IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/jknowl/v6y2015i4p1001-1012.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Introduction to Knowledge Utilization Capability and its Autopoietic Epistemological Domain

Author

Listed:
  • Manasi Shukla

Abstract

In this paper, we strive to define the knowledge utilization capability (KUC) by delving into the epistemological foundations of knowledge management in an organization. To introduce the conceptualization of KUC, a review of three epistemological foundations as reported by Christensen and Bang (Journal of Knowledge Management 7(3):116–128, 2003 ) namely, artifact oriented, process oriented, and autopoietic oriented (Maturana and Varela 1980 , 1987 ) is presented. The artifact-oriented epistemology is characterized by knowledge management focused on collecting and sharing formal data and information. The process-oriented knowledge management describes the different stages of knowledge conversion within an organization. The autopoietic view is rooted in the theory of neurobiology that comprises structures of social, self-organized systems. This view is embraced to enable a definition of KUC as a capability that results in new knowledge or modifications in the existing system of knowledge via the interactions among the various sub-systems or parts of the knowledge flow system. Thus the KUC is defined as the capability of an organization to synthesize new knowledge and reconfigure it from both the existing and new knowledge via the inter-organizational linkages. Thus, KUC is explicated as a capability with the potential for influencing future action supporting our research emphasis on this as a dynamic aspect of knowledge management theory in an organization. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Suggested Citation

