The Impact of Firm Knowledge Strategy on its Competitive
Knowledge: A System Dynamics A pproach
Iman Naderi
i_naderi@ gsme.sharif.edu
Sina Damangir
damangir@ gsme.sharif.edu
Graduate School of Management and Economics
Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
Abstract
Recent movements towards a ‘knowledge-based’ view of firm have emphasized the
importance of knowledge in enabling the firm to gain competitive advantage. Different
dimensions of knowledge are explicated in the knowledge management literature such
as explicit vs. tacit knowledge, internal vs. external knowledge, etc. Based on SECI
model, firms create knowledge through social interaction between tacit and explicit
knowledge. It is important for them to acquire external knowledge and combine it with
internal knowledge to create new knowledge as well. Acquiring external knowledge is a
very complex process and several scholars have considered this process from different
perspectives. In this paper, we try to integrate these perspectives and propose a System
Dynamics (SD) model for knowledge transfer and creation dynamics within an industry.
Using this model, we can test the impact of knowledge strategy adopted by a firm on its
success in different knowledge situations.
Key words: knowledge management, knowledge creation, knowledge acquisition,
knowledge strategy, SECI model, System Dynamics
1. Introduction
Researchers have begun constructing a knowledge-based view of firm (e.g., Grant,
1996; Teece, 1998), which is built on the resource-based view of the firm (Bamey,
1991). These researchers suggest that knowledge is the key resource - and perhaps the
only resource - capable of creating sustainable competitive advantage. Therefore,
companies have been trying to find ways that help them manage this critical resource.
Davenport and Prusak (Davenport and Prusak, 1998) offer working definition of
knowledge within organizations, as follows:
“Knowledge is a fluid mix of framed experience, values, contextual
information and expert insight that provides a framework for evaluating and
incorporating new experiences and information.”
Several scholars explicated different dimensions and characteristics of knowledge.
Based on Michael Polanyi’s conception of tacit knowledge, Nonaka (Nonaka, 1994) has
developed the taxonomy of tacit and explicit knowledge that are on a continuum.
Explicit knowledge can be expressed in words and numbers and shared in the form of
data, scientific formula, specifications and manuals. This kind of knowledge can
migrate in the business community, and be accessible for most companies regardless of
their cooperative activity. It is codified and stored in databases where it can be accessed
and used easily by anyone in the company. At the opposite end of the spectrum is tacit
Page 1 of 15
knowledge - knowledge that people carry in their minds and is, therefore, highly
personal and hard to formalize, making it difficult to communicate or share with others.
Knowledge can also be categorized according to the location of knowledge source.
Knowledge that resides within the firm is internal knowledge and the knowledge that
resides outside the firm is external knowledge (Zack, 1999a). Sridharan, et al. refer to
the knowledge that a firm can claim ownership of, as intemal knowledge and the
knowledge that it cannot claim ownership of, as external knowledge (Sridharan,
Crossan and Bapuji, 2007). Intemmal knowledge may reside within peoples’ heads; be
embedded in behaviors, procedures, software and equipment; be recorded in various
documents; or stored in databases and online repositories. By contrast, common sources
of external knowledge include publications, universities, government agencies,
professional associations, consultants, vendors, knowledge brokers, and
interorganizational alliances (Zack, 1999a). Further, knowledge is viewed to reside at
multiple levels: individual, group, organization and inter-organization (Nonaka, 1994).
It is important for firms to access extemal knowledge for two reasons: first, to create
new knowledge and second, to avoid learning traps due to excessive reliance on internal
knowledge. Firms, therefore, make efforts to access the knowledge residing outside
their boundaries. Acquiring external knowledge, however, is far from easy because of
the complex and multi-dimensional nature of knowledge (Sridharan, Crossan and
Bapuji, 2007).
In this paper, we try to integrate various perspectives on external knowledge acquisition
and to help decision makers gain insights into the dynamics behaviour of knowledge
acquisition.
Based on SECI model for knowledge creation dynamics within firms proposed by
Nonaka and Takeuchi (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995) and its extension to industry level
suggested by Zack (Zack, 1999a), we have proposed a System Dynamics (SD) model in
which a firm is located on an industry and the transfer and exchange of knowledge
occures among the firm and its competitors within the industry. In this model, we
describe an explicit dynamic theory grounded in the relevant literature, with which we
can test different conditions for developing a knowledge strategy.
