article

Organizational measures as a form of knowledge management: a multitheoretic, communication-based exploration

Authors:

Jennifer K. Lehr,

Ronald E. RiceAuthors Info & Claims

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Volume 53, Issue 12

Pages 1060 - 1073

https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.10108

Published: 01 October 2002 Publication History

Abstract

One form of knowledge management is the use of measures, to foster learning, to transform individual tacit understanding to shared explicit sensemaking, to evaluate and improve processes and customer service, and even to rationalize and control organizational activities and workers. This article summarizes and applies four theoretical approaches-- organizational learning, sense-making, quality management, and critical theory--to explore how measures are constructed, interpreted, and used within organizational settings as forms of knowledge management. The primary principles, the role of communication, and the role of measures are summarized for each approach. The article ends by discussing some implications of measures in general and this multitheoretic conceptualization of measures in particular for knowledge management.

References

[1]

Aguayo, R. (1990). Dr. Deming: The American who taught the Japanese about quality. Secancus, NJ: Carol Publishing.

Google Scholar

[2]

Alavi, M., & Leidner. D. (2001) Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 107-136

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[3]

Alvesson, M. (1996). Communication, power, and organization. New York: Walter de Gruyter.

Google Scholar

[4]

Alvesson, M. & Willmott, H. (1996). Making sense of management: A critical introduction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Google Scholar

[5]

Argote, L. (1999). Organizational learning: Creating, retaining, and transferring knowledge. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Crossref

Google Scholar

[6]

Argyris, C. & Schöön, D. (1996). Organizational learning II: Theory, method, and practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Google Scholar

[7]

Bantz, C. R. & Smith, D.H. (1977). A critique and experimental test of Weick's model of organizing. Communication Monographs, 44, 171-184.

Crossref

Google Scholar

[8]

Bartlett, C., & Ghoshal, S. (1995, May-Jtme). Changing the role of the top management: Beyond systems to people. Harvard Business Review, 73(3), 132-142.

Google Scholar

[9]

Beniger, J.R. (1986). The control revolution: Technological and economic origins of the information society. Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press.

Crossref

Google Scholar

[10]

Boring, E.G. (1961). The beginning and growth of measurement in psychology. In H. Woolf (Ed.), Quantification: A history of the meaning of measurement in the natural and social sciences. (pp. 108-127.) New York: The Bobbs-Merrill Company. Inc.

Google Scholar

[11]

Brancato, C.K. (1997). The conference board's "dashboard" approach to track strategic drivers of success. Conference Board Report No. 1176- 97-CR, 9-12. New York: The Conference Board.

Google Scholar

[12]

Brown, J., & Dugnid, P. (1996). Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. In M. Cohen & L. Sproull (Eds.), Organizational learning. (pp. 58-82.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Google Scholar

[13]

Brown, M.G., Hitchcock, D.E., & Willard, M.L (1994). Why TQM falls and what to do about it. New York: Irwin.

Google Scholar

[14]

Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis. London: Heinemann.

Google Scholar

[15]

Chan, Y. (2000). IT value: The great divide between qualitative and quantitative and individual and organizational measures. Journal of Management Information Systems, 16(4), 225-261.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[16]

Chandler, A., Jr., & Cortada, J. (Eds.) (2000). A nation transformed by information: How information has shaped the United States from colonial times to the present. New York: Oxford University Press.

Crossref

Google Scholar

[17]

Choo, C.W. (1995). Information management for the intelligent organization: The art of scanning the environment. Medford, NJ: Information Today.

Crossref

Google Scholar

[18]

Choo, C.W. (1998). The knowing organization: How organizations use information to construct meaning, create knowledge, and make decisions. New York: Oxford University Press.

Google Scholar

[19]

Chumer, M., Hull, R., & Prichard, C. (2000). Introduction: Situating discussions about "knowledge." In C. Prichard. R. Hull, M. Chumer, & H. Willmott (Eds.), Managing knowledge: Critical investigations of work and learning (pp. xv-xxx.). New York: St. Martin's Press.

Google Scholar

[20]

Clegg, S. (1989). Frameworks of power. Newbury Park. CA: Sage

Google Scholar

[21]

Crosby, P.B (1996). Quality is still free: Making quality certain m uncertain times. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Google Scholar

[22]

Culnan, M., & Armstrong, P. (1999). Information privacy concerns, procedural fairness, and impersonal trust: An empirical investigation. Organization Science, 10(1), 104-t15.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[23]

Czarnecki, M.T. (1999). Managing by measuring: How to improve your organization's performance through effective benchmarking. New York: AMACOM.

