work, while highly skilled, may be precarious However, this varies significantly between different sections of the knowledge economy (Walby et al., 2007) The definitions of the knowledge society and knowledge economy vary in what they encompass, with significant gender implications The knowledge society is a more encompassing term than the knowledge economy, for example including education and governance The definition of the knowledge economy varies in the extent to which ‘knowledge’ is centred on the technical or broadened to include a wider range of forms of science or structured knowledge, with implications for the picture of the gender composition of the knowledge economy In a knowledge society a wide range of social institutions have been restructured or inflected by new forms of knowledge, from education to governance Institutions may be more reflexive, drawing on expertise (Beck et al., 1994) There may be new ways of doing politics as a result of new ways of circulating information by e-mail and the Internet and the development of epistemic communities (Haas, 1992; Leadbeater, 2008) There may be new forms of sociality from Facebook to virtual games, with consequences for identity (Agger, 2004) There are new forms of online consumption, from shopping to gaming to porn (Adam, 2005) Education is a social institution with key implications for the shape of social relations in the knowledge economy (Appleby and Bathmaker, 2006; Brine, 2006), although not all are convinced that the development of the knowledge economy has been held back by insufficient development of human capital (Livingstone, 1999) These changes have varied implications for gender equality While there is greater inclusion of women in some areas, such as education, this is not uniform There are forms of relative gendered digital exclusion in society, in the differential gendered use of the computer and Internet, e-mail, information searching and online services, buying goods and services online and interaction with public authorities Women can be information-poor because of their income levels, socioeconomic situations and traditional cultures New forms of Internet provision, such as pornography, may reproduce traditional gender imagery The use of market mechanisms may exacerbate these gender divides There are both increases and decreases in gender equality (Adam, 2005; Törenli, 2006) Governmental institutions are important in regulating and shaping the knowledge society and economy, including its gendering The EU has promoted both the development of the knowledge economy (European Commission, 2005) and the development gender equality (European Commission, 2007) and argued for a synergy between the two in the European Employment Strategy (EES) (European Commission, 2005) However, there has been a softening in the priority accorded to gender equality over the last decade The choice of definition of the knowledge economy has important implications for its gendered image There are a range of definitions in use, including SET, ‘science, technology, engineering and mathematics’, ‘information’, IT, ICT, ‘new media’ and ‘cultural creatives’ Most recent empirical work provides accounts that are specific to particular small parts, industries or occupations including the new media (Gill, 2002), IT (Jansson et al., 2007; Peterson, 2007), ICT (Crump, 2007; Moore et al., 2008), software development (Ruiz Ben, 2007) & information systems development (Woodfield, 2002) The choice of definition is gendered Is call centre work knowledge work because it uses new ICTs or not, since most of the work is done by women and is routine (Durbin, 2007)? Is care work, often performed by women, knowledge work because it involves tacit knowledge or not, because little of the knowledge is made explicit (Lam, 2002; Nishikawa and Tanaka, 2007; Nonaka and Nishiguchi, 2001; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995)? There are three main ways of drawing boundaries around the industries that make up knowledge work put forward by statisticians in the UN (2005), OECD, 2005) and EU (Eurostat, 2005a, 2005b) These define the knowledge economy as one of three sets of relevant industries: high technology manufacturing, information or ICT and knowledge-intensive services (Shire, 2007) These vary crucially by whether or not technology is given the central place in the conceptualization of the knowledge economy The first definition restricts the knowledge economy to high technology in manufacturing, the second focuses on the new technologies’ associated information and crosses the conventional manufacturing/service divide and the third focuses on the human capital rather than fixed capital aspects of knowledge economy, in including service industries where the labour force is usually educated to university level (Shire, 2007; Walby et al., 2007) The choice of definition affects the picture of the gender composition of the knowledge economy In the two categories centred on technology and fixed capital, women are a minority of the workers, in the category centred on human capital, the gender balance is nearly even, with women comprising a slight majority of the workers (Labour Force Survey, 2005a, 2005b; Shire, 2007; Walby, 2006) The selection of definition has implications for both theory and for policy If the knowledge economy is defined in relation to fixed or human capital, then the knowledge economy appears to be masculine But if it is defined in relation to human capital, then it is gender-balanced This has serious implications for policy If the state promotes the development of the knowledge economy using a technologically centred definition it helps predominantly male workers but if a human capital-centred definition is used, then it helps both male and female workers Are women or men more likely to be found in the knowledge sector or the rest of the economy? Are the jobs in the knowledge economy of higher quality than the rest of the economy and are the gender gaps in the quality of working life narrower here? This section draws on an analysis of employment in the UK in 2005 using data from the Labour Force Survey, a large nationally representative sample survey (Walby, 2006) It compares the gender composition of the knowledge economy with the rest of the economy and investigates the effect of using three different definitions It compares employment in the knowledge economy with the economy as a whole, assessing the quality of working life and its gendered constitution along a range of characteristics including occupational levels, spatialities, contractualities and temporalities There are three major definitions of the knowledge economy: high technology manufacturing, the information sector and knowledge-intensive services (Shire, 2007; Walby, 2006) High technology manufacturing includes: office machinery, computers and other information-processing equipment; electronic communication equipment, including radio, television, telephone, sound or video recording or reproducing equipment; and scientific instruments, especially those for measuring, checking and testing (Eurostat, 2005a, 2005b) The information sector includes: publishing, printing and reproduction of recorded media; post and telecommunications; computer and related activities including software publishing, data processing and database activities; and television, video, news and library (UN, 2005) Knowledge-intensive services are service industries that have knowledge-intensive work practices, as indicated as the average level of education of the workforce in these industries They include water transport, air transport, post and telecommunications, financial intermediation, insurance and pensions, auxiliary financial intermediation, real estate, renting equipment, computing, research and development, other business, education, health and social work and recreation, culture and sport (Eurostat, 2005a, 2005b) When the most technologically focused definition, ‘high technology manufacturing’ is used the proportion of employment in the economy that is ‘knowledge’ is just 1% and the proportion of women is 32%, as shown in Table When the category ‘information’, which straddles the traditional divide between manufacturing and services, is used, then the proportion of employment in the economy that is knowledge is just 4% and the proportion of women is 36% When the definition that focuses most on human capital, ‘knowledge-intensive services’ is used, then 42% of total employment is in the knowledge sector and the proportion of women in it is 61% The more the definition centres on fixed capital and technology, the smaller is the proportion of women working in it, while the more it is centred on human capital the larger is the proportion of women The gender composition of the knowledge economy depends on the definition of the knowledge economy that is used The implications are that more workers in the knowledge sectors of the economy are in the higher level occupations than in the economy as a whole; but the gender gap between men and women has only slightly narrowed — a little in the knowledge intensive services but has not in high technology manufacturing The knowledge economy is good for the occupational level of both women and men but there is little difference in gender inequality between the knowledge sector and the whole economy Occupational hierarchies are not the only source of variation in the quality and equality of working life The knowledge economy is associated with new spatialities in the organization of work (see Table 5) The information sector is the most associated with working at home In each of the knowledge sectors (high-tech manufacturing, information, knowledge intensive services) those employed were slightly more likely to work at different places with home as a base in the economy as a whole Working at home often involved using a phone and computer (men 80%, women 73%) These spatialities are gendered but in non-traditional ways, in that men are much more likely than women to work at home or in different places with their home as a base (see Table 5) It is not the case that gender patterns of caring have led to women disproportionately working from home; rather it is men who are more likely to work away from their employer, either at home or at different places using their home as a base Is the knowledge economy linked to new contractualities, such as self-employment and temporary employment? This is not the case in the UK, with only small exceptions Self-employment is not more common in the knowledge economy than the economy as a whole, with the exception of software publishing and data processing (see Table 6) In the UK self-employment is a mixed category: for example, it more prevalent among men than women and is common in the construction industry Temporary work is relatively uncommon in the UK and is not significantly gendered (men 5%, women 6%) The knowledge economy is not generally associated with greater temporary rather than permanent employment except in education (men 13%, women 12%) The knowledge economy has been associated with new temporalities of working life, with a move away from standard to non-standard working hours (see Table 7) The temporalities of work