In order to validate the proposed model, we use two research propositions extracted
from the knowledge management literature and examine the stock-flow model under
different conditions. Then we check if the results confirm our expectations or not.
2. Model structure
As briefly mentioned, we use a system dynamics approach to model the knowledge
creation and acquisition dynamics within an industry. In the subsequent sections, first
we develop the general model and then we elaborate on external knowledge acquisition
dynamics in an industry.
2.1. Knowledge creation within a firm
According to Nonaka and Takeuchi (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995), knowledge creation
is the capability of a company as a whole to create knowledge, disseminate it
throughout the organization, and embody it in products, services, and systems. They
established a dynamic model of knowledge creation. In this model, they explained a
critical assumtion that human knowledge is created and expanded through social
Page 2 of 15
interaction between tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge. The name of this
interaction is knowledge conversion. Knowledge conversion takes place through an
iterative and spiral process of Socialization, Externalization, Combination and
Internalization - or SECI - as an effective means of making individuals’ tacit
knowledge available to the broader organization in order to create new knowledge and
then apply this new knowledge within their business processes towards achieving the
organization’ s vision, objectives and performance standards (figure 1).
ad tacit tacit mY
Socialization Externalization
O)
LY 7
tacit
ypudxa
tacit
Internalization Combination
°
2
£
&
t explicit explicit rs
Figure 1: Four modes of knowledge conversion (source: Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995)
= In Socialization, the first stage, each person’s tacit knowledge is converted to
tacit knowledge now also held by other members in the firm. Socialization is
primarily a process between individuals and occures in settings such as
apprenticeships and at conferences.
= In the next stage, Externalization, tacit knowledge is articulated and converted to
explicit knowledge comprehensible to others, e.g. writing a report after attending
a workshop. Externalization is a process among individuals within a group.
= During Combination, the third stage, this newly explicit knowledge becomes
widely disseminated, discussed, redesigned and modified. This is the area where
information technology is most helpful, because explicit knowledge can be
conveyed in documents, email, databases, as well as through meetings and
briefings.
= The final stage is Internalization. Internalization converts the changed, explicit
knowledge again to a tacit form, this time held by many people. The
internalization process is closely related to ‘learning by doing’ and transfers
organization and group explicit knowledge to the individual.
According to SECI model, the simple feedback loop representation of the dynamic
model for the knowledge creation in a firm is plotted in figure 2. In this closed loop,
each arrow represents one of the four steps in knowledge creation process.
Page 3 of 15
individual's tacit
knowledge
+
integrated explicit firm's tacit
knowledge knowledge
+
+
firm's explicit
knowledge
Figure 2: knowledge creation cycle in organizations
2.2. Knowledge transfer and creation within an industry
Similar to Nonaka's framework whereby tacit knowledge developed within one
organizational unit is made explicit, transferred to another unit, applied within the new
unit and thereby made tacit again; firms develop and transfer knowledge among
themselves within their industry (Zack, 1999a). An organization develops tacit
knowledge as a byproduct of its activities. This knowledge may be made explicit to
facilitate its transfer among other units of the organization. In doing so, it may leak out
of the organization into the industry at large. At the same time, the organization may be
absorbing knowledge leaking out of other firms within its industry, and internalizing
that knowledge through its reapplication within the firm.
Figure 3 shows the issue discussed above.
individual's tacit,
+ knowledge
+
integrated explicit firm's tacit
knowledge knowledge
+
firm's explicit +
knowledge firm's knowledge
transferability TNS
* :
explicit knowledge expired mowiesgs
acquired by firm acquired by competitors
, a
+ competitors! explicit
competitors’ knowledge
knowledge
transferability - i
competitors’ integrated
explicit knowledge
competitors’ tacit ag
knowledge
Figure 3: causal-loop diagram of knowledge creation and transfer dynamics within an industry
Page 4 of 15
2.3. Competitive knowledge and financial resources
We can expand the causal loop for knowledge creation and transfer within an industry
with what Zack has defined as Strategic Knowledge - the knowledge the firm needs to
execute its strategy (Zack, 1999b). He states that just a portion of the knowledge the
firm possesses is strategically important as a source of sustainable competitive
advantage, because such knowledge is highly valuable, unique to the organization,
difficult to imitate and difficult to substitute (Barney, 1991).
