THE MAIN TRENDS OF THE KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT THEORY
https://doi.org/10.15826/umpa.2019.03.016
Abstract
The purpose of the study is to find out the main trends of the knowledge management theory. The research object is a knowledge economy publications bulk indexed in Web-of-Science and Scopus databases. The research is particularly concentrated on the main interrelations between keywords, which demonstrate the selection of priority directions for the development of knowledge management theory. The research method is systematic logical analysis. The evolution of the firm theory concept shows that the knowledge management theory is the top of the theoretical description of organizations’ economic activity. To find out the knowledge management theory priorities, there is described an algorithm to analyze publications indexed in the WoS and Scopus databases. The main four trends are distinguished here: organizational training; obtaining-new-knowledge-versus-using-accumulated-knowledge dichotomy; ambidexterity; knowledge absorption capacity. The review of the 2017–2019 articles allowed us to formulate some problems of interaction between universities and high-tech enterprises and to determine the directions of further research. Our systematization of the main trends of the knowledge management theory can be applied for long-term planning of universities’ research work.
About the Authors
E. V. Popov
Institute of Economics of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Russian Federation
Eugene V. Popov – Corresponding Member of RAS, Dr. hab. (Physics and Mathematics, Economics), Institute of Economics, Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences; +7 (343) 374-54-40
Russian Federation
Eugene V. Popov – Corresponding Member of RAS, Dr. hab. (Physics and Mathematics, Economics), Institute of Economics, Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences; +7 (343) 374-54-40
T. V. Aksenova
Ural Federal University named after the first President of Russia B. N. Yeltsin
Russian Federation
Tatiana V. Aksenova – PhD (Economics), Associate Professor, Institute of New Materials and Technologies
Russian Federation
Tatiana V. Aksenova – PhD (Economics), Associate Professor, Institute of New Materials and Technologies
References
1. March J. G. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning // Organizational science. 1991. № 2 (1). P. 71–87. DOI: 10.1287/orsc.2.1.71.
2. Serenko A., Dumay J. Citation classics published in Knowledge Management journals. Part II: studying research trends and discovering the Google Scholar Effect // Journal of Knowledge Management. 2015. № 19 (6). P. 1335–1355. DOI: 10.1108/JKM-02-2015-0086.
3. Levinthal D. A., March J. G. The myopia of learning // Strategic Management Journal. 1993. № 14 (2). P. 95–112, DOI: 10.1002/smj.4250141009.
4. Grant R. M., Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm // Strategic Management Journal. 1996. № 17(suppl. winter). P. 109–122.
5. Cyert R. M., March J. G. A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, USA; 1963.
6. Nelson R. S., Winter. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Belknap, Cambridge, UK; 1982.
7. Cohen W. M., Levinthal D. A. Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation // Administrative Science Quarterly. 1990. № 35 (1). P. 128–152. DOI: 10.2307/2393553.
8. Popov E. V., Popova N. G., et al. A goal-oriented approach to the performance assessment of research teams. University management. 2017, vol. 21(3), pp. 6–19, DOI: 10.15826/umpa.2017.03.033. (In Russ.).
9. Zahra S. A., George G. Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension // Academy of Management Review. 2002. № 27(2). P. 185–203.
10. Kogut B., Zander U. What Firms Do, Identity, and Learning // Organization Science. 1996. № 7(5). P. 502–518, DOI: 10.1287/orsc.7.5.502.
11. He Z.-L., Wong P.-K. Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis (Review) // Organization Science. 2004. № 15(4). P. 481–495.
12. Gibson C. B., Birkinshaw J. The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity // Academy of Management Journal. 2004. № 47(2). P. 209–226. DOI: 10.2307/20159573.
13. Merigó J. M., Cancino C. A., Coronado F., Urbano D. Academic research in innovation: a country analysis // Scientometrics. 2016. № 108. P. 559–593. DOI: 10.1007/ s11192-016-1984-4.