take many forms; some new, some old, some constituting an increase in the quality of working life, others a decrease Temporalities include special hours working arrangements, especially flexitime, but also annualized hours contracts, term-time working, job sharing, a 9-day fortnight or a 4.5 day week, a zero hours contract, part-time working, overtime, unsocial hours working including working in the evening or at night, working at the weekend and shift working Working time practices in the knowledge economy are different from those in the overall economy in several important respects; these differences are gendered Work is organized differently between the knowledge sector of the economy and the economy as a whole The quality of work in the knowledge economy in the UK in 2005 is better than that in the economy as a whole This applies whichever definition of the knowledge economy is used, whether high technology manufacturing, information or knowledgeintensive services However, the choice of definition affects the gender composition of the knowledge economy: high technology and information are predominantly male areas of employment while knowledge-intensive services are slightly more female areas The occupations in the industrial sectors of the knowledge economy are at a higher level than those for the economy as a whole, in that a higher proportion of jobs fall into the top three occupational groups This has been to the advantage not only of the women but also to the men in those positions The gender gap in occupational hierarchy is very little narrower in the knowledge economy than in the economy as a whole Work practices in the knowledge economy tend to be different from those in the economy as a whole in respect to some aspects of spatialities, contractualities and temporalities Working conditions in the knowledge economy tend to be better than in the economy as a whole, in relation to temporalities involving greater use of special hours working arrangements and a lesser use of unsocial hours working (nights, Sundays and shifts) The gender gaps in these temporalities has narrowed somewhat However, since these gender gaps had previously been to women’s advantage, this is not an improvement in the position of women relative to men Thus, the knowledge economy does provide better work and conditions for those working in it Gender gaps are narrower in the knowledge economy than in the overall economy When the focus is on occupational hierarchies, this narrowing of the gender gaps is to the advantage of women When the focus is on work temporalities, the reduction in the gender gap has been to the advantage of men The knowledge society and economy are gendered in varied and contested ways The comparison of the knowledge economy with the overall economy in the UK shows that knowledge workers typically occupy a higher occupational level than other workers and work more flexible and fewer unsocial hours While women in the knowledge economy narrow the gender gap in their favour when the focus is on occupational level, it is men who narrow the gender gap in their favour when the focus is on flexible and unsocial hours There are three main issues in explaining this complex gendering of the knowledge economy, to which the articles in this special issue offer innovative contributions: human capital, networked organizational forms and definitions of knowledge work The development of human capital is of special importance to the knowledge economy While women well in education this has not proved sufficient to eliminate gender inequalities in the knowledge society This gender inequality is linked to the different gendering of the specialized human capital used in the technical side of the knowledge economy, Research is also needed on the implications of the many levels of potential identification for knowledge transfer in organizations For example, members may identify primarily with their own work group, with the department in which their group is embedded, with the larger division of which the department is a part, or with the firm (Moreland & Levine, 2000) An organization where members identify most strongly with their work groups may have more difficulty transferring knowledge across groups than an organization where members identify mainly with the superordinate organization Understanding factors that lead members to identify with one level over another as well as the consequences of their identification for knowledge transfer is an important area for future research The framework of knowledge reservoirs discussed here provides insights into the reasons why it is difficult to transfer knowledge and into the conditions under which knowledge transfer is most likely We have shown here that attaining compatibility between the subnetworks moved from one site to another is even more problematic than attaining compatibility of the basic elements of people, tools, or tasks The subnetworks consist of two or three elements that have coevolved to fit their current context and are less likely than the basic elements to fit the new context The observation that the subnetworks involving people are the most problematic from a knowledge-transfer perspective provides important insights into the fundamental paradox of knowledge management in firms: Firms are most effective when they manage both to facilitate internal knowledge transfer and to block external knowledge spillover The framework described here provides insights into how firms can accomplish both Embedding knowledge in the subnetworks that involve people minimizes the likelihood of transfer to external organizations because knowledge in these reservoirs is least likely to fit other contexts Because selection, socialization, training, and communication processes within organizations make people more similar within than between firms, the subnetworks involving people are more likely to be compatible with other subnetworks internal to the organization than with external subnetworks Thus, achieving transfer through moving the subnetworks involving people is more problematic between than within organizations Our framework shows how organizations can minimize transfer to external organizations while they achieve internal knowledge transfer Thus, the processes underlying knowledge transfer provide a basis for understanding the competitive advantage of firms  Knowledge, management, and knowledge management in business operations – Gao et al – 2008 Purpose – The purpose of this research is to help knowledge managers systematically grasp ‘‘knowledge about management knowledge’’ and get a ‘‘deep and full’’ understanding of the nature, scope and methodologies of knowledge management Design/methodology/approach – Through presenting a variety of perspectives on knowledge, management, and knowledge management, the article explores the essence of knowledge management in organizations from a perspective of critical systems thinking Findings – Knowledge management in business organizations has the task of managing the activities of knowledge workers or the transformation and interaction of organizational ‘‘static substance knowledge’’ and ‘‘dynamic process knowledge’’ for ‘‘products, services, and practical process innovation’’ and, at the same time, ‘‘creating new or justifying existing organizational systematic knowledge’’ Knowledge management is not simply about recording and manipulating explicit knowledge, but needs to address that which is implicit, and from which benefit can therefore be derived only through process rather than content Knowledge is an important issue for business organisations There have been a number of different perspectives from which researchers and practitioners have approached the management of knowledge While the acquisition, transmission, and use of knowledge has always been an important part of human affairs (hence the well-established domain of epistemology), Penrose (1959), Bell (1973) and Drucker (1993a) provide us with a good basis for relating knowledge to twenty-first century business organisations Drucker symbolically declares knowledge, as we move into the ‘‘knowledge society’’ (Drucker, 1993b), as the key resource for individual firms and the key driver of competitive advantage for developed nations, competing in knowledge-based industries, living with knowledge communities and societies The increased concentration in recent years on the ‘‘knowledge management’’ practices of organisations can be seen in the work of Petrash (1996) on ‘‘intellectual asset management’’ in the Dow Chemical Company, and the management practice of ‘‘intellectual capital’’ in Scandia Inc (Edvinsson and Malone, 1997) Critically, these efforts can best be treated as ‘‘explicit knowledge management’’ such as R&D management or the reuse or obsolescence of existing technological knowledge, rather than knowledge management by today’s practical definitions, and cannot be compared to knowledge initiatives in large companies such as GE, GM, IBM and Fuji Xerox (Takeuchi and Nonaka, 2004; Barclay, 2005 website; Bushell, 2004; Barabba et al., 2002; Gongla and Rizzuto, 2001; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995) These exemplary cases triggered a movement towards an active discussion of knowledge and its management, and created a cadre of knowledge management gurus and consulting experts in this specific domain, including Nonaka, Takeuchi, Leonard, Davenport, Prusak, Sveiby, etc., and their books were among bestsellers of their day (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Leonard, 1995; Davenport, 1993; Sveiby, 1997; Davenport and Prusak, 1998) Business organisations have an inherent interest in using both the business knowledge owned by the organisation, and the personal knowledge of their employees What we are talking about here as business knowledge is practical knowledge, or useful knowledge for management, production, service and innovation in industries, rather than broader social and scientific knowledge This brief review highlights the different views, perspectives on, and approaches to knowledge management Having looked at these issues, we can now move on to developing a deeper definition of the concept of knowledge in the business context The meaning of the word ‘‘knowledge’’ is subject to a number of different interpretations In the past it has been linked with terms such as data, information, intelligence, skill, experience, expertise, ideas, intuition, or insight, which all depend on the context in which the words are used Plato views knowledge as ‘‘justified true belief’’, which was later modified by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) to: ‘‘a dynamic human process of justifying personal belief toward the truth’’ at the organisational level Bell defines knowledge in a broader sense as ‘‘a set of organized statements of facts or ideas, presenting a reasoned judgment or an experimental result, which is transmitted to others through some communication medium in some systematic form’’ or in general meaning as ‘‘{that} which is objectively known, an intellectual property, attached to a name and a group of names and certified by copyright or some other form of social recognition’’ (Bell, 1973) For Davenport and