firm's financial financial resources
resources allocated to learning
4 +
+
firm's competitive oe .
knowledge individual's tacit__+
Be knowledge
* firm's tacit integrated explicit
knowled,
knowledge pee
is
firm's explicit firm's knowledge tf:
transferability
7 pe ee _ explicit knowledge
f + + acquired by
competitors
explicit knowledge
acquired by firm +
+ + competitors’ explicit
knowledge oy
competitors! 4 +
knowledge nN ,
transferability competitors
FF integrated explicit
A competitors’ tacit owledge
competitors’ knowledge
competitive nd
knowledge +
+ { 4 .
financial resources
competitors’ allocated to learning by
financial resources competitors
+
Figure 4: the role of competitive knowledge in knowledge creation
According to Zack (Zack, 1999b) every firm's strategic knowledge can be categorized
by its ability to support a competitive position.
Core knowledge represents the basic knowledge required to operate in an industry. And
itis usually common to all members of an industry.
Advanced knowledge differentiates a firm, enabling it to compete and remain viable.
Some firms compete head-on in particular knowledge domains, hoping that their
Page 5 of 15
knowledge is better than the competitors. Other firms seek to differentiate themselves
based on what they know.
Innovative knowledge is truly unique and enables a firm to significantly differentiate
itself from its competitors. It is obvious that knowledge is not static and what is
innovative knowledge today will ultimately become the core knowledge of tomorrow.
In our model, the advanced knowledge and innovative knowledge are unified into a
variable called competitive knowledge. By employing this important resource, an
organization is able to create a higher economic value for its customers. This in turn
implies that the firm can gain more financial resources than can its competitors (Almor
and Hashai, 2004). The more financial resources the firm possesses, the more it can
allocate to knowledge sharing and combination within the firm and therefore, it can
accelerate its learning cycle (figure 4).
2.4. External knowledge acquisition
Each firm in an industry has some capability for engaging in the leaming cycle shown
in figure 3. It may be more or less capable of identifying its own tacit knowledge,
explicating and sharing it within the firm, limiting its transfer out of the firm, absorbing
extemal knowledge from the industry and reapplying that external knowledge in some
unique and strategic way. We develop the external knowledge acquisition mechanism in
this section.
For this purpose, we use the concept of knowledge gap - the gap between what the firm
must know to execute its strategy, and what it does know (Zack, 2002). Zack refers to
two distinct aspects of the knowledge gap, internal knowledge gap (the firm's current
strategic knowledge vis-a-vis its desired strategic knowledge profile) and external
knowledge gap (the firm's current strategic knowledge vis-a-vis its competitors’).
To the extent that many competitors in the industry are operating at higher levels of
knowledge across many more knowledge positions than an organization, it takes a high
level of knowledge acquisition and creation to close the external competitive knowledge
gap. In this situation, the firm is motivated to increase the knowledge sharing within the
firm as well as with its competitors. Since explicit knowledge can be shared more
easily, the firm explicates its tacit knowledge more drastically. Simultaneously, it is less
concemed with erecting barriers to the diffusion or transfer of that knowledge out of the
firm such as encrypting the documents, controling employees’ e-mails, limiting access
to classified documents, forbidding the use of personal data transfer devices in the firm,
etc. We refer to this factor as ‘degree of knowledge protection’. We intentionally
differentiate between degree of knowledge protection and some other barriers to
knowledge diffusion caused by specific characteristics of industry i.e. existence of
strong patents, stickiness of technology in technology intensive industries, lack or
nonexistence of industry standards, etc. (Reed and DeFillippi, 1990), because the
origins of these barriers are different as well as their strength.
In summary, degree of knowledge protection by the firm, industry barriers to knowledge
diffusion and degree of firm's knowledge codification can affect the firm's knowledge
transferability.