  • Manasi Shukla, 2015. "An Introduction to Knowledge Utilization Capability and its Autopoietic Epistemological Domain," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 6(4), pages 1001-1012, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:jknowl:v:6:y:2015:i:4:p:1001-1012
    DOI: 10.1007/s13132-013-0171-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s13132-013-0171-6
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s13132-013-0171-6?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Robin Marris & Adrian Wood (ed.), 1971. "The Corporate Economy," Palgrave Macmillan Books, Palgrave Macmillan, number 978-1-349-01110-0, December.
    2. David J. Teece & Gary Pisano & Amy Shuen, 1997. "Dynamic capabilities and strategic management," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(7), pages 509-533, August.
    3. Kathleen M. Eisenhardt & Jeffrey A. Martin, 2000. "Dynamic capabilities: what are they?," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(10‐11), pages 1105-1121, October.
    4. Deborah Dougherty & Trudy Heller, 1994. "The Illegitimacy of Successful Product Innovation in Established Firms," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(2), pages 200-218, May.
    5. Kevin Zheng Zhou & Fang Wu, 2010. "Technological capability, strategic flexibility, and product innovation," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(5), pages 547-561, May.
    6. Georg Von Krogh & Johan Roos & Ken Slocum, 1994. "An essay on corporate epistemology," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(S2), pages 53-71, June.
    7. Cepeda, Gabriel & Vera, Dusya, 2007. "Dynamic capabilities and operational capabilities: A knowledge management perspective," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 60(5), pages 426-437, May.
    8. Rebecca Henderson & Iain Cockburn, 1994. "Measuring Competence? Exploring Firm Effects in Pharmaceutical Research," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(S1), pages 63-84, December.
    9. Prafulla Joglekar & Alan Harrison Bohl & Morris Hamburg, 1997. "Comments on "Fortune Favors the Prepared Firm"," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 43(10), pages 1455-1462, October.
    10. Daniel A. Levinthal & James G. March, 1993. "The myopia of learning," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(S2), pages 95-112, December.
    11. Iansiti, Marco, 1995. "Technology integration: Managing technological evolution in a complex environment," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(4), pages 521-542, July.
    12. William C. Bogner & Pratima Bansal, 2007. "Knowledge Management as the Basis of Sustained High Performance," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(1), pages 165-188, January.
    13. Mahoney, Joseph T., 1995. "The management of resources and the resource of management," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 91-101, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Fascia, Michael, 2019. "WORKING PAPER SERIES: PHILOSOPHY AND KNOWLEDGE: Reflexion on a flexible management method," OSF Preprints 38m2d, Center for Open Science.
    2. Fascia, Michael, 2018. "Belvederes of philosophy and knowledge," OSF Preprints fw547, Center for Open Science.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Duysters, G.M. & Heimeriks, K.H., 2002. "The influence of alliance capabilities on alliance performance: an empirical investigation," Working Papers 02.08, Eindhoven Center for Innovation Studies.
    2. Jim Andersén, 2023. "Green resource orchestration: A critical appraisal of the use of resource orchestration in environmental management research, and a research agenda for future study," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(8), pages 5506-5520, December.
    3. Sheng, Margaret L. & Chien, Iting, 2016. "Rethinking organizational learning orientation on radical and incremental innovation in high-tech firms," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 2302-2308.
    4. Frank T. Rothaermel & Maria Tereza Alexandre, 2009. "Ambidexterity in Technology Sourcing: The Moderating Role of Absorptive Capacity," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 759-780, August.
    5. Mehmet Ali Köseoglu & John A. Parnell & Melissa Yan Yee Yick, 2021. "Identifying influential studies and maturity level in intellectual structure of fields: evidence from strategic management," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 1271-1309, February.
    6. Justin J. P. Jansen & Michiel P. Tempelaar & Frans A. J. van den Bosch & Henk W. Volberda, 2009. "Structural Differentiation and Ambidexterity: The Mediating Role of Integration Mechanisms," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 797-811, August.
    7. Heimeriks, K. & Duysters, G.M. & Vanhaverbeke, W.P.M., 2004. "The evolution of alliance capabilities," Working Papers 04.20, Eindhoven Center for Innovation Studies.
    8. Tan, Justin & Wang, Liang, 2010. "Flexibility-efficiency tradeoff and performance implications among Chinese SOEs," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 356-362, April.
    9. Liu, Yi & Liao, Yonghai & Li, Yuan, 2018. "Capability configuration, ambidexterity and performance: Evidence from service outsourcing sector," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 343-352.
    10. Basu, Sandip & Phelps, Corey & Kotha, Suresh, 2011. "Towards understanding who makes corporate venture capital investments and why," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 153-171, March.
    11. Frank T. Rothaermel & Andrew M. Hess, 2007. "Building Dynamic Capabilities: Innovation Driven by Individual-, Firm-, and Network-Level Effects," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(6), pages 898-921, December.
    12. Koen H. Heimeriks & Geert Duysters, 2007. "Alliance Capability as a Mediator Between Experience and Alliance Performance: An Empirical Investigation into the Alliance Capability Development Process," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(1), pages 25-49, January.
    13. J. P. Eggers & Sarah Kaplan, 2009. "Cognition and Renewal: Comparing CEO and Organizational Effects on Incumbent Adaptation to Technical Change," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(2), pages 461-477, April.
    14. Yi Liu & Longwei Wang & Changhong Yuan & Yuan Li, 2012. "Information communication, organizational capability and new product development: an empirical study of Chinese firms," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 37(4), pages 416-432, August.
    15. Sohaib S. Hassan & Konrad Meisner & Kevin Krause & Levan Bzhalava & Petra Moog, 2024. "Is digitalization a source of innovation? Exploring the role of digital diffusion in SME innovation performance," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 62(4), pages 1469-1491, April.
    16. Jorge Ferreira & Sofia Cardim & Arnaldo Coelho, 2021. "Dynamic Capabilities and Mediating Effects of Innovation on the Competitive Advantage and Firm’s Performance: the Moderating Role of Organizational Learning Capability," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 12(2), pages 620-644, June.
    17. Heimeriks, K. & Duysters, G.M., 2004. "A study into the alliance capability development process," Working Papers 04.21, Eindhoven Center for Innovation Studies.
    18. Wu Zhan & Roger (Rongxin) Chen, 2013. "Dynamic capability and IJV performance: The effect of exploitation and exploration capabilities," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 601-632, June.
    19. Hart, Timothy A. & Gilstrap, J. Bruce & Bolino, Mark C., 2016. "Organizational citizenship behavior and the enhancement of absorptive capacity," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(10), pages 3981-3988.
    20. Forés, Beatriz & Camisón, César, 2016. "Does incremental and radical innovation performance depend on different types of knowledge accumulation capabilities and organizational size?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 831-848.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:jknowl:v:6:y:2015:i:4:p:1001-1012. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.