Prusak (1998), knowledge is ‘‘a fluid mix of framed experiences, values, contextual information and expert insight’’ Boisot (1998) defines knowledge as ‘‘a capacity that builds on information extracted from data or the set of expectations that an observer hold with respect to an event’’ In Drucker’s opinion, knowledge is information that ‘‘changes something or somebody either by becoming grounds for action, or by making an individual or an institution capable of different and more effective action’’, or more simply termed, ‘‘specialized knowledge’’ When Drucker talks about knowledge work or knowledge workers, he emphasizes that only in or through systematic learning, that is, in and through formal schooling can the knowledge required for knowledge work be acquired; the knowledge for knowledge work cannot be acquired through apprenticeship (Drucker, 1993a) For this reason, the fundamental issue in managing knowledge in an organisational context is to identify features of contexts and enable the processes that can facilitate the flow of knowledge of individuals in organisations, communities and societies for particular purposes, to make distributed components into a complete whole that will be useful for a purposeful objective That issue drives managers or CKOs to think about using the synthesizing capability of knowledge workers and those individuals specialized in synthesis, as well as systems to help the process in an organisation In Gao’s (Gao et al., 2003) early work, organisational knowledge is considered at two levels: the individual level and the organisational level Personal knowledge refers to Drucker’s specialised knowledge and Polanyi’s tacit knowledge as well as the person’s values – professional ethics and morals Personal knowledge belongs to the person who possesses it rather than the organisation s/he works for, but it can be used by the organisation At the organisational level, organisational knowledge is divided into organisational static substance knowledge and organisational dynamic process knowledge The relationship between static substance knowledge and dynamic process knowledge is like that of ‘‘cookbook’’ and ‘‘cooking’’ Substance knowledge like book knowledge is clearly formed and can be communicated, codified, and exchanged Some, in the form of patents or copyrights, can be bought or sold (such as the knowledge management practice in Dow Chemical Company mentioned above) On the other hand, dynamic process knowledge is like cooking It is an activity or an operational process It needs the technical knowledge embedded in knowledge agents and their personal skills and subjective judgment Process knowledge can be realized only through knowledge agents engaging in activity Without practices, the economic value of both substance knowledge and process knowledge cannot be obtained Any organisation needs both static substance knowledge, like ‘‘cookbooks’’, and dynamic process knowledge, like ‘‘cooking’’, to realize its vision and mission The different kinds of static substance knowledge have different characteristics, play different roles, and therefore require different approaches to management The different human activity systems focus on coping with different levels of organisational issues such as basic research, middle-term R&D, or short-term product/service development The different characteristics of different kinds of knowledge need different criteria for evaluation It is easy to understand the criteria of static substance knowledge (see Gao et al., 2003) As for dynamic process knowledge or a human activity system, the criteria have to be the outcomes such as copyrights, patents, publications, new products or services, because knowledge agents have more knowledge about their work than their managers have (unless the manager himself/herself is also a knowledge agent in the same field); therefore, the process of knowledge work cannot be ‘‘managed’’ through process or work design Organisations have to treat it as a black-box and exercise ‘‘control’’ through motivating professionals or knowledge workers and integrating the goals of individuals and the organisation, as well as society, to get the desired results through allocating the input and evaluating the output Clearly each organisation has its unique static substance knowledge and dynamic process knowledge Seeing them as a whole gives us an architecture of organisational knowledge that can be addressed with different perspectives through shifting social paradigms, based on different hypotheses and the characteristics of different kinds of knowledge These are the two pillars of organizational competitive core competence The interaction and transformation of them create new products, services, and technical and processes innovation in practice and generate new managerial knowledge for future use in theory (see Figure 2) In this sense, creative holism offers an insightful approach for ‘‘managing’’ organisational knowledge in a comprehensive and systematic manner (Jackson, 2003; Gao et al., 2003; Gao and Li, 2003, 2006) ‘‘Knowledge management’’ contains a much more complex meaning than the terms management and knowledge alone Various topics in different contexts with different perspectives are discussed under the term ‘‘knowledge management’’ Briefly we divide them into two groups – the hard track and the soft track Hard track theories, methodologies, approaches, and tools are those related to either hard technology (the application of science to industrial or commercial objectives, like industrial R&D) or soft technology (related to software, database, information, patents, or copyrights, which have clear objective criteria in their corresponding professional communities) To those associated with the hard group, knowledge management is an advanced level for discussing technology, R&D, or product/service innovation and development, data mining or knowledge discovery from databases, MIS, IT infrastructures or supporting software, expert systems, decision-support systems, or knowledge repositories (Boisot, 1995, 1998; Davenport, 1993; Davenport and Prusak, 1998; Stewart, 1997) Typical terms used by this group are ‘‘capture’’, ‘‘abstract’’, ‘‘codify’’, ‘‘organize’’, ‘‘store’’, ‘‘diffuse’’, ‘‘reuse’’, ‘‘transfer’’, or ‘‘transform’’ Hard technology or IT infrastructure and supporting software, is aimed at the management of existing explicit knowledge The fundamental assumption in this perspective is based on the belief that knowledge comes from information, information comes from data, and data come from events Creating knowledge implies a process of generating insights through extracting information from data Thus, IT serves as a tool or enabler for turning knowledge into profitable industrial commodities Financial investors treat a firm’s IT investments and associated organisational assets as intangible assets that increase long-term output and profits (Brynjolfsson et al., 2002), which may be a driver for linking IT with knowledge management To the hard track, knowledge management is almost equal to an IT-based management system The basic assumption is that information technologies can accelerate the flow of knowledge and offer ‘‘modern’’ systems to stockpile formal knowledge and support personal knowledge sharing On the other hand, the theories, methodologies, approaches, and tools related to the soft track, as represented by Nonaka, Takeuchi, Sveiby and Wenger, are people-focused and concentrate on facilitating or enabling a ‘‘good’’ space for knowledge creation like ‘‘Ba (space)’’, ‘‘community of practice’’ or a knowledge-creating/sharing culture (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Sveiby, 1997; Sveiby (n.d.) website; Wenger, 1998) Experts in this track place more emphasis on tacit/implicit knowledge or know-how, and consider that this huge part of the knowledge iceberg is something closely attached to body and mind and embodied in action Nonaka noted that knowledge is ‘‘a dynamic human process of justifying personal belief toward the truth’’ Tacit knowledge is unarticulated and elusive; let alone capable of being transferred through electronic systems The soft track insists that knowledge is something different from information; knowledge is embedded in people and knowledge creation is associated with the processes of social interaction We can also classify the theories, methodologies, approaches, and tools that deal with the soft management topics like vision/values creation, organisational learning, or culture into the soft track (Zack, 1999; Boisot, 1995; von Krogh and Roos, 1995; Edmondson and Sole, 2002; Long, 1997) For the soft track, knowledge movement is one kind of informal, collective learning; for observers, there is no major difference here from the learning organisation advocated by Chris Argyris, Donald Schon, Edgar Schein, and Peter Senge, except for a focused purpose on quality control or new product development (Argyris and Schon, 1978, 1996; Argyris, 1993a, 1993b; Schein, 1987, 1988; Senge, 1990) They strongly believe in the creation of new knowledge, not just the revisiting and reuse of existing knowledge possessed by an organisation To soft track adherents, explicit knowledge is only the small tip of the iceberg of knowledge, and current IT tools are useful only in so far as they support communication and coordination This is quite different from some hard views, which consider that knowledge management cannot be separated from computer-based technology (Holsapple, 2005) There also are some scholars who tackle specific professional issues (like information, information system or product/service innovation) from a knowledge management perspective by synthesising both hard and soft aspects (Boisot, 1998; Leonard and Sensiper, 1998) or who take knowledge management as the effectively integration of people, technology and processes (KM Advantage home, 2005) website Those who believing in critical systems thinking and critical systems practice, view any existing theory, methodology, approach, and tool as the outcome of the human mind, reflecting some actual situation from different perspectives based on different value systems Therefore, they focus on different aspects of reality, concentrate on different issues, tackle problems with different techniques, and obtain different outcomes In order to take advantage of these different theories and approaches, we should approach reality from as many perspectives as possible (as Jackson named it, ‘‘creative holism’’), and draw a whole picture of the development of knowledge management, to build a toolkit based on organisational static substance knowledge and dynamic process knowledge (Gao et al., 2003; Gao and Li, 2003, Jackson, 2005) For knowledge management in business, organisations must have clear objectives: the effective and efficient management of existing organisational knowledge and the mobilization of personal knowledge for achieving organisational goals In this way, companies generate, communicate, and leverage their intellectual assets To achieve this, we now return to the concept of static substance knowledge and dynamic process knowledge, and a framework for organisational knowledge (Table I).Management here has two facets: administrative efforts in relation to existing explicit, ‘‘subjective’’ or ‘‘objective’’ knowledge (e.g static substance knowledge); and facilitative initiatives to enable the dynamic process of tacit or implicit knowledge flow among knowledge workers for the effectiveness and efficiency of the human activity system (e.g dynamic process knowledge) To manage organisational knowledge is to manage both substance knowledge and process knowledge Managing substance knowledge means managing the activities of developing, creating, capturing, codifying, mining, organizing, distributing, diffusing, protecting, and utilizing substance knowledge, which are generally carried out by knowledge workers or professionals In knowledge-based organisations such as high-tech companies, software companies, consultants, pharmaceutical companies, or law firms, managers usually have less knowledge about the detailed processes of ‘‘manufacturing’’, or the nature of products or services than the employees (i.e knowledge workers) who actually engage in the work Therefore, to manage substance knowledge actually means to manage the activity of knowledge workers who are engaged in knowledge related work, that is, a human activity system As dynamic process knowledge is viewed as a human activity system, therefore, knowledge management in essence means to manage organisational human activity systems; in other words, to manage organisational knowledge is to manage the process or the activities of knowledge workers Once this is recognized as the main concern, our attention should be focused on identifying and analysing the nature, characteristics, and meaning of knowledge work Based on the nature and characteristics of knowledge work, managers or CKOs decide how to design the organisational structure and how to manage knowledge related activities Management, as discussed earlier, means interactive planning or corporate/organisational strategy, facilitating participators, building or nurturing ‘‘good’’ configuration of various Bas, and empowering, supporting and motivating professionals Consequently, various approaches, techniques, and tools developed in different strands of management for managing process, activities, and human resources are the potential available tools for organisational knowledge management But this does not mean they can simply be picked up and put into use Before applying an approach, we must find out its theoretical background and its original context and gain an in-depth understanding of its strengths and weaknesses This is another form of knowledge management, which will lead to a picture of the state-of-the-art development of knowledge management accompanied by a detailed analysis of each examination for every particular approach and theory Jackson’s modified Ideal Problem-Context offers an alternative perspective for the analysis of knowledge management approaches Issues and associated problem-solving tools can be grouped into six sets: simple-unitary, simple-pluralist, simple-coercive, complex-unitary, complex-pluralist and complex-coercive context (Jackson, 2003) Because of specific issues and contexts, the requiredmethods in each set will be different An approach quite suitable fora simple-pluralist situation could be unproductive in a complex-coercive context The nature of differentiating approaches is a trade-off of input of efforts and output in terms of performance The balancing criteria should be the efficiency, effectiveness and efficacy of applying methodologies in real-world contexts (Jackson, 2000) According to the values of the different participants (unitary, pluralist, or coercive), differentiated approaches can be more effective pertinent to simple or complex systems Accordingly, managers can select those methods to address the issues within a certain context They can escape from the intricacies of perspectives, methods and tools and make more efforts to discover the nature of phenomena and nurture a suitable environment Other approaches like Herzberg’s motivating employee, Argyris’s double-loop learning, and Argyris, Schon and Senge’s learning organisation, are existing approaches for managing knowledge workers All of the approaches can be matched into the system of systematic methodologies In the paper, we have summarized the fundamental development of the concepts of knowledge, management, and knowledge management in a manner of classification Based on the discussion we conclude that knowledge management in a business organisation means managing the activities of knowledge workers, which is achieved through facilitating, motivating, leading, and supporting knowledge workers and providing or nurturing a suitable working environment Critical systems thinking and critical systems practice, as powerful thinking tools, not only help us to understand the current situation in the development of knowledge management but also provide potential systems approaches for dealing with the soft, emancipation, and postmodern problem contexts Exploring how to use those systems approaches as individuals or in combination to support creativity, and reflecting on assumptions and perspectives in knowledge management and on how to develop a model of ‘‘attractive space (i.e Ba, KM club or community of practice)’’ in which people are willing to exchange or share personal, public, or organisational knowledge will be some of our further research In the domain of knowledge management, we generally agree on a call for improvements in: tacit knowledge exchange, flow of knowledge, making knowledge assets visible (Hotshouse, 1998), or trying to measure information and knowledge quantitatively (Wang, 2006); however, for business organisations, the most important task is to build up unique organisational capabilities, producing competitive knowledge and transferring it into products or services as shown in Figure This is the essence of knowledge management  The connection between trust and knowledge management: what are its implications for team performance – Politis – 2003 The latest buzzwords in organizational change and development literature are "knowledge management" and "knowledge transfer", which proponents claim are successful ways of improving and enhancing employees' performance Moreover, trust and the ability of employees to work in an autonomous manner are often cited as being essential for the effectiveness of self-managed teams Little however, is known on the effect of interpersonal trust on knowledge management (acquisition) of team members, and the consequences for team performance A survey of 49 self-managing teams was carried out to investigate the relationship between the dimensions of interpersonal trust, knowledge acquisition, and team performance Overall, findings support that most interpersonal trust dimensions are positively related to the variables of knowledge acquisition The results also showed that the effects of interpersonal trust on team performance to a large extent are mediated by the intervening variables of knowledge acquisition Drucker makes the comment that the only competitive advantage of developed countries is in the supply of knowledge workers; and that as "knowledge constantly makes itself obsolete", the developed nations need to work continually and systematically "on the productivity of knowledge and knowledge workers" (Drucker, 1997, p 22) Organizations around the world echo this emphasis on the importance of knowledge; that is, to learn and apply that learning as the work is performed may be the only sustainable source of competitive advantage (Liedtka, 1996) The real challenge for organizations however, is "capturing the tacit knowledge which is in people's heads - the experience, knowledge and judgment you get from doing something for a long time", says Stephanie Pursley[1] Senge adds that the challenge at the beginning of the millennium is " how to harness the intelligence and spirit of people at all levels of an organization to continually build and share knowledge" (Senge, 1997, p 32) Therefore, the new model of knowledge management is about people and actions and nothing to with technology (technology just happens to be one of the ways of using knowledge to improve and enhance employees' performance) It is about creating a teamwork environment in which power is equated with sharing knowledge, rather than retaining it On the other hand, the most notable trend of the 1990s that will continue to dominate the work environment of the twenty-first century (Manz and Sims, 2001) was the explosion of work teams in manufacturing and service organizations (Cohen et al., 1996) As teamwork grows in popularity (Cohen et al., 1996; Manz and Sims, 2001), trust is increasingly taking place within a team context Proponents of self-managing teams suggest that there is a clear need for trust before team members can respond openly and incorporate new information (knowledge) in order to develop useful decisions (Gruenfeld et al., 1996) Therefore, team members must trust their peers and management, in so doing, creating and sharing new knowledge, furthering the organization's ability to deliver best solutions to clients Current research lacks the empirical evidence supporting the relationship between interpersonal trust and knowledge acquisition In particular, there is an interest from academics and practitioners in addressing whether "interpersonal trust" advances follower's knowledge acquisition practices - knowledge sharing, and what the consequences are for performance in a selfmanaging environment The goal of this study is to examine the impact of interpersonal trust on employees' perceptions of knowledge acquisition, and how this affects team performance The study involves a questionnaire-based survey of members of self-managing teams from a large high-technology, aerospace, manufacturing organization in Australia Knowledge acquisition variables Knowledge is about internal "meaning structures" in people's minds (Bourdreau and Couillard, 1999), it is about "the tacit knowledge which is in people's heads"[1] Knowledge creation, and translation process is not only based on journals and textbooks (Atkinson, 1995), but also includes "talks" between colleagues Transferring knowledge from one person to another requires that tacit knowledge be converted into explicit knowledge through sharing experience, dialogue discussions, know-how "exteriorization" and teaching Tacit knowledge is also transmitted and learned directly as tacit knowledge through observation and practice (Bourdreau and Couillard, 1999) In the literature, knowledge acquisition is defined as "acquiring information directly from domain experts" (Mykytyn et al, 1994, p 98) However, if experts not feel safe to disclose information, they may share only parts of their terminologies and conceptual systems Experts may use the same term for different concepts, use different terms for the same concept, use the same term for the same concept, or use different terms and have different concepts This has resulted in questioning where should organizations begin? What enables knowledge acquisition? A review of the literature reveals that the background, skills, training and traits of knowledge workers (KWs) are most often essential for