Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Towards a Measurable Substance of Organizational Knowledge

  • Published:
Journal of the Knowledge Economy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study demonstrates how humanized, work processes generate measurable knowledge for the organization. However, because knowledge naturally defies operationalization, this study employed a reification methodology towards giving it some concrete property. With this, the paper explored the complementary relationship among the heterogeneous knowledge resources to develop a “KonCapExp” model for measuring organizational knowledge. The findings thus reveal that there are socio-technical interactions among the organizational work elements (workers, tools, and tasks, tangible resources). And that through socio-technical interactions, organizations create, not only visible goods and services, but also measurable knowledge. Also, the study revealed that the measurable, complementary, knowledge resources exhibit an associative relationship that portends higher-order value for stakeholders. The paper, therefore, advocates that knowledge be operationalized using practice-friendly absorptive capacity and competence constructs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aaker, D. A. (1989). Managing assets and skills: The key to a sustainable competitive advantage. California management review, 31(2), 91–106.

  • Abbate, T., Codini, A., Aquilani, B., & Vrontis, D. (2021). From knowledge ecosystems to capabilities ecosystems: When open innovation digital platforms lead to value co-creation. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 1–15.

  • Abd Rahman, A., Ng, S. I., Sambasivan, M., & Wong, F. (2013). Training and organizational effectiveness: Moderating role of knowledge management process. European Journal of Training and Development.

  • Adobor, H., Kudonoo, E., & Daneshfar, A. (2019). Knowledge management capability and organizational memory: A study of public sector agencies. International Journal of Public Sector Management.

  • Ahmed, S. S., Guozhu, J., Mubarik, S., Khan, M., & Khan, E. (2019). Intellectual capital and business performance: the role of dimensions of absorptive capacity. Journal of Intellectual Capital.

  • Ahn, J., & Hong, A. J. (2019). Transforming I into we in organizational knowledge creation: A case study. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 30(4), 565–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akgün, A. E., Lynn, G. S., & Byrne, J. C. (2003). Organizational learning: A socio-cognitive framework. Human Relations, 56(7), 839–868.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allard-Poesi, F. (1998). Representations and influence processes in groups: Towards a socio-cognitive perspective on cognition in organization.

  • Amoako-Gyampah, K., Boakye, K. G., Famiyeh, S., & Adaku, E. (2020). Supplier integration, operational capability and firm performance: An investigation in an emerging economy environment. Production Planning & Control, 31(13), 1128–1148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Antonacopoulou, E., & Chiva, R. (2007). The social complexity of organizational learning: The dynamics of learning and organizing. Management Learning, 38, 277–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argote, L., & Miron-Spektor, E. (2011). Organizational learning: From experience to knowledge. Organization Science, 22(5), 1123–1137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arrow, H., & Henry, K. B. (2019). Complex dynamics in small groups. In Evolution, Development and Complexity (pp. 403–420). Springer, Cham.

  • Austin, R., & Larkey, P. (2007). Measuring knowledge work. Cambridge University Press, UK.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bain & Co. (1998). 1998 Management tool utilization and satisfaction survey. Consultant’s News, November, 8.

  • Balogun, J., Bartunek, J. M., & Do, B. (2015). Senior managers’ sensemaking and responses to strategic Change. Organization Science, 26(4), 960–979.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baralou, E., & Tsoukas, H. (2015). How is new organizational knowledge created in a virtual context? An Ethnographic Study. Organization Studies, 36(5), 593–620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, E., & Weber, A. S. (2015). Cloud computing in New York State education: Case study of failed technology adoption of a statewide longitudinal database for student data. Qscience Connect, 2015(1), 2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bi, R., Davison, R. M., & Smyrnios, K. X. (2017). E-business and fast growth SMEs. Small Business Economics, 48(3), 559–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blöte, A. W., Van der Burg, E., & Klein, A. S. (2001). Students’ flexibility in solving two-digit addition and subtraction problems: Instruction effects. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(3), 627.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolade, S. (Forthcoming). Organizational knowledge creation: a psycho-social cognition. J. of Information & Knowledge Management.

