1. No category

Science and Engineering Faculty ● INN330 Information Management
Assignment Cover Sheet
Student Name
Peter Strempel
Student ID Number n
2
5
9
4
Subject
INN330 – Information Organisation
Lecturer
Alexandra Main
Date Due
27 October 2013
1
1
1
By submitting this assignment:
I/we declare that I/we am/are aware of the University rule that a student must
not act in a manner which constitutes academic dishonesty as stated and
explained in the QUT Manual of Policies and Procedures (Section C, Part 5.3
Academic dishonesty) or at http://www.mopp.qut.edu.au/C/C_05_03.jsp.
I/we confirm that this work represents my/our individual effort and does not
contain plagiarised material.
1. Introduction ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4
2. Key features of the AEC ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4
2.1 Legislation, Finance, JSCEM, Statutory Appointees ------------------------------- 5
2.2 Structure and functions -------------------------------------------------------------------- 5
2.3 Strategic direction --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6
3. Environmental analysis ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 11
4. Some key features of information and knowledge management ------------------- 14
5. Audit ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 15
5.1 Governance and tacit knowledge ----------------------------------------------------- 15
5.2 Compliance, capability and explicit knowledge ------------------------------------ 16
6. Change without turbulence ------------------------------------------------------------------- 17
6.1 The champion ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 17
6.2 The tiger team ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 17
6.3 The Environment -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 18
6.3.1 Encouragement and rewards
18
6.4 The process: strategy in microcosm -------------------------------------------------- 19
6.4.1 Identifying information and knowledge
19
6.4.2 Generating knowledge
19
6.5 Documentation ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 20
7. Conclusion ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 21
8. References --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 22
Examining the principal features of the Australian Electoral Commission
(AEC) reveals a complex organisation with a rigid silo structure
nevertheless required to deliver innovation across a broad range of
capabilities and outcomes. The examination becomes more complicated
still when accompanied by an environmental analysis of key challenges
facing the AEC, and the opportunities they may represent. However,
reviewing the details within an information and knowledge management
(IKM) framework highlights some features of the organisation and its
environmental factors that could be leveraged to pioneer a modularised,
iterative IKM strategy.
The approach proposed here recognises that traditional IKM starting
points, like organisation-wide information audits and analyses, represent
an uncertain return on investment (Griffiths, 2010, pp. 216-217; Orna,
2008, pp. 558-559). Instead we will focus on immediate problem-solving to
address strategic goals, creating and demonstrating the value of IKM by
its direct application to resolve a strategic issue: fully electronic voter
registration.
This IKM model calls for the AEC’s senior management to launch a
pilot project simulating a high-pressure environment in which a tiger
team of selected staff creates a comprehensive plan to address the issue
from all branches of the AEC’s capabilities. The outputs of this project
are to be detailed options for addressing the chosen objective, but also a
documented IKM process that can be replicated horizontally, for specific
problem solving activities, and vertically for an organisational IKM
realignment.
The contemporary AEC has its roots as a function within the Department
of Home Affairs from 1902, becoming the Australian Electoral Office in
1973, and the statutory authority it is today in 1984.
The AEC administers and is bound by 11 pieces of legislation, listed in
Table 1 below, to deliver a diverse range of electoral and information
services (Australian Electoral Commission, 2012, pp. 12-14).
The organisation is chaired by a serving or retired federal court judge,
presiding over a commission that includes the Australian Electoral
Commissioner and a non-judicial commissioner (Australian Electoral
Commission, 2004, p. 1; Australian Electoral Commission, 2011; Brent,
2012, paras. 14-17).
In addition to the three-person Commission, the AEC includes a deputy
commissioner, seven state and territory electoral officers, plus an extra
one for the Australian Capital Territory during election periods, two first
assistant commissioners, and a staff of 878 people, as shown in Table 2
below (Australian Electoral Commission, 2013; Commonwealth Electoral
Act 1918, s. 19-35; Department of Finance and Deregulation, 2013, p. 88).
The AEC receives its budget and key performance indicators from the
Minister and Department of Finance (formerly the Department of
Finance and Deregulation). Table 3, below, illustrates how the $381
million budget for 2013/2014 is split across three major ‘outcomes’ areas
(Department of Finance and Deregulation, 2013, p. 3, 86-98).