successful knowledge acquisition (Rolandi, 1986; Mykytyn et al., 1994) Mykytyn and colleagues (1994) revealed 26 behavioral skills and traits (attributes) that are essential for knowledge acquisition These attributes are presumed to produce six factors namely, communication/problem understanding, personal traits, control, organization, negotiation and liberal arts/non-verbal communication However, these factors not emerge spontaneously or in a vacuum They evolve out of the context and the history of the organization and their impact is conditioned by the subjective perceptions of knowledge workers whose experience is ruled by that history This draws attention among other things (i.e the organizational process and information technology) to the roles played by management and peers (co workers) in developing and linking these factors for successful knowledge acquisition It is being argued that in practice knowledge management (KM) is the combination of human resource management and information management, and thus related to all processes that are combined with the identification, acquisition, creation, distribution and use of both information and knowledge (Iivonen and Huotari, 2000) Therefore, human factors are essential components for effective knowledge acquisition and must be taken into account But, trust belongs to the area of human factors in KM In organizations trust supports and enables collaboration and knowledge sharing which are processes related to effective knowledge acquisition (Iivonen and Huotari, 2000) In a self managing environment in particular, collaboration and knowledge sharing are based on team's trust (Gruenfeld et al., 1996) which can either support or prevent them Since trust is important to facilitate a favorable team culture to strengthen collaboration and knowledge sharing, trust dimensions are hypothesized to be the predictive variables for the determinants of knowledge acquisition and team performance This functional relationship is shown in the research model (schematic diagram) (see Figure 1) Interpersonal trust The concept of trust in organizations has been studied extensively by a number of management researchers and practitioners (Atwater, 1988; Kramer and Tyler, 1996) As the interest in the area of trust developed, researchers formulated their own definitions of the term Among the earlier trust theorists, Rotter (1967, p 651) defined interpersonal trust "as an expectancy held by an individual or a group that the word, promise, verbal or written statement of another individual or group can be relied upon" The recent emergence of self-managing teams (groups) has increased the interest in the study of trust (Mayer et al., 1995; O'Shea, 2000) Despite this interest, very little information exists in examining the effect of interpersonal trust on the dimensions of knowledge acquisition and what the consequences are for performance in a self-managing environment In that respect, Cook and Wall (1980) have distinguished two components of dyadic or interpersonal trust, namely, faith and confidence In the work place, trust is been viewed as faith and confidence in peers (that is, co-worker trust), as well as faith and confidence in management (that is, trust in both the supervisor and top management) The definitions of faith and confidence have been adopted from Cook and Wall (1980, p 40) Trust refers to the "faith in the trustworthy intentions of others" Trust refers to the "confidence in the ability of others, yielding ascriptions of capability and reliability" Empirical evidence has shown that collaborative problem solving in organizations presupposes interpersonal trust (Atkinson, 1995; Davenport and Prusak, 1998), and specifically co-worker trust Co-workers members of self-managing teams - are assumed to operate without direct control and intervention from management in a self-managing work environment Considering an autonomous and self-managing work environment, Mayer et al (1995, p 710) argued, "in the use of self-directed teams, trust must take the place of supervision because direct observation of employees becomes impractical" But recent studies suggested that leadership (supervision) is positively related to the skills and traits that are essential for knowledge acquisition (Politis, 2001a,b) It is therefore reasonable to hypothesize that the factors representing interpersonal trust will be predictive factors of knowledge acquisition Team performance Performance is of considerable importance for quality of life, for national economies and for increasing organizational competitiveness in the rapidly changing global economy Due to its importance, the issue of measuring team performance has received a great deal of scientific attention in the last 20 years (Cohen and Bailey, 1997) Despite the general utility of the performance concept, Lent et ah (1971) complained about the absence of an adequate framework to account for what it is exactly that researchers should be trying to measure when they attempt to measure team performance In the decision of what to measure, it is being argued that performance measures, related to human factors (non financial), determine the productivity outcomes, related to financial measures (Lemmink and Mattsson, 1998) Over the years numerous authors argued that knowledge is today's driver for company life and the wealth-creating capacity of the company is based on the knowledge and capabilities of its people (Savage, 1990) This means that knowledge assets are fundamental strategic levers in order to manage business performance and the continuous innovation of a company (Quinn, 1992; Guthrie, 2001) As for knowledge, it is suggested that knowledge is considered a key property ascribed to so-called knowledge-intensive firms (Alvesson, 1995) Such companies, including its knowledge workers (KWs), are characterized by frequent problem solving; creativity; reliance of individuals; high educational levels and high degree of professional employees The KWs of these companies were found to demonstrate flexibility, initiative, entrepreneurial intentions and strong job performance (Stewart, 1997; Davenport and Prusak, 1998) In that regard, it is expected that significant correlations will be found between knowledge acquisition variables and the factors of team performance       H1 Faith in peers will be positively related to knowledge acquisition variables (i.e behavioral skills and traits of KWs) H2 Faith in management will be positively related to knowledge acquisition variables (i.e behavioral skills and traits of KWs) H3 Confidence in peers will be positively related to knowledge acquisition variables (i.e behavioral skills and traits of KWs) H4 Confidence in management will be positively related to knowledge acquisition variables (i.e behavioral skills and traits of KWs) H5 Knowledge acquisition variables (i.e behavioral skills and traits of KWs) will be positively related with perceived (non-financial) team performance H6 Knowledge acquisition variables (i.e behavioral skills and traits of KWs) will be positively related with financial team performance The overall pattern of relationships between independent and dependent variables in the structural equation model to a large extent is consistent with the hypotheses A total of 14 out of the 25 tested paths between independent and dependent variables were significant Of the 14 significant paths, 10 were found positive while the other were negative The findings from the current study suggest that the component dimensions associated with Cook and Wall's (1980) interpersonal trust model are essential in the process of strengthening collaboration (Schrage, 1990) and knowledge sharing (Zotz, 1995) between members of selfmanaging teams Specifically, the relationships between confidence in management and communication/problem understanding, organization, and negotiation were positive and significant, indicating that the confidence in the ability of managers yields ascriptions of capability and reliability in a selfmanaging environment In other words, the results suggest that not only limited groups (Alvesson, 1995) are regarded as knowledge workers, but supervisors and top managers should be involved in the learning and creation of new knowledge through becoming "insiders" of self-managed teams (Brown and Duguid, 1991) That is, not their acquiring explicit and formal "expert knowledge" is important, but their embodied ability to behave as team members, is essential for knowledge acquisition and knowledge sharing Furthermore, the results suggest that the interpersonal trust dimension of faith in peers is a key property ascribed for facilitating the communication/problem understanding and organization in self-managing teams It is the "trustworthy" intention of co-workers that encourages and facilitates an open communication, the understanding of work-related problems, and organizing the dissemination of knowledge Such a "trustworthy" intention among co-workers is the chief ingredient for knowledge acquisition and knowledge sharing Moreover, the strong relationship between confidence in peers and communication/problem understanding suggests that it is the "confidence" and ability of co-workers that encourage members of self-managing teams to gather new information and knowledge in order to develop useful decisions in relation to problem solving Contrary to our prediction, confidence in peers resulted in a negative, not positive, effect on organization and negotiation suggesting that, confidence in peers has an adverse effect in the process of organizing the dissemination of knowledge in selfmanaging teams Finally, the findings of the study clarify which of the knowledge acquisition variables best predict team performance In particular, communication/problem understanding and organization are fundamental levers of both, nonfinancial and financial team performance (It is interesting to note that communication/problem understanding is the only factor that was strongly and positively influenced by all three dimensions of interpersonal trust)  The transfer of knowledge and the retention of expertise: the continuing need for global assignments – Bender & Fish – 2000 With ongoing globalisation, organisations are increasingly confronted with worldwide competition In order to build and sustain their competitive advantage, the knowledge and expertise of an organisation's staff needs to be seen as a critical strategic resource This paper presents a general overview of knowledge management and discusses the transfer of knowledge and expertise throughout organisations operating on a global scale A particular emphasis is placed on the importance of global assignments in transferring knowledge and furthermore on the implications for HRM practices to ensure the successful and effective retention of expertise Practical examples are presented from Robert Bosch AG, a German multinational organisation and its Australian subsidiary In this paper, the term ``expatriate'' is used, however the importance of host country nationals as well as third country nationals should not be ignored in the effective transfer of knowledge and the retention of expertise The emergence of a knowledge era as an integral part of the global economy