  • Bolade, S. (2022a). A complementarity perspective of knowledge resources. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Vol. 13, 13, pg 1300–1320.

  • Bolade, S. (2022b). Psycho-cognitive model of knowledge creation theory. Journal of Information & Knowledge Management, Vol. 21(1), 2250011.

  • Bolisani, E., & Oltramari, A. (2015). Knowledge as a measurable object in business contexts: A stock-and-flow approach. The Essentials of Knowledge Management, 131–152.

  • Bouncken, R. B., Pesch, R., & Reuschl, A. (2016). Copoiesis: Mutual knowledge creation in alliances. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 1(1), 44–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyd, B. K., Gove, S., & Hitt, M. A. (2005). Construct measurement in strategic management research: Illusion or reality? Strategic Management Journal, 26(3), 239–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brummell, S. P., Seymour, J., & Higginbottom, G. (2016). Cardiopulmonary resuscitation decisions in the emergency department: An ethnography of tacit knowledge in practice. Social Science & Medicine, 156, 47–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brusoni, S., & Rosenkranz, N. A. (2014). Reading between the lines: Learning as a process between organizational context and individuals’ proclivities. European Management Journal, 32, 147–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cabrera, A., & Cabrera, E. F. (2002). Knowledge-Sharing Dilemmas. Organization Studies, 23(5), 687–710.

    Google Scholar 

  • Casey, A. (2005). Enhancing individual and organizational learning: A sociological model. Management Learning, 36, 131–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cedefop. (2011). Glossary quality in education and training, (Luxembourg, Publications Offices of the European Union), http://www.cedefop.europa.eu/EN/publications/17663.aspx. last accessed 2013–08–14.

  • Cha, H., Pingry, D., & Thatcher, M. E. (2008). Managing the knowledge supply chain: An organizational learning model of IT offshore outsourcing. MIS Quarterly, 32(2), 281–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, I., & Chao, C. K. (2008). Knowledge management in small and medium-sized enterprises. Communications of the ACM, 51(4), 83–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chin, K. S., Lo, K. C., & Jendy, L. P. F. (2010). Development of user-satisfaction based knowledge management performance measurement system with evidential reasoning approach. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(1), 366–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chong, A. Y. L., Ooi, K. B., Bao, H., & Lin, B. (2014). Can e-business adoption be influenced by knowledge management? An empirical analysis of Malaysian SMEs. Journal of Knowledge Management, 18(1), 121–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choo, A. S., Linderman, K., & Schroeder, R. G. (2007). Method and context perspectives on learning and knowledge creation in quality management. Journal of Operations Management, 25(4), 918–931.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chua, R. Y. J., & Iyengar, S. S. (2008). Creativity as a matter of choice: Prior experience and task instruction as boundary conditions for the positive effect of choice on creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior., 42(3), 164–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Constantinescu, A. O., O’Reilly, J. X., & Behrens, T. E. (2016). Organizing conceptual knowledge in humans with a gridlike code. Science, 352(6292), 1464–1468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cording, M., Christmann, P., & Weigelt, C. (2010). Measuring theoretically complex constructs: The case of acquisition performance. Strategic Organization, 8(1), 11–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cornelissen, J. P., Durand, R., Fiss, P. C., Lammers, J. C., & Vaara, E. (2015). Putting communication front and center in institutional theory and analysis.

  • Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they know. Harvard Business Press.

  • Deken, F., Carlile, P. R., Berends, H., & Lauche, K. (2016). Generating novelty through interdependent routines: A process model of routine work. Organization Science, 27(3), 659–677.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denicolai, S., Ramirez, M., & Tidd, J. (2016). Overcoming the false dichotomy between internal R&D and external knowledge acquisition: Absorptive capacity dynamics over time. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 104, 57–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • do Rosário Cabrita, M., Machado, V. C., & Grilo, A. (2011). Intellectual capital: How knowledge creates value. In Knowledge Management for Process, Organizational and Marketing Innovation: Tools and Methods (pp. 237–252). IGI Global.