14. Ragab M. A. F., Arisha A. Knowledge management and measurement: A critical review (Review) // Journal of Knowledge Management. 2013. № 17(6). P. 873–901. DOI: 10.1108/JKM-12-2012-0381.
15. Bodas Freitas I. M. Marques R. A., Silva E. M. University-industry collaboration and innovation in emergent and mature industries in new industrialized countries // Research Policy. 2013. № 42(2). P. 443–453. DOI: 10.1016/j. respol.2012.06.006
16. Hughes A., Kitson M. Pathways to impact and the strategic role of universities: new evidence on the breadth and depth of university knowledge exchange in the UK and the factors constraining its development // Cambridge Journal of Economics. 2012. № 36(2). P. 723–750, DOI: 10.1093/cje/ bes017
17. Lee H.-F., Miozzo M. Which types of knowledge-intensive business services firms collaborate with universities for innovation? // Research Policy. 2019. № 48(7). P. 1633–1646. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2019.03.014
18. Sisson P., Ryan JCH. A Knowledge Concept Map: Structured Concept Analysis from Systematic Literature Review // Journal of Entrepreneurship Management and Innovation. 2017. № 13(3). P. 29–69, wos:000442696000003.
19. Shearmur R., Doloreux D. How open innovation processes vary between urban and remote environments: slow innovators, market-sourced information and frequency of interaction // Entrepreneurship and Regional Development. 2016. № 28(5–6). P. 337–357. DOI: 10.1080/08985626.2016.1154984.
20. Nobre F., Tobias A., Walker D, Organizational cognition: Review, conceptualization and strategic context // Producao. 2016. № 26(4). P. 742–756. DOI: 10.1590/0103–6513.108212.
21. Chen C. Mapping Scientific Frontiers. The Quest for Knowledge Visualization. 2nd ed. College of Information Science and Technology, Drexel University, Pennsylvania, USA, 2017, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4471-5128-9.
22. Prieto I. M., Pérez-Santana M. P. Managing innovative work behavior: The role of human resource practices // Personnel Review. 2014. № 43(2). P. 184–208, DOI: 10.1108/ PR-11-2012-0199.
23. Levitt J. M., Thelwall M. Long term productivity and collaboration in information science // Scientometrics. 2016. № 108(3). P. 1103–1117, DOI: 10.1007/s11192-016-2061.
24. Qi, C., Chau, P.Y.K. Will enterprise social networking systems promote knowledge management and organizational learning? An empirical study // Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce. 2018. № 28(1). P. 31–57, DOI: 10.1080/10919392.2018.1407081.
25. Turulja L., Bajgorić N. Knowing Means Existing: Organizational Learning Dimensions and Knowledge Management Capability // Business Systems Research. 2018. № 9(1). P. 1–18, DOI: 10.2478/bsrj-2018–0001.
26. Teece D. J. Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance // Strategic Management Journal. 2007. № 28(13). P. 1319–1350, DOI 10.1002/smj.
27. Schrage M. Innovating the Toyota, and YouTube, way. 2013. Available at: https://hbr.org/2013/01/what-youtube-andtoyota-know-t (accessed 25.04.2019).
28. von Delft S., Kortmann S., Gelhard C., Pisani N. Leveraging global sources of knowledge for business model innovation // Long Range Planning. 2018. Article in press. DOI: 10.1016/j.lrp.2018.08.003.
29. Martins L. L., Rindova V. P., Greenbaum B. E. Unlocking the hidden value of concepts: A cognitive approach to business model innovation // Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal. 2015. № 9(1). P. 99–117, DOI: 10.1002/sej.1191.
30. Parrilli M. D., Alcalde Heras H. STI and DUI innovation modes: Scientific-technological and context-specific nuances // Research Policy. 2016. № 45(4), P. 747–756, DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2016.01.001
31. Raisch S., Birkinshaw J. Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators (Review) // Journal of Management. 2008. № 34(3). P. 375–409.