In another line of accountability, the AEC may be invited to deliver
reports and recommendations to the Parliamentary Joint Standing
Committee on Electoral Matters (JSCEM), or it may do so under its own
initiative.
The organisational structure, illustrated in Figure 1 below, is divided by
function: Finance and business services; legal and compliance; elections;
roll management; education and communication; strategic capacity;
information technology; and people services (Australian Electoral
Commission, 2012, p. 10).
The AEC Strategic Plan for 2009 - 2014 does not mention IKM, instead
focusing on ‘modernisation’, ‘collaboration’, and ‘investing in our people’
(Australian Electoral Commission, 2009). It must be assumed that the
AEC defers to the Australian Government Information Management
Office (AGIMO) within the Department of Finance, which has published
a whole-of-government ICT strategy for 1012 - 2015. However, that
strategy focuses solely on more effective use of IT systems (Department
of Finance and Deregulation, 2012, pp. 5-13). There is no mention of IKM
outside an IT perspective.
Potential challenges and opportunities for the AEC revealed by means of
a PEST analysis (based on a method explained by Gimbert, 2011, pp. 4749) breaks down the strategic environment for the organisation into
political, economic, social and technological factors. The main features of
this analysis are illustrated in Figure 2 below.
While there are a number of issues arising from the analysis that
deserve detailed attention, for the purpose of this strategy proposal the
focus is directed immediately to the most notable opportunities. From
the AEC’s point of view a fully electronic voting system might be a worldbeating achievement. Optimistic assessments have been made of trials by
the Victorian Electoral Commission in this area, but it is acknowledged
that significant security and technical issues remain to be addressed
(Buckland & Wen, 2012, pp. 30-32). There is also a school of thought
much less optimistic about the feasibility of overcoming security
concerns about electronic voting altogether (Simons & Jones, 2012, pp.
76-77). It appears that progress on electronic voting relies on technical
and political resolutions of complex privacy and security issues beyond
the AEC’s immediate capacity to address.
However, a step towards the resolution of such issues, and a challenge
in its own right, is fully electronic voter registration – a process allowing
voters to enrol or change their details entirely electronically, without any
requirement for paper-based verification. This challenge, and related
issues, span all the environmental dimensions of the PEST analysis, as
highlighted in Figure 2:
1.
Politically: Voter registrations and updates were identified as a
critical shortcoming during the 2010 election, and, in a separate
development, resulted in a Federal Court ruling that some
electronic signatures were to be accepted without requirement for
an original as verification (Joint Standing Committee on Electoral
Matters, pp. 5-19);
2.
Economically: Manual data entry of voter registrations is a major
cost component of the AEC’s operations and was identified as a
major shortcoming during the 2010 election (Joint Standing
Committee on Electoral Matters, pp. 21-41);
3.
Socially: Australians increasingly expect to be able to transact
online in all aspects of contemporary life, dovetailing with
Australian Government priorities to more effectively use technology
(Department of Finance and Deregulation, 2012, pp. 5-16) and the
AEC’s own strategic goal of modernisation (Australian Electoral
Commission, 2009, p. 2); and
4.
Technologically: The AEC now has extensive power to electronically
cross-check electoral roll details with other government agencies
(Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Protecting Elector
Participation) Act 2012, schedules 1-2). Technology options for
identity verification techniques already exist (Buckland & Wen,
2011, pp. 28-29). What remains is for a solution to be tailored to the
AECs capabilities and governance requirements.
To consider how the AEC might leverage its capabilities to develop an
electronic voter registration system, it is appropriate to examine the
principal features of IKM frameworks that are relevant to this task.
Information and knowledge management are sometimes treated as
separate endeavours, but they are presented here as a continuum in
which the knowledge emphasis is at the strategic end (Buchanan & Gibb,
2007, pp. 162-163; Guechtouli, Rouchier & Orillard, 2013, p.48; Henczel,
2001, pp. 49-50). The idea is that information should be harnessed to
generate and direct knowledge towards organisational goals.
We distinguish here between explicit and tacit knowledge. Explicit
knowledge is characterised as capable of being transcribed or otherwise
passed on. Tacit knowledge is more personal, intuitive, experience-based,
and not always transferrable (Frické, 2009, p. 136; Lopez-Nicolas &
Merono-Cerdan, (2013), pp. 503-504; Randles, Blades & Faldalla, 2012, p.