  • d’Ovidio, M., & Gandini, A. (2019). The functions of social interaction in the knowledge-creative economy: Between co-presence and ICT-mediated social relations. Sociologica, 13(1), 51–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duff, M. C., Hengst, J., Tranel, D., & Cohen, N. J. (2006). Development of shared information in communication despite hippocampal amnesia. Nature Neuroscience, 9, 140–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, J. H., Singh, H., & Hesterly, W. S. (2018). The relational view revisited: A dynamic perspective on value creation and value capture. Strategic Management Journal, 39(12), 3140–3162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edvinsson, L. (1997). Developing intellectual capital at Skandia. Long Range Planning, 30(3), 266–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egelman, C. D., Epple, D., Argote, L., & Fuchs, E. R. (2017). Learning by doing in multiproduct manufacturing: Variety, customizations, and overlapping product generations. Management Science, 63(2), 405–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eichenbaum, H. (2004). Hippocampus: Cognitive processes and neural representations that underlie declarative memory. Neuron, 44(1), 109–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elkjaer, B. (2004). Organizational learning: The “Third Way.” Management Learning, 35, 419–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ericsson, K. A. (2018). The differential influence of experience, practice, and deliberate practice on the development of superior individual performance of experts.

  • Ericsson, K. A. (2020). Towards a science of the acquisition of expert performance in sports: Clarifying the differences between deliberate practice and other types of practice. Journal of Sports Sciences, 38(2), 159–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farnese, M. L., Barbieri, B., Chirumbolo, A., & Patriotta, G. (2019). Managing knowledge in organizations: A Nonaka’s SECI model operationalization. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2730.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fazio, R. H., & Olson, M. A. (2003). Implicit measures in social cognition research: Their meaning and use. Annual Review of Psychology, 54(1), 297–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foti, F., Menghini, D., Orlandi, E., Rufini, C., Crinò, A., Spera, S., & Mandolesi, L. (2015). Learning by observation and learning by doing in Prader-Willi syndrome. Journal of Neurodevelopmental Disorders, 7(1), 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeze, R., & Kulkarni, U. (2005, January). Knowledge management capability assessment: Validating a knowledge assets measurement instrument. In Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 251a-251a). IEEE.

  • Garcia-Perez, A., & Ayres, R. (2015). Wikifailure: The limitations of technology for knowledge sharing. Leading Issues in Knowledge Management, Volume Two, 2, 242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Genç, N., Özbağ, G. K., & Esen, M. (2013). Resource based view and the impacts of marketing and production capabilities on innovation. Journal of Global Strategic Management, 14(1), 24–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gherardi, S. (2009). Organizational knowledge: The texture of workplace learning. John Wiley & Sons.

  • Grant, R. M., & Verona, G. (2015). What’s holding back empirical research into organizational capabilities? Remedies for Common Problems. Strategic Organization, 13(1), 61–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gooijer, J. D. (2000). Designing a knowledge management performance framework. Journal of Knowledge Management, 4(4), 303–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gourlay, S. (2006). Towards conceptual clarity for ‘tacit knowledge’: A review of empirical studies. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 4(1), 60–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hager, P. (2017). The integrated view on competence. In Competence-based vocational and professional education (pp. 203–228). Springer, Cham.

  • Hall, R. (1992). The strategic analysis of intangible resources. Strategic Management Journal, 13(2), 135–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, R. (1993). A framework linking intangible resources and capabilities to sustainable competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 14(8), 607–618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamanaka, T. (1996). Cerebral laterality and category-specificity in cases of semantic memory impairment with PET-findings and associated with identification amnesia for familiar persons. Brain and Cognition, 30, 368–372.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, C. (2008). An overview of team effectiveness. Retrieved July 7, 2008.