32. Koryak O., Lockett, A. et al. Disentangling the antecedents of ambidexterity: Exploration and exploitation // Research Policy. 2019. № 47(2). P. 413–427, DOI: 10.1016/j. respol.2017.12.003.
33. Liu L., Wang F., Li X., Comparing the configured causal antecedents of exploration and exploitation: a fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis // Frontiers of Business Research in China. 2019. № 13(1), DOI: 10.1186/s11782–019– 0048-z.
34. Mina A., Bascavusoglu-Moreau E., Hughes A. Open service innovation and the firm’s search for external knowledge // Research Policy. 2014. № 43(5). P. 853–866, DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2013.07.004.
35. Jansen J. J. P., Van Den Bosch F. A. J., Volberda H. W. Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators // Management Science. 2006. № 52(11). P. 1661–1674.
36. Jensen M. B., Johnson B., Lorenz E., Lundvall B. A., Forms of knowledge and modes of innovation // Research Policy. 2007. № 36(5). P. 680–693, DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2007.01.006.
37. Haus-Reve S., Fitjar R. D., Rodríguez-Pose A. Does combining different types of collaboration always benefit firms? Collaboration, complementarity and product innovation in Norway // Research Policy. 2019. № 48(6). P. 1476–1486, DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2019.02.008.
38. Brix J. Innovation capacity building: An approach to maintaining balance between exploration and exploitation in organizational learning // Learning Organization. 2019. № 26(1): Article in press, DOI: 10.1108/TLO-08-2018-0143.
39. Havermans L. A. D., Hartog D. N. et al. Exploring the role of leadership in enabling contextual ambidexterity // Human Resource Management. 2015. № 54(1). P. 179–200, DOI: 10.1002/hrm.21764.
40. Centobelli P., Cerchione R. [и др.] Exploration and exploitation in the development of more entrepreneurial universities: A twisting learning path model of ambidexterity // Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2019. № 141. P. 172–194, DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2018.10.014
41. Popov E. V., Sandler D. G., [et al.] Typology of Institutions of Scientifc Knowledge Generation by Universities. University management. 2017, vol. 21(6), pp. 28–40, DOI: 10.15826/umpa.2017.06.072, (In Russ.).
42. Rodriguez M., Doloreux D., Shearmur R., Variety in external knowledge sourcing and innovation novelty: Evidence from the KIBS sector in Spain // Technovation. 2017. № 68. P. 35–43, DOI: 10.1016/j.technovation.2017.06.003
43. Crescenzi R., Gagliardi L. The innovative performance of firms in heterogeneous environments: The interplay between external knowledge and internal absorptive capacities // Research Policy. 2018. № 47(4). P. 782–795, DOI: 10.1016/j. respol.2018.02.006.
44. Spender J.-C., Scherer A. G. The philosophical foundations of knowledge management: Editors’ introduction // Organization. 2007. № 24(1). P. 5–28, DOI: 10.1177/1350508407071858.
45. Alavi M., Leidner D. E. Review: Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues // MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems. 2001. № 25(1). P. 107–136, DOI: 10.2307/3250961.
46. Nonaka I., Takeuchi H. The Knowledge-creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. Oxford University Press, 1995.
47. Trencher G., Bai X., Evans J., McCormick K., Yarime M. University partnerships for co-designing and co-producing urban sustainability // Global Environmental Change. 2014. № 28(1). P. 153–165, DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.06.009.
48. Hope A. Creating sustainable cities through knowledge exchange: A case study of knowledge transfer partnerships. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. 2016 (17:6). P. 796–811, DOI: 10.1108/IJSHE-04-2015-0079.
Review
For citations:
Popov E.V., Aksenova T.V. THE MAIN TRENDS OF THE KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT THEORY. University Management: Practice and Analysis. 2019;23(3):14-29. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.15826/umpa.2019.03.016
Views:
1006
Email this article 