68). Tacit knowledge is sometimes seen as the consequence of ‘doubleloop’ or ‘generative’ learning, which is the transformation or creation of
new knowledge from existing information or knowledge (Arling & Chun,
2011, pp. 231-232; Lambe, 2011, p. 190).
Facilitating innovation through the generation and embedding of
knowledge in an organisation requires the right environment for
information and knowledge to be freely exchanged. Some research
suggests that one of the most important environmental aspects is a
flexible organisational structure that fosters workplace social contexts or
networks, like communities of interest, practice or expertise (Arling &
Chun, 2011, pp. 240-244; Guechtouli, Rouchier & Orillard, 2013, p.48, 6465; Teng & Song, 2011, pp. 112-114). Others stress the desirability of
creating a sense of urgency or crisis (Grant, 2013, p. 90; Pavlak, 2004, p.
8; Snowden & Boone, 2007, pp. 71-75).
The graphical representation of the AEC’s principal IKM features in
Figure 3, below, illustrates a strong focus on top-down governance and
control, guided by individuals possessing significant tacit knowledge
about how government, the public service, and public administration
works, including career-length intangibles like personal networks of
contacts and relationships that play mostly invisible but important parts
in their personal effectiveness at a senior management level.
Governance and oversight are recognised as legitimate and necessary
AEC functions, but the tacit knowledge embodied by the statutory
appointees and professional employees is pragmatically recognised as
unlikely to be embedded, or even embeddable, in the organisation.
Nevertheless, this tacit knowledge is a valuable asset, described
variously as human, social or intellectual capital (Buchanan & Gibb,
2007, p. 162; Coyte, Ricceri, & Guthrie, 2012, pp. 790-792; Teng & Song,
2011, p. 104), information capital (Guechtouli, Rouchier & Orillard, 2013,
pp.48-49), or knowledge capital (Chen, Horstmann & Markusen, 2012, p.
2).
Below the executive management layer is a substantial human resources
base of almost 880 staff. This base is characterised principally by the
explicit knowledge of methods, processes and procedures related to
performing specific tasks in order to comply with governance
requirements. However, the silo structure of the organisation, segregated
by function, represents a significant barrier to ‘effective information
flow’ and ‘the overall value that can be generated’ (Buchanan & Gibb,
2008b, p. 151) in which information flows and opportunities for crossfunctional cooperation are constrained by a ‘discomfort with uncertainty’
(McLeod & Childs, 2013, p. 126), and possibly mistrust and lack of
recognised common causes.
Regardless of the rigidities of the organisational structure, the
capabilities and leadership necessary to drive innovative knowledge
creation exist within the AEC, and the proposed approach that follows is
designed to harness this strength.
The process outlined here calls for:
1.
A senior champion for innovation;
2.
A team to discover, develop and document the capabilities available
and needed for a specific innovation;
3.
An environment in which the team can generate the knowledge
required for innovation; and
4.
A process that guides and demonstrates repeatable information
processing and knowledge generation.
The Commissioner must be a visible champion of the electronic voter
registration pilot project. Moreover, either he or his deputy must
participate in at least a casual capacity in the team and its progress,
though not so much as to deter the necessary frank and robust exchanges
described below.
Heightening the function of a matrix team to that of a tiger team places
extraordinary demands on its members, requiring a ‘high level of
coordination and a deep interpersonal dialog’ derived from ‘uninhibited
constructive conflict’ without ‘threat of repercussions from
organizational politics’ (Pavlak, 2004, p. 8).
Care must be taken to select individuals with existing professional
skills, organisational insights, and the capacity to set aside usual
organisational norms for the purpose of this special project.
The size of the team is dictated by the organisational structure itself
(see Figure 2 above). At least one member should be selected from each
of the functional silos. The team should not be so large as to encourage
internal divisions, and it must include an independent, external
facilitator. The facilitator’s function will be to keep the group on track
with pre-determined objectives, timelines and deliverables from a
position of unimpeachable neutrality.