Google Scholar

[24]

Daft, R.L., & Huber, G.P. (1987). How organizations learn: A communication approach. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 5, 1-36.

Google Scholar

[25]

Day, R. (2001). The modem invention of information: Discourse, history and power. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Google Scholar

[26]

Deetz, S.A. (1992). Democracy in an age of corporate colonization: Developments an communication and the politics of everyday life. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Google Scholar

[27]

DiBella, A.J., & Nevis, E.C. (1998). How organizations learn: An integrated strategy for building learning capability. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Google Scholar

[28]

Dobyns, L., & Crawford-Mason, C. (1994). Thinking about quality: Progress, wisdom, and the Deming philosophy. New York: Time Books.

Google Scholar

[29]

Drucker, P. (1991). The new productivity challenge. Harvard Business Review, 69, 69-77.

Google Scholar

[30]

Fairhurst, G.T. (1993). Echoes of the vision: When the rest of the organization talks Total Quality. Management Communication Quarterly, 6(4), 331-371

Crossref

Google Scholar

[31]

Feigenbaum. A.V. (1983). Total quality control. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Google Scholar

[32]

Flynn, B.B., Schroeder, R.G., & Sakakibara, S. (1996). The relationship between quality and management practices and performance: Synthesis of findings from the world class manufacturing project. In D.B. Fedor. & S. Ghosh (Eds.), Advances in the management of organizational quality (vot. 1, pp. 141-185.) Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Google Scholar

[33]

Gabor, A. (1990). The man who discovered quality. New York: Random House.

Google Scholar

[34]

Garvin, D.A. (1993). Building a learning organization. Harvard Business Review, 71(4), 78-91.

Google Scholar

[35]

Gasser, L. (1986). The integration of computing and routine work. ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems, 4(3), 205-225.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[36]

Gioia, D.A., & Pitre, E. (1990). Multiparadigm perspectives on theory building. Academy of Management Review, 15(4), 584-602.

Crossref

Google Scholar

[37]

Grant, R.M., Shani, R., & Krishnan, R. (1994). TQM's challenge to management theory and practice. Sloan Management Review, 35(2), 584-602.

Google Scholar

[38]

Greising, D. (1994, August). Quality: How to make it pay. Business Week, 3384, 54-59.

Google Scholar

[39]

Grover, V., & Davenport, T. (2001). General perspectives on knowledge management: Fostering a research agenda. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1), 5-21.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[40]

Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action, vol. 1: Reason and the rationalization of society. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Google Scholar

[41]

Habermas, J. (1987). The theory of communicative action, vol 2: Lifeworld and system. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Google Scholar

[42]

Hassard, J. (1991). Multiple paradigms and organizational analysis: A case study. Organization Studies, 12(2), 275-299.

Crossref

Google Scholar

[43]

Hubei, G.P. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures. Organization Science, 2(1), 88-115.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[44]

Ishikawa, K. (1985). What is total quality control? The Japanese way. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Google Scholar

[45]

Ittner, C.D., & Larcker, D.F. (1996). Measuring the impact of quality initiatives on firm financial performance. In D.B. Fedor & S. Ghosh (Eds.), Advances in the management of organizational quality (vol. 1, pp. 1-37). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Google Scholar

[46]

Jarvenpaa, S., & Staples, D.S. (2001). Exploring perceptions of organizational ownership of information and expertise. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1), 151-183.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[47]

Johnson, B.Mc., & Rice, R.E. (1987). Managing organizational innovation: The evolution from word processing to office information systems. New York: Columbia University Press.

Crossref

Google Scholar

[48]

Juran, J.M. (1990). Juran on leadership for quality: An executive handbook. New York: The Free Press.

Google Scholar

[49]

Kaplan, R.S., & Norton, D.P. (1996). The balanced scorecard: Translating strategy into action. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Google Scholar

[50]

Kim, D.H. (1990). Toward learning organizations: Integrating total quality control and systems thinking. Cambridge, MA: Pegasus Commumcations.

Google Scholar

[51]

Landau, M, & Stout, R., Jr. (1979). To manage is not to control: Or the folly of type II errors. Public Administration Review, March/April, 148-156.