is leading to dramatic changes in the business environment According to Lank (1997), knowledge and its manifestation in the expertise of people is nowadays seen as the greatest asset of value creation for organisations As business is no longer limited by national boundaries, many of the world's corporations, both small and large, are now performing a significant portion of their activities outside their home countries National borders seem to be almost non-existent with an increase in international joint ventures, companies establishing subsidiaries and sales offices abroad Such changes make it invaluable to organisations if they are to be successful, to manage their knowledge and to transfer existing skills, knowledge and expertise effectively within the organisation, especially across national borders Future knowledge in the form of data and information can be stored in a variety of ways with access for all employees It is also transferred in various ways such as e-mail, groupware, Internet, intranet, and videoconferencing In this sense, information technology should be seen as a necessary tool, but technology and its use is not of itself knowledge management or indeed knowledge transfer The possibilities offered by the newest information technology advances now seem to be overshadowing the traditional and important process of sending people to transfer knowledge This is particularly evident on a cross-border basis, where high costs are associated with sending expatriates and their families on cross-border assignments The increasing and high costs of global assignments are now necessitating global organisations to search for more strategic means of cross-border communication However, in scaling back global assignments in favour of sophisticated technology and communication networks, organisations face the real prospect of ineffective knowledge transfer and knowledge management and hence the ineffective development and retention of expertise In this sense, Prusak (1996) states that knowledge and expertise is created and resides in a person's mind and both knowledge and expertise therefore remain person-bound Torbiorn (1997) continues by suggesting that the transfer of knowledge and expertise across national boundaries may require the continued transfer of staff in order to apply company norms or know-how, to set up activities, to educate and to learn Garvin (1993) also argues that it is very difficult to become knowledgeable in a passive way, personnel rotation programs are one of the most powerful methods to transfer knowledge and retain expertise The significance of personal contact then should not be underestimated, especially in global business, where an understanding of cultural differences, such as business behaviour, attitudes, mindsets and languages can be critical to an organisation's success Equally whilst several authors (Davenport and Prusak, 1998; Wiig, 1993; Sveiby, 1997; Roehl, 1997; Court, 1997; Huseman and Goodman, 1999) emphasise the importance of differentiating between data, information and knowledge, the differences are not always clear Knowledge and expertise then can be organised into a hierarchy (see Figure 1), in which the knowledge and subsequent expertise is built up from data to information, then to knowledge and finally to expertise From Figure 1, data are discrete and objective about facts and events This says nothing about the data's own importance or irrelevance (Davenport and Prusak, 1998, pp 2-3) Equally data are essential raw material for the creation of information Huseman and Goodman (1999, p 105) also define data as objective facts describing an event without any judgement, perspective or context The difference then between knowledge and expertise can be seen in relation to the depth of knowledge Expertise is far deeper knowledge in a certain field that has been enriched by long-time experience, education and training, and it must be built up from scratch by the individual (Starbuck, 1992; Sveiby, 1997) As every individual builds her or his own knowledge by transforming and enriching information (Fahey and Prusak, 1998), knowledge cannot easily be transferred to another person Knowledgeable employees can teach or train employees in a certain field by passing on their knowledge in lectures, meetings, presentations, on-the-job-training, by demonstrating how to things and by influencing them in their knowledge-building process by giving additional information or useful advice of how to approach a certain task The recipient however receives the knowledge in the form of data (see Figure 1) The knowledge creating process begins again as the recipient of the data adds meaning to transpose the data into information, then enriches the received information with his or her own personal values and beliefs, thus building his or her individual knowledge by personal application In this sense, people can transfer data or information, but the knowledge itself has to be created in the head of the individual As a natural consequence, if expertise has to be transferred throughout an organisation, it implies people transfer The ``experts'' themselves have to be transferred as knowledge resides with the individual who can then apply their expertise wherever it is needed An ``expert'' can train and teach other people However, that does not make the recipient knowledgeable or an expert As argued, expertise is built up from scratch by an individual over a long period of time and remains with that person Unlike information, expertise cannot be transferred to other individuals (Sveiby, 1997) The characteristics of knowledge and expertise described above emphasise the strategic significance of retaining knowledgeable people and experts in an organisation Such employees have established their knowledge, which is very often company, technologically, industry or even region specific, over a long period of time and the replacement of these employees is usually very time-consuming and extremely costly Whilst expertise cannot be transferred, people ``walk out the door'' and their knowledge and expertise goes with them Hence it is extremely important to ensure, that knowledge is retained within the organisation This can be achieved by training other employees in the same field by gradually having staff build up their own knowledge and by ensuring that experts regularly pass on their knowledge At a cross-border business level, the strategic importance of retaining knowledge and expertise is reflected in the repatriation process concerning international assignments Poor repatriation of expatriates often results in the loss of employees with international experience and unique knowledge and expertise about foreign countries, cultures and markets This represents a potentially large barrier to successful globalisation and in this sense is a very costly outcome (Allen and Alvarez, 1998) Neef (1999) details that the changes that are occurring in the global economy (such as technological breakthroughs in computing, the rising importance of information technology, the expansion of global telecommunications, the accelerated pace of change, and the changing nature of organisations) are reshaping economic structures Despite this, improved communication and transportation provides consumers with a remarkable choice of goods and services, as well as new and better offerings from global companies (Davenport and Prusak, 1998, p 12) In this sense, information is available without leaving one's office or even country The development of knowledgeable people and the retention of expertise though become problematic if organisations rely simply on real-time access to information without the benefit of face-to-face contact In this regard, as more and more firms gain access to the same technology, the driving force behind successful global companies and competitive advantage is more likely to move away from the technology itself (Stroh and Caliguiri, 1998; Davenport and Prusak, 1998), and focus on the development of knowledgeable people and the retention of expertise Whilst the focus on technology is important, Davenport and Prusak (1998) and also Thurow (1997) argue, that in today's global economy, knowledge, skills and subsequent expertise are being considered as the most strategic resource for building and sustaining competitive advantage and in this sense are integral to business success The speed of change, the ferocity of the competitive environment, the shift to servicebased industry and the developments in information technology make it a critical task to manage knowledge and retain expertise as significant assets relative to a firm's competitive advantage (Lank, 1997) Companies require quality, value, service, innovation, and speed to market in order to keep pace with, let alone stay ahead of, competitors Organisations are increasingly competing on the basis of their knowledge and expertise as technology can be replicated fairly quickly (Davenport and Prusak, 1998) It is only people's knowledge that cannot be quickly replicated and copied, as knowledge and expertise have to be created and developed individually Knowledge can only be employed through people (Thurow, 1997) and in this sense, an organisation's people become the principal source of competitive strategic advantage for the firm (Stroh and Caligiuri, 1998; Thurow, 1997) Knowledge and subsequent expertise can now be seen as the most valuable asset of firms competing effectively in global information-intensive economies (Demarest, 1997) and therefore need to be managed and well-coordinated (Wiig, 1994) Hence, to remain competitive, organisations must create, capture, harvest, share, and apply their organisation's knowledge and expertise (Zack, 1999) Application in this regard refers to the manifestation of knowledge evidenced in a person's expertise The increase of interest in research and the application of knowledge management by developing and sustaining a competitive advantage in business, evidences the growing importance of knowledge management for organisations (Beckman, 1999) Knowledge management then is critical to organisations as they strive to become a learning organisation that seeks to survive in the newly emerging knowledge-based global economy (Despres and Hiltrop, 1995; Neef, 1999) The discipline of knowledge management is little more than ten years old Bob Buckman, president, CEO and chairman of Buckman Laboratories and Karl Wiig (1993, 1994, 1995) can be described as amongst the field's most prominent advocates as well as its likely founders With the rising importance of knowledge in our global economy, knowledge management has gained worldwide attention Individuals including Sveiby (1997), Stewart (1997), Davenport and Prusak (1998), Allee (1997) and Nonaka (1991) have taken on the challenge to discover the opportunities, practices and benefits of knowledge management The scope of knowledge management is wide and the existing literature gives an endless number of definitions for knowledge management[1] The first barrier that practitioners of knowledge management may have to overcome though is to define what knowledge management is all about and what it means to them and to their business As Quintas et al (1997) suggest, the