To create sufficient distance between normal organisational routines and
conventions it is recommended that normal operational rules are
explicitly suspended to create a ‘strategic community’ (Kodama, 2007,
pp. 16-17). It is to be an environment in which knowledge can be shared
in the manner of ‘social network stimulation’ designed to overcome
barriers to ‘cross-silo collaboration within and across the boundaries’
using ‘local cultures and capabilities’ (Snowden, 2005, p. 558). This
environment permits replication of a key feature of Nonaka’s ‘middle-updown management’ model, with a team ‘drawn from different functional
perspectives [able] to engage in the give-and-take of knowledge creation’
(Teece, 2013, p. 20).
It is desirable for the team to be relocated away from their normal
working environments to remove distractions and the comfort zone of
familiarity.
To help create a sense of urgency and gravity in the tiger team, the
initial brief should set an ambitiously short time-frame. Urgency and
commitment can also be heightened by mention the historic
achievements of other tiger teams, like those who worked on the
Manhattan Project, the Cuban Missiles Crisis, or implementing a
national economic stimulus package during a financial crisis (Davidson,
2009, para. 9; Pavlak, 2004, p. 8).
It is recommended that sincere performance-based group and
individual reward structures are offered that consider both intrinsic
(motivational) and extrinsic (financial ) components (Zhang, Zhou &
McKenzie, 2013, pp. 179-180; Peltokorpi, 2013, pp. 266-268), possibly with
a stronger emphasis on extrinsic team rewards to generate an immediate
commitment to a short-term, one-off project (Snowden, 2005, pp. 559560). However, fast-tracking career development and organisational
recognition for outstanding commitment should also be considered as
reward options.
The principal focus is on a creative and open articulation of all possible
options for implementing fully electronic voter registration.
An immediate goal is to highlight potential barriers and solutions to an
electronic registration system in all functional areas of the AEC. This
includes an information architecture, which is a plan for the
classification, structuring, and storage of information to make it easy to
find and search for the people who need to access it to implement and
administer the project (Downey & Bannerjee, 2011, p. 26; Garrett, 2011,
pp. 88-101). From that architecture should flow an IKM asset register,
information flow and interrelationships mappings, and information and
knowledge gap analyses highlighting what information and competencies
are missing but required for the tasks identified as necessary (Griffiths,
2010, p216, 221-222; Griffiths, 2012, p. 49; Buchanan & Gibb, 2008a, pp. 89; Buchanan & Gibb, 2008b, p.159).
Leading on from considerations about types of information and
knowledge necessary, the project must generate specific options and
proposals. To ensure that rigorous debate and disagreement does not
become personally hostile rather than constructive across the group, a
method of dialectic resolution and synthesis will be explained by the
facilitator, who will bring all conflict back to its core utility, which is to
combine the most useful elements of conflicting ideas to create new ones.
The dialectic methods to be used include the Socratic iteration of an
idea until the maximum number of prohibitive factors have been
removed from it; an advocacy model in which team members seek to
persuade each other as a means of discovering strengths and weaknesses
in their propositions; a Hegelian consideration of how the world might be
changed to suit an idea (a precursor to considering what might be
possible with legislative changes); and the resolution of thesis and
antithesis by synthesising elements of both into a new thesis, possibly
subject to further Socratic iteration (Nielsen, 1996, pp. 280-288; Spender,
2013, pp. 51-53). Dialectics are not the sole methods appropriate for
reconciling conflicting ideas, and any alternative method devised or
favoured by the team is equally appropriate if it meets the overall
objectives of generating ideas and solutions.
Guided high-pressure discussions conducted in this manner will
demonstrate to participants directly how grappling with specific issues
allows them to generate knowledge. Moreover, it will impress on them
that the process is repeatable, subject to being carefully documented and
adapted to specific purposes.
The information product of the tiger team is a report detailing every
aspect of its considerations, including its decision-making processes, a
proposed project plan with timelines and an outline of resources
required to realise the preferred option, and a method for auditing its
own work.
The elements of this report represent the formula for repeating the
process to address other specific issues, or to approach a wider IKM
strategy for the AEC, including, in its most complete expression, an
organisational transformation from silo-based process orientation to
cross functional knowledge orientation.
The methods outlined here represent a bold proposal for addressing the
need to innovate within an organisational structure that creates
significant barriers to change.
At each stage, this approach has carefully considered the AEC’s
existing mission and strategic goals, with reference to its structure,
funding, KPIs, and strategic challenges. To maintain that focus this
report has proposed handing over the actual development of an IKM
strategy to carefully selected AEC staff, led and championed by its
senior management, and with an eye to embedding the intellectual
capital of the effort in the organisation by means of a modularised,
repeatable method.