  • Hazlett, S. A., Mcadam, R., & Gallagher, S. (2005). Theory building in knowledge management: In search of paradigms. Journal of Management Inquiry, 14(1), 31–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hecht, S. A., & Vagi, K. J. (2010). Sources of group and individual differences in emerging fraction skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 843.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helfat, C. E., & Martin, J. A. (2015). Dynamic managerial capabilities: A perspective on the relationship between managers, creativity, and innovation. The Oxford handbook of creativity, innovation, and entrepreneurship, 421.

  • Helfat, C. E., & Winter, S. G. (2011). Untangling dynamic and operational capabilities: Strategy for the (N) ever-changing world. Strategic Management Journal, 32(11), 1243–1250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hemmasi, M., & Csanda, C. M. (2009). The effectiveness of communities of practice: An empirical study. Journal of Managerial Issues, 262–279.

  • Henfridsson, O., Nandhakumar, J., Scarbrough, H., & Panourgias, N. (2018). Recombination in the open-ended value landscape of digital innovation. Information and Organization, 28(2), 89–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hislop, D. (2013). Knowledge management in organisations (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hodges, J. R., Bozeat, S., Ralph, M. A. L., Patterson, K., & Spatt, J. (2000). The role of conceptual knowledge in object use evidence from semantic dementia. Brain, 123(9), 1913–1925.

  • Hodges, J. R., Bozeat, S., Ralph, M. A. L., Patterson, K., & Spatt, J. (2000). The role of conceptual knowledge in object use evidence from semantic dementia. Brain, 123(9), 1913–1925.

  • Hodges, J. R., Spatt, J., & Patterson, K. (1999). “What” and “how”: Evidence for the dissociation of object knowledge and mechanical problem-solving skills in the human brain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 96(16), 9444–9448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodgson, G. M. (2016). The future of work in the twenty-first century. Journal of Economic Issues, 50(1), 197–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobides, M. G., Cennamo, C., & Gawer, A. (2018). Towards a theory of ecosystems. Strategic Management Journal, 39(8), 2255–2276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Javidan, M. (1998). Core competence: What does it mean in practice? Long Range Planning, 31(1), 60–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, S. M., Anand, G., Larson, E. C., & Mahoney, J. (2019). Resource co-specialization in outsourcing of enterprise systems software: Impact on exchange success and firm growth. Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management.

  • Kim, S., & Mahoney, J. (2008). Resource co specialization, firm growth, and organizational performance: An empirical analysis of organizational restructuring and IT implementations (pp. 08–0107). University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

    Google Scholar 

  • LaFayette, B., Curtis, W., Bedford, D., & Iyer, S. (2019). Knowledge economies and knowledge work. Emerald Group Publishing.

  • Lane, P. J., Koka, B. R., & Pathak, S. (2006). The reification of absorptive capacity: A critical review and rejuvenation of the construct. Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 833–863.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lanzara, G. F., & Patriotta, G. (2001). Technology and the courtroom: An inquiry into knowledge making in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 38(7), 943–971.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Y. T., Ryu, S. Y., & McKone-Sweet, K. E. (2013). The role of complementary resources in the development of e-supply chains and the firm’s performance: An exploratory analysis of secondary data. International Journal of Operations Research and Information Systems (IJORIS), 4(2), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, D., & Van den Steen, E. (2010). Managing know-how. Management Science, 56(2), 270–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, C. S., & Wong, K. Y. (2015). Development and validation of knowledge management performance measurement constructs for small and medium enterprises. Journal of Knowledge Management.

  • Lewandowska, M. S. (2015). Capturing absorptive capacity: Concepts, determinants, measurement modes and role in open innovation. International Journal of Management and Economics, 45(1), 32–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Louadi, M. E. (2008). Knowledge heterogeneity and social network analysis–Towards conceptual and measurement clarifications. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 6(3), 199–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahmood, H. K., Hashmi, M. S., Shoaib, D. M., Danish, R., & Abbas, J. (2014). Impact of TQM practices on motivation of teachers in secondary schools empirical evidence from Pakistan. Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research, 4(6), 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mariano, S., & Awazu, Y. (2016). Artifacts in knowledge management research: A systematic literature review and future research directions. Journal of Knowledge Management, 20(6), 1333–1352. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-05-2016-0199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mariano, S., & Walter, C. (2015). The construct of absorptive capacity in knowledge management and intellectual capital research: Content and text analyses. Journal of Knowledge Management.

