1. TASK ONE
1.2 Possession and practice
3.3 B&Q case
3. TASK TWO
3.2 Time distance
3.3 Technological distance
3.4 Social distance
3.5 Cultural distance
In a modernized and globalized world, knowledge creation and synergization of knowledge in an organization is truly crucial. As data and information are readily available, and information communication technology (ICT) has highly advanced, organizations such as B&Q need to understand how knowledge creation can assist to improve internal and external processes and also encourage innovation.
In task one, the aim is to differentiate between possession of knowledge and practice of knowledge and examine which epistemology B&Q uses throughout their supply chain. B&Q uses possession knowledge whereby it provides all their vendors with a code of conduct guidelines which they need to follow through. However, in the face of risk and uncertainty in an economic crisis, B&Q should adopt practice of knowledge and enabling people to do differently and better.
In task two, the statement by Stoneman (2010) means that trust and power are the main factors that drive product, process and organizational innovation. For B&Q, due to their power as the distributor, they are able to develop and lay down the process and procedures that all their vendors need to adhere to. However, in an economic crisis, its regimental practice may not work as uncertainty disrupts the flow of the procedures.
1. TASK ONE
The studies on knowledge and its characteristics have long been explored and discussed in the business and supply chain world. With the emergent of technology and innovation, the possession and practice of knowledge has become more essential in this “knowledge society” (Nonaka, 1994; Bell, 1973; Drucker, 1968; Toffler, 1990).
But what is knowledge and how does an organization activate and generate knowledge? Knowledge is defined as “awareness, consciousness, or familiarity gained by experience or learning” (knowledge, n.d) which are the ways people in a social situations would understand and make sense of where they are and what they are doing. When knowledge is conducted and embraced in an organization, it will result to a group of people who develop shared beliefs, behaviours and routines that shape organization capabilities.
Experts such as Polanyi (1966), Nonaka (1994) and Cook and Brown (1999) divide knowledge into two categories called tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge. Tacit knowledge is associated with the skills or know-how that people developed through their own experience in specific contexts. Whereas explicit knowledge is something that has been codified, written down or spelled out and is communicable across context.
1.2 Possession and practice
From the word possession itself, one can understand that it is about the knowledge that people have in their mind (Cook and Brown, 1999). Blackler (1995), and Cook and Brown (1999) refer possesion of knowledge as “knowledge” and practice of knowledge as “knowing”. Knowledge is a mental or cognitive capacity which is hierarchical in nature and comprises of data, information etc. moreover, possession of knowledge is a personal property where people render meaning from subjective experiences, perceptions and previous understanding. As human minds are individually unique, hence different people may perceive and intepret the same information or data differently.
Meanwhile, practice of knowledge sees knowledge as something that it developed through social interaction such as project work, group assignment or group discussion. When people practice knowledge, they convert tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge, thus transferring knowledge from one person to another. This is done through sharing stories, experiences or creating...
Bibliography: Abbott, A. (1988). The system of professions: An essay on the division of expert labour. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Alter, C., & Hage, J. (1993). Organizations working together. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Baer, W. (1987). Expertise and professional standards. Work and Occupations, 13, 532-522.
Barnett, W. P., & Burgelman, R. A. (1996). Evolutionary Perspectives on Strategy. Strategic management journal, 17, 5-19.
Bell, D. (1973). The Coming of Post-industrial Society: A Venture Social Forecasting. New York: Basic Books.
Blackler, F. (1995). Knowledge, knowledge work and organizations: An overview and interpretation. Organization studies, 16(6), 1021-1046.
Cook, S. D., & Brown, J. S. (1999). Bridging Epistemologies: The Generative Dance Between Organizational Knowledge and Organizational Knowing. Organization Science, 10(4), 381-400.
Dougherty, D., & Heller, T. (1994). The illegitimacy of successful new products in large firms. Organization Science, 5, 200-218.
Dougherty, D., Borrelli, L., Munir, K., & O’Sullivan, A. (2000). Systems of organizational sensemaking for sustained product innovation. Journal of engineering and technology management, 17, 321-355.
Drucker, P. (1968). The Age of Discontinuity: Guidelines to Our Changing Society. New York: Harper & Row.
Hardy, C., & Dougherty, D. (1997). Powering Product Innovation. European Management ]ournal, 15(1), 16-27.
Hitt, M. A., Beamish, P. W., Jackson, S. E., & Mathieu, J. E. (2007). Building Theoretical and Empirical Bridges Across Levels: Multilevel Research in Management. Academy of Management Journal, 50(6), 1385-1399.
Jackson, M. C. (2001). Critical systems thinking and practice. European Journal of Operational Research, 128, 233-244.
Jackson, M. C. (2006). Creative Holism: A Critical Systems Approach to Complex Problem Situations. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 23, 647-657.
Kingfisher. (2012). About us. Retrieved from Kingfisher plc web site: http://www.kingfisher.com/index.asp?pageid=176
Nonaka, I. (1994, February). A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14-37.
Nonaka, I., & Toyama, R. (2003). The knowledge-creating theory revisited: knowledge creation as a synthesizing process. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 1, 2-10.
Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. W. (2004). Knowledge networks as channels and conduits: The effects of spillovers in the Boston biotechnology community. Organization Science, 15(1), 5-22.
Pelz, D., & Andrews, F. (1966). Scientists in Organizations. New York: Wiley.
plc, K. (2012). About us. Retrieved from Kingfisher plc web site: http://www.kingfisher.com/index.asp?pageid=176
Powell, W., Koput, K., & Smith-Doerr, L. (1996). Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 116-145.
Schauer, F. (1991). Playing by the rules. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Swan, J., & Scarbrough, H. (2005). The politics of networked innovation. Human Relations, 58(7), 913–943.
Toffler, A. (1990). Powershift: Knowledge, Wealth and Violence at the Edge of 2lst Century. New York: Bantam Books.
Tsoukas, H. (1996). The firm as a distributed knowledge system: A constructionist approach. Strategic management journal, 17, 11-25.
Van de Ven, A., & Polley, D. (1992). Learning while innovating. Organization Science, 3, 92-116.
Weick, K., & Westley, F. (1996). Organizational learning: affirming an oxymoron. In S. Clegg, C. Hardy, & W. Nord, Managing Organizations: Current Issues. Sage, London: Handbook of Organization Studies.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document