This approach limits any risk of individual project failure, or
negatively disrupting the AEC’s normal operations and performance, at
the same time as offering a path for a gradual, iterative and controlled
roadmap to a wider organisational shift towards an IKM focus that will
enable the AEC to more effectively meet its goals, targets and challenges
in the coming decade.
Although the approach described here is cautiously incremental, it has
the potential to be ground-breaking and visionary in the right hands,
leading to an IKM best-practice model not only for the Australian public
service, but also for similar organisations around the world.
Arling, P.A., & Chun, M.W.S., (2011). Facilitating new knowledge
creation and obtaining KM maturity. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 15(2), 231-250. doi: 10.1108/13673271111119673
Australian Electoral Commission (2004). Behind the scenes: the 2004
election report including national election results. Retrieved from
http://results.aec.gov.au/12246/pdf/BehindTheScenes.pdf
Australian Electoral Commission (2009). Strategic Plan 2009 – 2014.
Retrieved from
http://www.aec.gov.au/About_AEC/Publications/Corporate_Publ
ications/index.htm
Australian Electoral Commission (2011, May 18). Australia's major
electoral developments timeline: 1900 - present. Retrieved from
http://election.aec.gov.au/Elections/Australian_Electoral_Histor
y/Reform_present.htm
Australian Electoral Commission (2012). 2011-12 Annual Report.
Retrieved from
http://www.aec.gov.au/About_AEC/Publications/Annual_Report
s/index.htm
Australian Electoral Commission (2013). About us. Retrieved on
September 3, 2013, from
http://www.aec.gov.au/About_AEC/index.htm
Brent, P. (2012, November 19). Short history of the electoral roll. The
Australian. Retrieved from
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/mumble/index.php/theau
stralian/comments/short_history_of_the_electoral_roll/
Buchanan, S., & Gibb, F. (2007). The information audit: Role and scope.
International Journal of Information Management 27(3), 159–172.
doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2007.01.002
Buchanan, S., & Gibb, F. (2008a). The information audit: Methodology
selection. International Journal of Information Management,
28(1), 3-11. doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2007.10.002
Buchanan, S., & Gibb, F. (2008b). The information audit: Theory versus
practice. International Journal of Information Management 28(3),
150–160. doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2007.09.003
Buckland, R. & Wen, R. (2012). The future of e-voting in Australia. IEEE
Security & Privacy, 10(5), 25-32. doi: 10.1109/MSP.2012.59
Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Clth) s. 18-35. Retrieved from
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/cea1918233/
Chen, Y., Horstmann, I.J., & Markusen, J.R. (2012). Physical capital,
knowledge capital, and the choice between FDI and
outsourcing. Canadian Journal of Economics, 45(1), 1-15. doi:
10.1111/j.1540-5982.2011.01684.x
Coyte, R., Ricceri, F., & Guthrie, J. (2012). The management of
knowledge resources in SMEs: an Australian case study. Journal
of Knowledge Management, 16(5), 789-807. doi:
10.1108/13673271211262817
Davidson, J. (2009, February 25). With stimulus contracts, let’s avoid
another Katrina. The Washington Post. Retrieved on October 12,
2013, from http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2009-0225/opinions/36773676_1_stimulus-package-private-contractorsworkforce
Department of Finance and Deregulation (2012). Australian Public Service
Information and Communications Technology Strategy 2012 –
2015. Retrieved on September 29, 2013, from
http://www.finance.gov.au/publications/ict_strategy_2012_2015/
Department of Finance and Deregulation (2013). Portfolio Budget
Statements 2013-2014. Retrieved on September 26, 2013, from
http://www.finance.gov.au/publications/portfolio-budgetstatements/13-14/index.html
Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Protecting Elector
Participation) Act 2012 (Clth). Retrieved from
http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2012A00111
Frické, M. (2009). The knowledge pyramid: A critique of the DIKW
hierarchy. Journal of Information Science, 35(2), 131-142. doi:
10.1177/0165551508094050
Gimbert, X. (2011). Think Strategically. Hampshire: UK: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Grant, R.M. (2013). Nonaka’s ‘dynamic theory of knowledge creation’
(1994: Reflections and an exploration of the ‘ontological
dimension’. In In G. von Krogh, H. Takeuchi, K. Kase & C.G.