  • Markauskaite, L., & Goodyear, P. (2014). Professional work and knowledge. In International handbook of research in professional and practice-based learning (pp. 79–106). Springer, Dordrecht.

  • Mathews, J. (2012). “Knowledge creation in organizations: A social-cognitive view,” VIKALPA • 37( 3), 73–86.

  • Matošková, J. (2016). Measuring knowledge. Journal of Competitiveness.

  • Meyer, B., & Sugiyama, K. (2007). The concept of knowledge in KM: A dimensional model. Journal of knowledge management.

  • McGrath, J. E., & Argote, L. (2001). Group processes in organizational contexts. Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Group processes, pp. 603–627.

  • Mithas, S., Ramasubbu, N., & Sambamurthy, V. (2011). How information management capability influences firm performance. MIS quarterly, pp.237–256.

  • Moffett, S., McAdam, R., & Parkinson, S. (2002). Developing a model for technology and cultural factors in knowledge management: A factor analysis. Knowledge Process and Management Journal, 9(4), 237–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohebi, M. (2017). Is labor productivity interpretive for fluctuations in NAIRU? Panel-VAR evidence from OECD countries. International Journal of Contemporary Economics & Administrative Sciences, 7(1–2), 160–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moustaghfir, K., & Schiuma, G. (2013). Knowledge, learning, and innovation: Research and perspectives. Journal of knowledge management.

  • Mueller, E., Syme, L., & Haeussler, C. (2020). Absorbing partner knowledge in R&D collaborations–The influence of founders on potential and realized absorptive capacity. R&D Management, 50(2), 255–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mumtaz, U., Ali, Y., & Petrillo, A. (2018). A linear regression approach to evaluate the green supply chain management impact on industrial organizational performance. Science of the Total Environment, 62(4), 162–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nabavi, R. T. (2012). Bandura’s social learning theory & social cognitive learning theory. Theory of Developmental Psychology, 1–24.

  • Nappi, V., & Kelly, K. (2021). Measuring knowledge management in the innovation process: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Knowledge Management Studies, 12(2), 161–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation (Vol. 105). OUP USA.

  • Nonaka, I., & Toyama, R. (2015). The knowledge-creating theory revisited: Knowledge creation as a synthesizing process. In The essentials of knowledge management (pp. 95–110). Palgrave Macmillan, London.

  • Nonaka, I., Yokomichi, K., & Nishihara, A. H. (2018). Unleashing the knowledge potential of the community for co-creation of values in society. In Knowledge Creation in Community Development (pp. 203–225). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.

  • Okuyama, R. (2017). Importance of tacit knowledge in incremental innovation: Implications from drug discovery cases. Journal of Strategy and Management.

  • Omerzel, D. G., Antoncic, B., & Ruzzier, M. (2011). Developing and testing a multi-dimensional knowledge management model on Slovenian SMEs. Baltic Journal of Management, 6(2), 179–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, G., & Park, Y. (2006). On the measurement of patent stock as knowledge indicators. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 73(7), 793–812.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parthasarathy, S., & Sharma, S. (2016). Efficiency analysis of ERP packages—A customization perspective. Computers in Industry, 82, 19–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pérez-Luño, A., Saparito, P., & Gopalakrishnan, S. (2016). Small and medium-sized enterprise’s entrepreneurial versus market orientation and the creation of tacit knowledge. Journal of Small Business Management, 54(1), 262–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation, Harvard Business Review May/June, 79–91.

  • Ray, S., & Ramakrishnan, K. (2006). Resources, competences and capabilities conundrum: A back-to-basics call. Decision (0304–0941), 33(2).