This reasoning is also applicable to the other firms in the industry; therefore we explain
the remaining structure of the model for a firm. First we consider the explicit knowledge
acquisition and tacit knowledge acquisition will be described later.
Page 6 of 15
The more transferable knowledge provided by competitors, the more knowledge
acquired by the firm. In addition, the rapid developments in information technology (IT)
are clearly carrying knowledge transfer to a more global scale (Cowana, Jonard and
Ozman, 2004). IT plays two important roles in this area: first, it offers new
opportunities for codifying knowledge and information, which may facilitate knowledge
sharing activities (Grimshaw, 2001) and second, by increasing data processing and
transmission capacities, IT applications change the nature of the trade-off between the
degree of codification of knowledge and the speed and extent of its diffusion within a
target population (O’ Callaghan and Andreu, 2006). This implies that at a given level of
codification, the population to which a message can be diffused increases. ‘IT
infrastructure effectiveness’ is assumed to be an exogenous variable.
Another important factor affecting the extent of explicit knowledge acquired by a firm
is ‘absorptive capacity’ of the firm. Absorptive capacity is the ability of an organization
to learn and integrate knowledge that is available (Cowana, Jonard and Ozman, 2004)
and determines how fast new knowledge can be absorbed into the existing knowledge
level of the organization (Otto and Richardson, 2004). This ability represents one of the
two dimensions of knowledge internalization, which is knowledge applicative capability
or the ability to apply knowledge in real situations. Knowledge creation capability is the
other dimension and is the ability to create new beneficial knowledge by combining and
extending existing knowledge with the acquired knowledge (Tsai and Lee, 2006).
Absorptive capacity depends on factors such as the level of prior related knowledge
(O’ Callaghan and Andreu, 2006) and the extent to which the sender and receiver share
tacit knowledge (Cowana, Jonard and Ozman, 2004). Thus, the absorptive capacity of
the firm, the explicit knowledge acquired by the firm and the level of prior related
knowledge increase through a dynamic reinforcing loop.
Absorptive capacity of the firm has an effect not only on explicit knowledge acquisition,
but also on tacit knowledge acquisition. Furthermore, some other factors such as the
extent of competitors' tacit knowledge, barriers to knowledge diffusion and competitors'
motivation for knowledge sharing can affect the extent of tacit knowledge acquired by
the firm. We should also consider the essential role of communities in facilitating tacit
knowledge transfer within an industry. Two types of communities are distinguished in
the Knowledge Management literature: epistemic communities and communities of
practice (O'Callaghan and Andreu, 2006). Within communities of practice, the
privileged knowledge is essentially the know-how, which is tacit and socially localized,
whereas epistemic communities share a common goal of knowledge creation. We here
define a facor called as ‘effectiveness of communities' that indicates quality and capacity
of the communities in which tacit knowledge tmasfers and is an exogenous variable.
The more acquired tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge, the more level of related
knowledge and the more knowledge similarity in the industry. Therefore, that part of
competitors’ competitive knowledge which is acquired by the firm can no longer
provide competitive advantage and becomes the core knowledge of industry.
In addition, external knowledge acquisition creates a knowledge dependency on the
remainder of the knowledge that is more highly protected by competitors. Some
competitors sell this supplemental knowledge directly - that is, proactively explicating
and transferring it out of the organization at a price. Thus, the firm is forced to allocate
more financial resources for obtaining the complementary knowledge, implying a
decrease in the firm's financial resources as well as an increase in competitors' financial
resources.
Page 7 of 15
Figure 5 illustrates how external knowledge is acquired by a firm. The structure for
competitors is not shown; however, all structural elements e.g. motivation for
knowledge sharing, absorptive capacity, and barriers to knowledge diffusion, are
identical.
symmetric structure for compeutors
. —»
firm's competitiv r firm's motivation for - degree of knowledge
knowledge aoa knowledge sharing protection by firm
external competitive
ae 4 ..
