In this discussion, we consider the unity of knowledge, and deliberate a contrary perspective from current knowledge transfer practitioners, in a business context. We consider why, if knowledge is key for business success and competitive advantage, the transfer of knowledge remains for the most part a problematic event. Further, ifthe creation of knowledge before transfer is recognised within literature as a significant factor in determining a starting point for analogous scrutiny, then why is this focal point difficult to establish and (...) measure. (shrink)

Companies seeking to effectively manage the ethical dimensions of their business have created formal and informal practices, including those with the labels “ethics and compliance” and “corporate social responsibility” (CSR). However, there is little research describing how practitioners who create and implement these practices understand their meaning and relationship. Leveraging a communities of practice theoretical perspective, this qualitative study proposes that these practices can be studied as artifacts of managerial learning. Thematic analysis of interviews with senior managers suggests that practices (...) have diverse meaning, with only informal relationships between them in most cases. Theoretically, this research offers a new lens through which to view compliance and CSR practices as socially negotiated, contextual, and dynamic. Practically, it suggests that there may be new opportunities for learning if managers create practices through an intentional exploration of shared meaning. (shrink)

This discussion surrounds the dialectical methodology, underpinning the unity of knowledge, and discusses a differing perspective to knowledge and knowledge value from knowledge transfer practitioners, in a business context. It asks why, if knowledge is vital for business success and competitive advantage, the transfer of knowledge is rarely a simple unproblematic event (Argote et al. 2000). Further, that the creation of knowledge before transfer is recognised within literature as a significant factor in determining a starting point for analogous scrutiny. Under (...) a premise of doxastic attitude, this discussion looks to synthesise from current literature and research the epistemic principal of ‘knowledge’, which underpins understanding congruent knowledge transfer theories and perspectives principals. (shrink)

The article focuses on Intranet technology as the result of overlapping negotiations among social actors inside organizations. Such negotiations are aimed at establishing and embedding specific relations and representations of work, communication, and learning into the technological artifact. Two case studies are presented to analyze practices and processes of implementation and use of the Intranet. The fieldwork, carried out in two companies in Italy and the United Kingdom, shows how specific contexts and organizational histories can affect such processes. Despite the (...) “optimistic” imagery associated with Intranet technology and the high expectations about its communicative and economic efficiency, the article points out many constraints in the process of implementation and use. Company history and culture, skills and work groups, and use of other technologies and media are relevant factors to account for the current use of the two systems and their low degree of integration into everyday working and communicative practices. (shrink)

To allow a pragmatic approach to understanding value of knowledge as a ‘thing’ to be transferred, the axiological foundationalism significance of the human perception of knowledge continues to be a significant contributing factor. Similarly the construct of our knowledge is parallel to doxastic attitudes and perspectives. Thus, through reconciliation of foundational and doxastic positions, one can view knowledge and knowledge value as a singular construct. This can be characterised through a multitude definition but not as a singular epistemic principal. This (...) interpretation of current and historical literature offers an outline and assessment of current and historical knowledge philosophy, theory and positioning, but at the same time, tries to place it within the realms of a business context. (shrink)

The management of “wisdom” has been mooted in knowledge management (KM) theory mostly in relation to what is known as the “knowledge hierarchy”. We argue that there are unquestioned assumptions inherent in KM leading to wisdom being included in KM theory because of rhetorical “urges” more than theoretical ones. These rhetorical urges impel a drive towards perfection that excludes more than is included. Our interrogation of the KM literature uncovers some of the questionable implications in understanding knowledge as a resource (...) and an asset and of understanding wisdom as a pinnacle to a knowledge hierarchy. We urge caution regarding theorising of wisdom at the top of a hierarchy, as it should not be mooted as a perfect final solution to Knowledge Management. We suggest the theorising of wisdom be opened out to its fullest “poetic possibilities”, and that attempts to close off its meaning be resisted. (shrink)

The relevance of different concepts of computer software (henceforth SW) rights is analysed from the viewpoint of divergent sociopolitical doctrines. The question of software rights is considered from the ontological assumptions, on one extreme, to the relevance of current practical applications of SW rights (such as copyright and patent), on the other extreme. It will be argued (from a non-descriptive/non-cognitive account) that the current expression of SW rights in Western societies (namely copyright, excluding patent) can be seen to be fair (...) from the viewpoint of the theses of agreed rights and universalisability. Finally, given that such practice is neither immoral, nor irrelevant-but fair (based on the ad ignorantiam argument)-we have good reason to respect it rather than violate or demolish it. (shrink)

Organizations comprise many social communities which arguably contribute to organizational knowledge creation. Two of these are the widely discussed community of practice and the lesser known micro-community of knowledge. Within such organizational communities collegial relationships are formed and maintained, norms and expectations learned, experiences shared, and ideas articulated and developed. The quality of collegial relations fostered by such communities, together with the importance of productive dialogue, have been identified as key components in organizations with the capability for ongoing innovation. Although (...) communities of practice have long been recognized as contexts for both learning and the development of collegial relations, little attention has been paid to micro-communities of knowledge. Using examples from a micro-community of knowledge found in a small New Zealand-based IT company, I demonstrate the ways in which participants ‘do collegiality’ towards establishing relational engagement. An example of collegial interaction in a community of practice is provided by way of contrast. The article concludes by arguing that despite being two distinct interactional contexts, the repertoire of relational skills required and the potential for social learning through participation in these two kinds of communities renders them not only complementary, but tightly interdependent. (shrink)