  • Pitelis, C. N., & Teece, D. J. (2010). Cross-border market co-creation, dynamic capabilities and the entrepreneurial theory of the multinational enterprise. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19(4), 1247–1270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quilty-Dunn, J. (2020). Concepts and predication from perception to cognition. Philosophical Issues, 30(1).

  • Rebuschat, P. (2013). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge in second language research. Language Learning, 63(3), 595–626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rehman, A., Jingdong, L., & Hussain, I. (2015). The province-wide literacy rate in Pakistan and its impact on the economy. Pacific Science Review b: Humanities and Social Sciences, 1(3), 140–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reihlen, M., & Ringberg, T. (2013). Uncertainty, pluralism, and the knowledge-based theory of the firm: From J.-C. Spender’s contribution to a socio-cognitive approach. European Management Journal, 31(6), 706–716.

  • Renkl, A., Solymosi, J., & Erdmann, M. (2013). Training principle-based self-explanations: Transfer to new learning contents. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 35(35)

  • Ringberg, T., & Reihlen, M. (2008). Towards a socio-cognitive approach to knowledge transfer. Journal of Management Studies, 45(5), 912–935.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rittle-Johnson, B. (2019). Iterative development of conceptual and procedural knowledge in mathematics learning and instruction.

  • Rittle-Johnson, B., Schneider, M., & Star, J. R. (2015). Not a one-way street: Bidirectional relations between procedural and conceptual knowledge of mathematics. Educational Psychology Review, 27(4), 587–597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rudd, J., Butson, M. L., Barnett, L., Farrow, D., Berry, J., Borkoles, E., & Polman, R. (2016). A holistic measurement model of movement competency in children. Journal of Sports Sciences, 34(5), 477–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rumelhart, D. E., & Ortony, A. (2017). The representation of knowledge in memory 1 (pp. 99–135). Routledge.

  • Saif. (2018). “What is the role of human capital in economic development?”, Owlcation, available at: https:// owlcation.com/social-sciences/ROLE-OF-HUMAN-CAPITAL-IN- ECONOMIC-DEVELOPMENT (accessed November 21, 2018).

  • Salim, K. R., Puteh, M., & Daud, S. M. (2012). Assessing students’ practical skills in basic electronic laboratory based on psychomotor domain model. Procedia - Social andBehavioral Sciences, 56, 546–555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandberg, J., & Tsoukas, H. (2015). Practice theory: What it is, its philosophical base, and what it offers organization studies. In The routledge companion to philosophy in organization studies (pp. 216–230). Routledge.

  • Saragih, J., Tarigan, A., Silalahi, E. F., Wardati, J., & Pratama, I. (2020). Supply chain operational capability and supply chain operational performance: Does the supply chain management and supply chain integration matters. Int. J Sup. Chain. Mgt, 9(4), 1222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Savolainen, R. (2017). Information sharing and knowledge sharing as communicative activities. Information Research: An International Electronic Journal, 22(3), n3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiffer, S. (2017). Intention and convention in the theory of meaning. Hale Et. Al., 2017, 49–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schilke, O., Hu, S., & Helfat, C. E. (2018). Quo vadis, dynamic capabilities? A content analytic review of the current state of knowledge and recommendations for future research. Academy of Management Annals, 12(1), 390–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schiuma, G. (2012). Managing knowledge for business performance improvement. Journal of knowledge management.

  • Scrivener, S. (2002). The art object does not embody a form of knowledge.