Canton (Eds.), Towards Organizational Knowledge: The Pioneering
Work of Ikujiro Nonaka (pp. 77-95). New York, NY: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Griffiths, P. (2010). Where next for information audit? Business
Information Review, 27(4), 216-224. doi:
10.1177/0266382110388221
Griffiths, P. (2012). Information Audit: Towards common standards and
methodology. Business Information Review, 29(1), 39–51. doi:
10.1177/0266382112436791
Guechtouli, W., Rouchier, J., & Orillard, M. (2013). Structuring
knowledge transfer from experts to newcomers. Journal of
Knowledge Management, 17(1), 47-68. doi:
10.1108/13673271311300741
Henczel, S. (2001) The information audit as a first step towards effective
knowledge management. Information Outlook, 5(6), 48-62.
Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters (2010). The 2010 federal
election: Report on the conduct of the election and related matters.
Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. Retrieved from
http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Ho
use_of_Representatives_Committees?url=em/elect10/report.ht
m
Kodama, M. (2007). Innovation through boundary management — a case
study in reforms at Matsushita electric. Technovation, 27(1–2),
15–29. doi: 10.1016/j.technovation.2005.09.006
Lambe, P. (2011). The unacknowledged parentage of knowledge
management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(2), 175-197.
doi: 10.1108/13673271111119646
Lopez-Nicolas, C., & Merono-Cerdan, A.L. (2011). Strategic knowledge
management, innovation and performance. International Journal
of Information Management, 31(2011), 502–509. doi:
10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2011.02.003
McLeod, J. & Childs, S. (2013). A strategic approach to making sense of
the “wicked” problem of ERM. Records Management Journal,
23(2), 104-135. doi: 10.1108/RMJ-04-2013-0009
Nielsen, R.P. (1996). Varieties of dialectic change processes. Journal of
Management Inquiry, 5(3), 276-292. doi:
10.1177/105649269653014
Orna, E. (2008). Information policies: yesterday, today, tomorrow. Journal
of Information Science, 34(4), 547-565. doi:
10.1177/0165551508092256
Pavlak, A. (2004). Project troubleshooting: Tiger teams for reactive risk
management. Project Management Journal, 35(4), 5-14.
Peltokorpi, V. (2013). Governing knowledge processes in project-based
organizations. In G. von Krogh, H. Takeuchi, K. Kase & C.G.
Canton (Eds.), Towards Organizational Knowledge: The Pioneering
Work of Ikujiro Nonaka (pp. 263-282). New York, NY: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Randles, T.J., Blades, C.D., & Faldalla, A. (2012). The knowledge
spectrum. International Journal of Knowledge Management, 8(2),
65-78.
Simons, S. & Jones, D.W. (2012). Internet voting in the U.S..
Communications of the ACM, 55(10), 68-77. doi:
10.1145/2347736.2347754
Snowden, D. (2005). From atomism to networks in social systems. The
Learning Organization, 12(6), 552-562.
Snowden, D.J. & Boone, M.E. (2007). A leader's framework for decision
making. Harvard Business Review, 85(11), 68-76.
Spender, J.C. (2013). Nonaka and KM’s past, present and future. In G.
von Krogh, H. Takeuchi, K. Kase & C.G. Canton (Eds.), Towards
Organizational Knowledge: The Pioneering Work of Ikujiro Nonaka
(pp. 24-59). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Teece, D.J. (2013). Nonaka’s contribution to the understanding of
knowledge creation, codification and capture. In G. von Krogh,
H. Takeuchi, K. Kase & C.G. Canton (Eds.), Towards
Organizational Knowledge: The Pioneering Work of Ikujiro Nonaka
(pp. 17-23). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Teng, J.T.C., & Song, S. (2011). An exploratory examination of
knowledge-sharing behaviors: Solicited and voluntary. Journal
of Knowledge Management, 15(1), 104-117. doi:
10.1108/13673271111108729
Zhang, Y, Zhou, Y., & McKenzie, J. (2013). A humanistic approach to
knowledge-creation: People-centric innovation. In G. von Krogh,
H. Takeuchi, K. Kase & C.G. Canton (Eds.), Towards
Organizational Knowledge: The Pioneering Work of Ikujiro Nonaka
(pp. 167-189). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.