SAS. competitors motivation degree of explicit
for iv sharing _ knowledge protection by
recs competitors
veh
——* comp: etitors' explicit
knowledge
<
competitors’ competitive
kmowledge Lf explication
by ci oe
effectiveness of tacit meee. SS
communities acquired by firm
knowledge of + competitors’ transferable
core industry” ° _ knowledge
Df
4 barriers to
‘ knowledge i baie
competitors tacit ap
knowledge
absorptive capacity
of the firm +
Imowledge similarity i explicit knowledge
in industry acquired by firm
x
level of related,
IT infrastructure
mee
a
firm's demand for Ne
supplemental knowledge acquired by
firm
knowledge
firm's financial fi a competitors’
resources bial: fesources ‘far financial resources
obtaining Supplemental n= eee
YY nowiedge +
Figure 5: causal-loop diagram of external knowledge acquisition
Since casual models are easier to deal with, we have put them in the text and the stock
and flow models are placed in the appendix.
3. Research proposition
Zack (Zack, 1999a) describes organizations which are more exploitative of intemal
knowledge as having a 'conservative' knowledge strategy, while those that are exploring
external knowledge have a more ‘aggressive' knowledge strategy. However, he points
out that a knowledge strategy cannot be made without reference to competitors. Thus,
Page 8 of 15
some industries (where knowledge is changing more rapidly) tend to be characterised by
more aggressive firms, while other industries are generally more conservative.
To examine the validity of the model, consider two important conditions that can affect
the knowledge strategy adopted by the firm:
= Proposition 1: The degree of agressiveness in knowledge strategy adopted by a
firm is positively associated with the number, variety or size of the initial
competitive knowledge gap.
= Proposition 2: The degree of agressiveness in knowledge strategy adopted by a
firm is positively associated with the volatility of the knowledge base in the
industry.
4. Exercising the model
In this section we describe how the system dynamics model is used to simulate two
different knowledge strategies that influence the knowledge level of the firm. To
simulate the effect of adopting conservative or aggressive knowledge strategies, we
change the various factors that activate the internal knowledge creation and the external
knowledge acquisition loops respectively.
First, we simulated a base run. In this simulation, the knowledge life cycle is relatively
long and there is not an initial knowledge gap. In all simulations we assume that the
firm has approximately the same learning capability as that of competitors. We tested
two firms in this situation, one with a conservative knowledge strategy and the other
with an aggressive knowledge strategy. Other than this, it is assumed that the firm and
its competitors apply the same policies, for example they have the same ratio of
financial resources allocated to leaning. The results are shown in Figure 6. This result
suggests that in this situation both firm and its competitors gain competitive knowledge
and the model does not show any significant difference between two strategies. Also, it
suggests that a conservative knowledge strategy will works slightly better than an
aggressive strategy.
10
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 #42 45 48
‘Time (Month)
firm competitive knowledge : aggressive
firm competitive knowledge : conservative
Figure 6: The base run
Page 9 of 15
In the first experiment, in order to show the effect of the initial competitive knowledge
gap, we change the initial knowledge level of the firm. The graph in figure 7 depicts the
expected behavior of the firm's competitive knowledge with both aggressive and
conservative knowledge strategies. In opposition to the base run, in this situation an
aggressive strategy will be more successful than a conservative strategy. The results of
this experiment confirm what stated in proposition 1. This implies that being other
factors equal, the firm must adopt an aggressive knowledge strategy to close its external
competitive knowledge gap.
2
i) 3 6 ] 12 TS: 18 al 24 af 30 33 36 39. a2 45 48
Time (Month)
firm compeiitive knowledge : aggressive
firm compeiitive knowledge : conservative
Figure 7: The effect of knowledge strategy on firm's competitive knowledge level
(Higher external competitive knowledge gap in comparison to the base run)
In order to test the second proposition, we examine a situation in which there is not an
initial gap between the firm's competitive knowledge and its competitors’, but
knowledge life cycle is shorter in comparison to the base run. The results are shown in
figure 8. These results imply that when knowledge in the industry changes rapidly, if
other things remain the same, the organization should adopt a more aggressive
knowledge strategy to become and to remain competitive in its strategic position.
4
M2
0 2 4 6 8&8 1 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36
Time (Month)
firm competitive knowledge : aggressive
firm competitive knowledge : conservative
Figure 8: The effect of knowledge strategy on firm's competitive knowledge level
(Lower knowledge life time in comparison to the base run)
Page 10 of 15
5, Summary and conclusion
Organizational knowledge is very complex and has multiple dimensions. Several
scholars have emphasized the importance of both tacit and explicit knowledge as well as
internal and external knowledge and this notion has two important implications for
knowledge management: First, the knowledge residing outside the boundaries of
organization must be managed along with the internal knowledge. Second, knowledge
management efforts must address both tacit and explicit knowledge. Therefore,
organizations need to understand the dynamics of their knowledge capital and
knowledge acquisition policy. We used a system dynamics approach to explicate
dynamic theory grounded in the relevant literature. In the proposed model, we tried to
integrate various perspectives on knowledge acquisition process in both tacit and
explicit forms. In order to model the bahaviour of other firms in the industry, we have
constructed the model for a typical competitor which represents the status of the
majority of the firm's competitors in that industry. What's more, we assume that firm's
decisions about knowledge sharing do not change in short term and we used constant
variables to simulate this situation. Using this model, we showed that an aggressive
knowledge strategy will be more successful if there is an initial gap betwean the firm's
competitive knowledge and its competitors' and if the knowledge in the industry
changes rapidly.
In this model, we assumed that learning capabilities of both firm and competitors are
static and exagenous to our model, although in real world learning capabilities may
change by time. A more comprehensive model which addresses both learning capability
and knowledge of the firm may give a better insight into the dynamics of knowledge
creation within the firm and knowledge acquisition from the outsiders.
As a further study, the model could be examined by using emprical data to study an
organization's knowledge strategy and its knowledge level. Furthermore, we can
examine different knowledge strategies for competitors and compare the results with
previous situations.
Page 11 of 15
References
Almor, T. and Hashai, N., (2004), "The Competitive Advantage and Strategic
Configuration of Knowledge-intensive, Small and Medium-sized Multinationals: a
Modified Resource-based View", Journal of International Management, Vol. 10, pp.
479-500.
Bamey, J.B., (1991), "Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage", J ournal
of Management, Vol. 17, pp. 99-120.
Cowan, R., Jonard, N. and Ozman, M., (2004), "Knowledge Dynamics in a Network
Industry, J ournal of Technological Forecasting & Social Change, Vol. 71, pp. 469-484.
Davenport, T.H. and Prusak, L., (1998), Working Knowledge, Harvard Business School
Press, Boston, MA.
Grant, R., (1996), "Toward a Knowledge-based Theory of the Firm", Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 17, pp. 109-122.
Grimshaw, DJ., (2001), "Harnessing the Power of Geographical Knowledge: the
Potential for Data Integration in an SME", International Journal of Information
Management, Vol. 21, pp. 183-191.
Nonaka, I., (1994), "A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation",
Organization Science, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 14-37.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H., (1995), The Knowledge Creating Company: How
Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation?, Oxford University Press,
New Y ork.
O’Callaghan, R. and Andreu, R., (2006), "Knowledge Dynamics in Regional
Economies: A Research Framework", 39" Hawaii International Conference on System
Sciences, Hawaii, USA.
Otto, P. and Richardson, G.P., (2004), "Interorganizational Learning: A Dynamic View
on Knowledge Development in Strategic Alliances", 22" International System
Dynamics Conference, Oxford, UK.
Reed, R. and DefFillippi, R.J., (1990), "Causal Ambiguity, Barriers to Imitation, and
Sustainable Competitive Advantage", Academy of Management Review, Vol. 15, No. 1,
pp. 88-102.
Sridharan, S., Crossan, M. and Bapuji, H., (2007), "Extemal Knowledge Acquisiton
Strategies and Performance: A Multi-Level Examination", 7” International Conference
on Organizational Learning, Knowledge and Capabilities, London, Canada.
Teece, D. J., (1998), "Capturing Value from Knowledge Assets: The New Economy,
Markets for Know-how, and Intangible Assets", California Management Review, Vol.
40, pp. 55-79.
Page 12 of 15
Tsai, M.T. and Lee, K.W., (2006), "A Study of Knowledge Intemalization: from the
Perspective of Learning Cycle Theory, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 10,
No. 3, pp. 57-71.
Zack, M.H., (1999a), "Developing a Knowledge Strategy", California Management
Review, Vol. 41, No. 3, pp. 125-145.
Zack, M.H., (1999b), "Competing on Knowledge", 2000 Handbook of Business Strategy
(New Y ork: Faulkner & Gray), pp. 81-88.
Zack, M.H., (2002), "A Strategic Pretext for Knowledge Management", 37 European
Conference on Organizational Knowledge, Learning and Capabilities, Athens, Greece.
Page 13 of 15
Appendix
fintegrated
financial noe os] if Oo pels)
knowledge * knowledge
allocated to learning ” Cee Mas oa ig fem ig at aecee
learning owledge
ratio of firm individuals integrated ms decay rate
budget learning capability firm individuals aa—| firm integrated :
allocated to 4 tacit firm integrated explicit bid st eee
learning knowledge knowleds tic knowledge owledge for
money : ige ratio tien
2 needed for Ge fie noid
firm financial learning _ firm individual time to rowledge va
resource knowle ; shave integration rate
laitate fimeto decay rate fir
exploitation exploit 4 knowledge
financial for firm
firm financial resource for to © 4 cg }
sesOUNERE knowledge j{}yfirm knowledge *” frm knowledge :
revenue from 7 sharing rate explication rate oa
firm revenue competitive
Hnewlesg: firm tacit firm explicit
firm competitive | knowledge knowledge
knowledge
wn 2 oY pe aie knowledge ,||, time t firm ei
core kr ge of eeaecale explicate P knowledgedecay
industry> - ti vw e itiowindes rate <time to
ke
beceoay’ decay?
Stock and Flow model for knowledge creation by the firm
pare’ < to
competitors financial Se aad
resource allocated to competitors ect oF i compete fntetrate d
learning individuals learning [J Co°t OF Compettors
4 integrated knowledge knowledge decay rate
Forapetiors snidivaals competitors competitors
competitors ratio of | leaming sepabiliy lin deidoals el esate pinpete ing 2 hiegrate
budget allocated to oul pieced
dg | knowledge integrated knowledge competitors
leaning popes. knowledge ratio competitors
1 time to
oO mpetitors individual, pe te knowledge
competitors knowledge decay rate knowledge 1 integration rate
financial resource " ompetitors
exploitation x Cy
7 competitors
competitors time to exploit ©) competitors aoeledge
financial financial resource tack
+oorces for competitors knowledge explication rate
aquisition rate
——: 2 hI
sonigilcars competitors
tacit
revenue e:
A cnowindge time to explicate competitors explicit
competitors knowledge for knowledgedecay rate
tacit knowledge competitors y
decay rate mak
knowle
Stock and Flow model for knowledge creation by the competitors
Page 14 of 15
gs i of
competitors’ external competitors
competitive knowledge competitors' motivation
gap for knowledge sharing
degree of explicit
competitors
competitive knowledge competitors a
—_n owlet
threshold
EY pyc ota absorptive capacity i
ey of the firm competitors’
transferable knowledge
. ™ absorptivw capacity; RS)
0 acit on knowledge
knowledge
3 firm related
cesiaveat ae Liles a ext IT infrastructure
communities tacit pw nee
a decay rate
knowledge en tl decay rate explicit knowledge
in industry == CQ) elated tacit related explicit
knowledge knowledge
¥ o
tmowledge similarity level of firm's fe ‘ be A [ere otteas acquired by firm
25
<ti
n
4
level of firm related
knowledge
Stock and Flow model for knowledge acquisition by the firm
aggressiveness of
ompetitors
F ~/~ firm
ompetitive knowledge> — firm's external
eh
competitive knowledge — grm's motivation for degree of explicit
” gap knowledge sharing knowledge protection by
firm
<firm competiti
knowledg
absorptive capacity
of competitors
firm's transferable
knowledge
capacity
bsory
on kn >
competitors’ competitors’
related tacit related explicit
knowledge decay knowledge
<IT infrastructure>
tacit knowledge tate decay rate explicit knowledge
acquired by competit: evelok } \ ha A level of adquired by competitors
: competitors’
= pee sims to telated explicit >?—2—D
; knowledge
level of competitors
related knowledge
Stock and Flow model for knowledge acquisition by the competitors
Page 15 of 15