  • Seidler, R. D., Bo, J., & Anguera, J. A. (2012). Neurocognitive contributions to motor skill learning: The role of working memory. Journal of Motor Behavior, 44(6), 445–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapira, P., Youtie, J., Yogeesvaran, K., & Jaafar, Z. (2006). Knowledge economy measurement: Methods, results and insights from the Malaysian Knowledge Content Study. Research Policy, 35(10), 1522–1537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shea, N., Krug, K., & Tobler, P. N. (2008). Conceptual representations in goal-directed decision making. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 8, 418–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sitar, A. S., & Škerlavaj, M. (2018). Learning-structure fit part I: Conceptualizing the relationship between organizational structure and employee learning. The Learning Organization. https://doi.org/10.1108/TLO-09-2015-0050

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smithers, A. (2017). Building a new testable model to estimate total factor productivity. World Economics, 18(2), 51–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Speaks, Jeff, (2019) “Theories of meaning”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2019 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2019/entries/meaning/

  • Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (2002). Pragmatics, modularity and mind-reading. Mind & Language, 17(1–2), 3–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stephen, I. A., Mary, I. O., Oluremi, O. A., Ayodele, O. M., & William, A. A. (2018). Examining the relationship between tacit knowledge of individuals and customer satisfaction. Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal, 24(1).

  • Tal, E. (2013). Old and new problems in philosophy of measurement. Philosophy Compass, 8(12), 1159–1173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J. (2015). Intangible assets and a theory of heterogeneous firms. In Intangibles, market failure and innovation performance (pp. 217–239). Springer, Cham.

  • Teece, D., Peteraf, M., & Leih, S. (2016). Dynamic capabilities and organizational agility: Risk, uncertainty, and strategy in the innovation economy. California Management Review, 58(4), 13–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tomo, A., Mangia, G., & Consiglio, S. (2020). Information systems and information technologies as enablers of innovation and knowledge creation and sharing in professional service firms. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 32(9), 1082–1097.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trempe, M., Sabourin, M., Rohbanfard, H., & Proteau, L. (2011). Observation learning versus physical practice leads to different consolidation outcomes in a movement timing task. Experimental Brain Research, 209(2), 181–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsoukas, H. (2009). A dialogical approach to the creation of new knowledge in organizations. Organization Science, 20(6), 941–957.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsoukas, H., & Chia, R. (2002). On organizational becoming: Rethinking organizational change. Organization Science, 13(5), 567–582.

  • Tsoukas, H., & Vladimirou, E. (2001). What is organizational knowledge? J. Management Stud., 38, 973–993.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Overwalle, F. (2009). Social cognition and the brain: A meta-analysis. Human Brain Mapping, 30(3), 829–858.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vatrapu, R. K. (2009, September). Towards a theory of socio-technical interactions. In European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning (pp. 694–699). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

  • Wang, C. L., Senaratne, C., & Rafiq, M. (2015). Success traps, dynamic capabilities and firm performance. British Journal of Management, 26(1), 26–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ward, P., Schraagen, J. M., Gore, J., & Roth, E. M. (Eds.). (2019). The Oxford handbook of expertise. Oxford University Press.

  • Winter, S. G. (2013). Habit, deliberation, and action: Strengthening the microfoundations of routines and capabilities. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(2), 120–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong, K. Y., Tan, L. P., Lee, C. S., & Wong, W. P. (2015). Knowledge management performance measurement: Measures, approaches, trends and future directions. Information Development, 31(3), 239–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, L., & Hahn, J. (2016). Learning from prior experience: an empirical study of serial entrepreneurs in IT-enabled crowdfunding. Available at SSRN 3006930.

  • Zhang, J., Hong, H. Y., Scardamalia, M., Teo, C. L., & Morley, E. A. (2011). Sustaining knowledge building as a principle-based innovation at an elementary school. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(2), 262–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zollo, M., Bettinazzi, E. L., Neumann, K., & Snoeren, P. (2016). Toward a comprehensive model of organizational evolution: Dynamic capabilities for innovation and adaptation of the enterprise model. Global Strategy Journal, 6(3), 225–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Operations Department, National Identity Management Commission, Ikare Akoko, Ondo State, Nigeria

    Sunday Bolade

  2. Knowledge and Talent Management Centre, Ajowa-Akoko, Ondo State, Nigeria

    Sunday Bolade

Authors
  1. Sunday Bolade
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sunday Bolade.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bolade, S. Towards a Measurable Substance of Organizational Knowledge. J Knowl Econ (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-023-01101-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-023-01101-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation