ОСНОВНЫЕ ТРЕНДЫ ТЕОРИИ УПРАВЛЕНИЯ ЗНАНИЯМИ

Целью исследования является определение основных трендов теории управления знаниями. Объектом исследования послужили научные публикации по теории экономики знаний, индексируемые в БД Web of Science (WoS) и Scopus. Предмет исследования – основные взаимосвязи между ключевыми словами, демонстрирующие выделение приоритетных направлений развития теории управления знаниями. Метод исследования – системный логический анализ. Определена эволюция содержания теории фирмы, демонстрирующая теорию управления знаниями как вершину развития теоретического описания хозяйственной деятельности организаций. Предложен авторский алгоритм анализа публикаций, индексированных в БД WoS и Scopus для выявления приоритетных направлений развития теории управления знаниями. Выделены четыре фронта (тренда) активного возрастания публикаций в теории управления знаниями: организационное обучение; дихотомия «получение новых знаний, использование накопленных знаний»; амбидекстрия; способность поглощать знания. Обзор массива публикаций 2017–2019 гг. позволил сформулировать проблемы взаимодействия университетов и наукоемких предприятий, определить направления дальнейших исследований. Систематизация выделенных основных трендов теории управления знаниями может быть применена при долгосрочном планирования научно-исследовательских работ университетов.

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. Попов Е . В., Попова Н . Г. , [ и д р .] . Целеориентированный подход к оценке деятельности научно-исследовательских коллективов // Университетское управление: практика и анализ. 2017. № 21(3). С. 6–18. DOI: 10.15826/umpa.2017.03.033.

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 knowledgeintensive 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: 10.1080/08985626.2016.1 154984.

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 contextspecific 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. Попов Е. В., Сандлер Д. Г. [и др.] Типология институтов генерации научных знаний университетами // Университетское управление. 2017. № 21(6) С. 28–40, DOI: 10.15826/umpa.2017.06.072.

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). PP. 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), pp. 796–811, DOI: 10.1108/IJSHE-04-2015-0079.