definitions and activities involved depend to a large extent on the purpose for which they are intended, and according to Greengard (1998c), every organisation has different approaches to their knowledge management practices In sending managers abroad, knowledge is transferred via the manager to other business units or subsidiaries Knowledge is subsequently developed and broadened during the assignment and when returning, hopefully further invaluable knowledge and expertise has been derived In this sense, knowledge management requires a commitment to create new knowledge, disseminate it throughout the organisation and to embody it in products, services and systems (Nonaka, 1991, p 96), routines, cultures and strategies (Starbuck, 1992, p 719) Hence, a strategic purpose of global assignments is effective knowledge management and the development and retention of cross-border business experts Also, according to Coleman (1999, pp 12- 8), the term knowledge management contains a wide variety of interdependent functions, which include the creation, valuation, mapping and indexing, transport, storage, distribution, and sharing of knowledge Knowledge management then involves far more than the movement of data or the transfer of information It is about integrating, sharing, accessing, and accumulating knowledge, and ultimately the development and retention of expertise throughout the organisation (Pelton, 1999) In support of this, Martiny (1998, p 76) views knowledge management not as a program but as a new way of working that needs to be embedded into an organisation's culture through its overall strategy and design of operations Today and increasingly in the future, in a knowledge age where national boundaries are of less importance to business, the transfer of knowledge and expertise, and the creation of a ``learning'' organisation has become a critical factor to company success and competitiveness According to Marshall et al (1996), this implies the transfer of knowledge and expertise throughout the organisation within departments, plants, countries and across national borders As Garvin (1993) suggests, for learning to be more than a local affair, knowledge must be developed, retained and spread effectively throughout the organisation, on a national as well as global scale In this sense, Lank (1997) argues that organisations need to adapt quickly to the changing environment and must commit to permanent learning Gilbert and Cordey- Hayes (1996) also suggest that the process of knowledge transfer is not a static one, it is dynamic, as such knowledge management becomes part of the process of continuous learning This is further emphasised by Allee (1997), who views the renewal of knowledge as the key to competitive advantage, which includes not only creating new knowledge but also letting go of old knowledge New knowledge is created by people who share and transfer their knowledge and expertise throughout the organisation from individual to individual, individual to a team or group, team or group to individual, or team or group to team or group According to Davenport and Prusak (1998, p 101), the transfer of knowledge then involves both the transmission of information to a recipient and absorption and transformation by that person or group To be of value to the organisation, the transfer of knowledge should lead to changes in behaviour, changes in practices and policies and the development of new ideas, processes, practices and policies This makes it imperative for organisations to secure the efficient use and application of the transferred knowledge In the international context and with regard to global assignments in particular, the effective utilisation and application of the gained international experience and knowledge again stresses the importance of a successful repatriation in the form of staff and knowledge retention In many organisations though, knowledge and expertise is held locally, for example in a particularly skilled computer technician or a global brand manager (Garvin, 1993) Multinational organisations have always transferred either technical or managerial knowledge and expertise across national borders (Kidger, 1998) However, with the increasing globalisation of business activities, many organisations will attempt to move towards a more global model, in which the transfer is seen at least as a two-way process (Kidger, 1998) or even a multi-way process, whereby knowledge and ideas are shared and disseminated between the firm's subsidiaries worldwide (Moore and Birkinshaw, 1998) The successful transfer of knowledge and expertise then around a business requires not just the establishment of networks but also the transfer of people People have to be moved in order to get deep-seated, deep-routed ideas and knowledge into circulation and to understand particular operations in specific locations (Fahey and Prusak, 1998) Furthermore, knowledge about how to use special equipment, machinery and tools, or how to manufacture certain products may require hands-on-experience, training-on the- job, teaching and direct supervision from trainers The knowledge that expatriates transfer can be knowledge and competence that is not held locally (Torbiorn, 1994), it could also be unique technical knowledge (Swaak, 1997), equally it could be technology, that involves training host country nationals in the use and application Furthermore, expatriates transfer corporate culture (Solomon, 1997), process technology, management skills, knowledge about products or services, financial skills or market skills (Mendenhall et al., 1995; Grosse, 1996) Whilst information technology should be seen as a necessary tool to knowledge transfer, new computing and telecommunications technologies allow organisations to communicate quickly and effectively with subsidiaries and business partners around the globe This assists in capturing, organising and transferring information on a worldwide scale (Neef, 1999) Certainly the improvements in information technology make it easier to collect, store and distribute information and hence can be a good facilitator of data and information transmission (Sena and Shani, 1999) Also the advances in information technology have significantly influenced people's ability to share and transfer information and knowledge, and also to reduce the costs and accelerate the process of transferring best practices (Elliott and O'Dell, 1999) Valuable information can be captured, transferred and used more efficiently rather than having to be reinvented as it is needed (Greengard, 1998d) An example of this process can be seen in the information technology system called ``K'Netix'' of Buckman Laboratories Buckman personnel are connected via electronic forums, bulletin boards, virtual conferences rooms, libraries, and e-mail, to a global network that encourages open and unrestricted communication among ``experts'' as well as the free exchange of ideas, making the application of ideas easier This system gives Buckman representatives, especially sales staff, unlimited access to information and resources in more than 80 countries (Rumizen, 1998; Elliott and O'Dell, 1999) As long as the required information and knowledge can be written down and easily understood and applied, systems like ``K'Netix'' can reduce short-term business and people transfer Nevertheless, the Buckman application saves a great amount of time and improves problem-solving ability, as well as customer service, but only up to a certain point as more complex problems may not be solved in the same way In this sense it is sometimes necessary to transfer experts to a specific location Information technology, such as ``K'Netix'' enables such experts to be contacted, but not necessarily to transfer understanding and hence effectiveness In some cases, direct contact cannot be replaced in order to transfer knowledge (Davenport and Prusak, 1998, p 100) Technology can never substitute for the rich interactivity, communication, and learning that is inherent in personal dialogue (Fahey and Prusak, 1998) Developments in worldwide communication systems, such as e-mail or videoconferences can speed up information transfer to accelerate business or reduce travel for business meetings, but in developing and retaining expertise it cannot fully substitute for face-to-face contacts or long-term assignments (Dowling et al., 1999, p 121) As argued by Martiny (1998, p 76) technology is an enabler, not a driver of knowledge management In this sense, Rumizen (1998) emphasises that organisations need to take advantage of the new computing and telecommunications technologies and develop a technical infrastructure to facilitate knowledge sharing In addition to that, Neef (1999) states that the technical infrastructure needs to be supported by staff transfer and exchanges, capable of delivering information and knowledge to employees worldwide Scheraga (1998) also indicates that technology facilitates the knowledge creation, identification, collection, organisation, sharing, adaptation and use Videoconferences, for example, are often perceived as a cost-cutting substitute to faceto- face meetings In some cases this can be an efficient solution, however only to a certain extent In order to build up personal relationships, networks and hence establish trust with your colleagues or business partners, an environment has to be created that goes beyond interaction via the computer screen Furthermore, as indicated by Dowling et al (1999, p 122), meeting personally is often necessary to fully understand a complex situation Because international business involves the interaction and movement of people across national boundaries, such issues as an appreciation and understanding of differences in national cultures and in this regard cultural values become especially critical and must be considered Culturally insensitive attitudes and behaviours stemming from ignorance or from misguided beliefs are not only inappropriate, but often cause international business failure (Tung, 1993) The Japanese, for example, value learning by doing and sharing experience within a group Therefore, if selling equipment to the Japanese, it is important to ensure that a ``trainer'' goes with the sale to guarantee effective transfer and understanding (Elashmawi and Harris, 1993, p 139) However, unless being confronted with a different culture, the effect on values, attitudes and behaviours cannot be fully understood and appreciated (Dowling et al., 1999, p 11) In this sense, sending employees on cross-border assignments contributes to establishing cultural awareness and crosscultural competence, which assists employees to operate in unknown and new environments, such as foreign countries and cultures (Dowling et al., 1999, p 14; Fish and Wood, 1997b) During their global assignments, employees develop their existing knowledge or gain unique knowledge which they then take back to headquarters on their return or to another area of the firm when transferred (Wirth, 1992) Expatriates bring home knowledge in the form of expertise, established relationships and networks, as well as cultural and business insights (Hauser, 1998) Also valuable information and knowledge about the nature of the overseas market and the socio-psychological dimensions of the host country (McDonald, 1993), as well as language skills are transferred Furthermore, they gain cross-cultural management competence, which is imperative for operating in the global business market (Fish and Wood, 1997b) The gained knowledge and experience can be significant to the success and the competitive advantage of a company, and the strategic use of this knowledge can create a truly ``learning'' organisation at the crossborder level The expatriates' experiences can be valuable for strategic decisions concerning overseas location (McDonald, 1993), and in helping companies to understand better how to design and improve the management of future overseas assignments (Anonymous, 1998) Repatriates can also be valuable in preparing expatriates for their overseas assignment, maintaining contact with them and preparing them for their return (Swaak, 1997) Furthermore, the availability of diverse national experiences could itself be seen as a source of competitive advantage (Kidger, 1998) According to Dowling et al (1999, p 170), international meetings in various locations have proven to be important for encouraging interaction and building up personal networks, and in this sense foster innovation, organisational learning and the transfer of knowledge In this regard, establishing a corporate identity and teamwork seems important to leverage resources, ideas and knowledge from all parts of the multinational organisation This issue is emphasised by Jack Welch (Dowling et al., 1999, p 170), CEO of GE, who indicated that ``the aim in a global business is to get the best ideas from everywhere'' As the global transfer of knowledge and expertise is a two-way process, successful repatriation then is an extremely important part of the management of global assignments Successful repatriation means that expatriates acquire career and personal payoffs from the overseas experience and that the company enriches its organisation through the addition of the international competencies of its repatriated employees (Solomon, 1995) In this sense, the experiences and knowledge of the expatriate need to be applied in the best interest of an organisation's international business strategy and an individual's overall career (Fish and Wood, 1993) However, upon their return, repatriates often face organisations that not know what the person has done for the past several years or how to utilise the skills and knowledge gained overseas in the most effective way for the organisation and for the ongoing career of the expatriate Furthermore, in some cases organisations not even care about the utilisation of the gained skills and knowledge (Fish and Wood, 1997a; Solomon, 1995) The development of a repatriation process is seen as crucial to successful repatriation This process consists of a long-term plan of how the organisation will use the experience of a returning expatriate to the home country organisation (Molnar and Loewe, 1997) Repatriates expect to return to a meaningful position back home, where they can use their new skills and knowledge (Hauser, 1998; Black and Gregersen, 1999) Allen and Alvarez (1998) argue that organisations too often fail to reward or recognise the new skills and knowledge acquired in overseas positions By not considering the expatriates' career motivation and not offering tasks where the knowledge gained can be utilised, organisations may be confronted with expatriates choosing to leave the organisation (Fish and Wood, 1997a; Torbiorn, 1997) This problem is reflected in a study of US expatriate managers undertaken by Black and Gregersen (1999, p 53) The results showed that one-fourth of those expatriates who completed an assignment left their company within one year after repatriation Swaak (1997) argues, as expatriates cost three to four times their base salary, they should be treated as investments It is a tremendous loss of money as well as valuable knowledge and expertise to the organisation if, upon return, the expatriate leaves the company (Molnar and Loewe, 1997) In addition to that, repatriation treatment influences the desire of the staff to take on an overseas assignment (Welch, 1994) Employees and prospective expatriates expect to see that repatriates are treated with respect upon their return, that they are offered challenging assignments that utilise their newly acquired skills and that their international experience is valued in the home office and across the organisation However, if the repatriation does not come up to the expectations of prospective expatriates, it may cause reluctance to take on an overseas position in the first place (Allen and Alvarez, 1998) Koulopoulos from ``The Delphi Group'' summarises the need for a culture change with the statement that ``no knowledge management system can work without an organization undergoing a significant cultural change'' (Greengard, 1998c, p 90) As people are at the heart of knowledge management, the success of knowledge management very much depends on a company's ability to effectively manage its employees In this sense, knowledge management requires profound changes in compensation, training, education and especially culture (Greengard, 1998a) A culture needs to be created that values employees as the most important asset of an organisation However, problems will always occur when developing new systems In this respect, Greengard (1998b) identified three cultural barriers organisations are usually confronted with when adopting a knowledge management initiative First, people not like to share their best ideas, second, people not like to use other people's ideas, and third, people like to consider themselves experts and prefer not to collaborate with others According to Garvin (1993), ideas carry maximum impact when they are shared broadly, rather than held in a few hands Nevertheless, people have traditionally hoarded knowledge and the unwillingness to share information is highly cultural (Senge, 1998) and it is not easy to change this mindset (Greengard, 1998b) This is especially so amongst employees with special knowledge in a certain field, who might be afraid of losing their individual power and importance when sharing their knowledge (Wiig, 1995, pp 236-7), and thus fear that knowledge sharing can impede their ability to get ahead in their career (Greengard, 1998b) In order to facilitate the flow of information throughout the organisation and subsequently the development of knowledge and expertise and in this sense to help in the creation of a learning organisation, the tradition of knowledge hoarding needs to be abandoned Knowledge management programs are of little value unless tied directly to easily seen business benefits, as people have no motivation to share their knowledge (Coleman, 1999) By creating a knowledgesharing environment, employers, through effective encouragement and rewards, let employees know that their knowledge and expertise is valued, and hence to communicate and share their knowledge and expertise This is also seen as potentially a major source of power in organisations (Bartlett and Ghoshal, 1998; Senge, 1998; Wiig, 1995; Buckman, 1998; Greengard, 1998a, 1998c; Martinez, 1998; Lank, 1997; Martiny, 1998; Coleman, 1999) The second barrier to knowledge sharing is associated with not liking to take on other people's ideas for fear it makes the recipient appear less knowledgeable and thus dependent on others (Greengard, 1998b) This causes the ``not-inventedheresyndrome'' (Wiig, 1995, p 236), which can be the result of fear to admit not knowing everything (Wiig, 1993, p 249) People may prefer to learn and obtain knowledge for themselves even though another person in the organisation already has the knowledge This process may result in delays in work processes and innovation, unnecessary time-consuming and costly training and development As human resource management provides broad strategies to influence the cultural assumptions and beliefs of employees (Marshall et al., 1996, p 95-6) it should play a central role in the move towards a knowledge management culture Traditional compensation, reward and pay systems are under attack for being neither cost-effective nor motivational (Despres and Hiltrop, 1995) Non-monetary rewards become important, as in a knowledge-intensive environment employees are potentially more motivated by intrinsic career considerations For example professional recognition and working in a challenging area and valuing their self-respect and their selfsatisfaction (Fish and Wood, 1997a; Lank, 1997; Despres and Hiltrop, 1995) A work setting needs to be created, in which work contributions, serving organisational needs, are also valued by the individuals as paths toward desired personal outcomes or rewards (Wood et al., 1998) and where employees are able to use their full potential (Kalra, 1997) Within the context of knowledge transfer on an international scale, the motivation to share knowledge also relates to the motivation of the people to take on international assignments Finding people who are willing to accept global assignments is one of the greatest HR challenges (Stroh and Caligiuri, 1998, p 10) According to Fish and Wood (1997a), many factors can influence the willingness to accept an overseas move, including the location of the assignment, the costs and benefits associated with the ongoing career of expatriates and spouses, and compensation associated with the appointment A study undertaken by Fish and Wood (1997a) showed that intrinsic career considerations were more important than monetary rewards in motivating employees to take on international assignments The results of this study highlight the importance of drawing increased attention to the individual career advancement and professional development of the expatriates to attract and motivate employees to accept overseas assignments As employers are recognising the power of knowledge and expertise of their people, they are now confronted with the need to successfully manage the knowledge and expertise, and therefore their employees (Martinez, 1998) This paper has emphasised the importance of transferring knowledge and expertise throughout an organisation on a cross-border basis by means of global assignments However the transfer of knowledge and expertise is only one of many activities and tasks involved in effective knowledge management, which requires the interplay of various areas of an organisation Whilst the importance of transferring people is especially important for the cross-border transfer of knowledge and expertise, information technology and advanced communication system serve as the necessary environment The international transfer of knowledge and expertise by means of global assignments affects the area of international human resource management In order to guarantee a successful transfer of knowledge and expertise and the creation of a learning organisation, further attention needs to be paid to the management of global assignments Particular consideration will have to be given to the repatriation of expatriates, the efficient use and application of the knowledge and skills gained abroad, and the retention of employees with international experience and competence