Crossref

Google Scholar

[52]

Lee, A.S. (1991). Integrarang positivist and interpretive approaches to organizational research. Organization Science, 2(4), 342-383.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[53]

Levitt, B.S., & March, J.G. (1995). Organizational learning. In M.D. Cohen & L.S. Sproull (Eds.), Organizational learning (pp. 517-540). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Google Scholar

[54]

Lingle, J. (1997). You can get there from here (Conference Board Report No. 1176-97-CR, pp. 19-24). New York: The Conference Board, Inc.

Google Scholar

[55]

Locke, E.A., & Jain, V.K. (1995). Organizational learning and continuous improvement. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 3(1), 45-68.

Crossref

Google Scholar

[56]

Machlup, F. (1962). The production and distribution of knowledge in the United States. Princeton. NJ: Princeton University Press.

Google Scholar

[57]

Malhotra, Y. (2000). Role of organizational controls in knowledge management: Is knowledge management really an "oxymoron"? In Y. Malhotra (Ed.), Knowledge management and virtual organizations (pp. 245-257). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.

Crossref

Google Scholar

[58]

Manz, C., Mossholder, K., & Luttlans, F. (1987). An integrated perspective of self-control in organizations. Administration & Society, 19(1), 3-24.

Crossref

Google Scholar

[59]

March, A. (1994). A note on quality: The views of Deming, Juran, and Crosby. In H.I. Costin (Ed.), Readings in total quality management (pp. 137-154.) New York: The Dryden Press.

Google Scholar

[60]

March, J.G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71-87.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[61]

March, J.G. (1999). The pursuit of organizational intelligence. Malden, MA: Blackwell Business.

Crossref

Google Scholar

[62]

Markns, M.L. (2001). Toward a theory of knowledge reuse: Types of knowledge reuse situations and factors in reuse success. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1), 57-93.

Crossref

Google Scholar

[63]

Marx, K. (1944). Economic and political manuscripts of 1844. Translated by M. Miligan. New York: International.

Google Scholar

[64]

Nidumlolu, S., Subramani, M, & Aldrich, A. (2001). Situated learning and the situated knowledge web: Exploring the ground beneath knowledge management. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1), 115-150.

Crossref

Google Scholar

[65]

Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford Press.

Google Scholar

[66]

Orr, J. (1996). Talking about machines: An ethnography of a modern job. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Google Scholar

[67]

Papa, M.J., Auwal, M.A., & Singhal, A (1995). Dialectic of control and emancipation on organizing for social change: A multitheoretic study of the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh. Communication Theory, 5(3), 189-223.

Crossref

Google Scholar

[68]

Polanyi, M. (1998). The tacit dimension. (Reprinted) in L. Prusak (Ed.) Knowledge in organization. (pp. 135-146). Boston, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Google Scholar

[69]

Riordan, C.M., & Gatewood, R.D. (1996). Putting the "E" (employee) into quality efforts: A process model of organizational practices, quality principles, and employee reactions. In D.B. Fedor & S. Ghosh (Eds.), Advances in the management of organizational quality, vol. 1. (pp. 299-335.) Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Google Scholar

[70]

Ross, P.J. (1989). Taguchi techniques for quality engineering. New York: McGraw-Hili.

Google Scholar

[71]

Ruben, B.D. (1995). Quality in higher education. New Brunswick. NJ: Transaction.

Google Scholar

[72]

Ruben, B.D. & Lehr, J.K. (1997). Excellence in higher education: A guide to organizational self-assessment, strategic planning, and improvement. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing.

Google Scholar

[73]

Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday.

Google Scholar

[74]

Shewhart, W.A. (1931). Economic control of quality of manufactured product. New York: Van Nostrad.

Google Scholar

[75]

Simon, H.A. (1991). Bounded rationality and organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 125-134.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[76]

Spender, J.-C. (1998). Pluralist epistemology and the knowledge-based theory of the firm. Organization. 5(2), 233-256.

Crossref

Google Scholar

[77]

Starbuck. W. (1992). Learning by knowledge intensive firms. Journal of Management Studies, 29(6), 713-740.

Crossref

Google Scholar

[78]

Stata, R. (1989). Organizational learning: The key to management innovation. Sloan Management Review, 30(3), 63-74.

Google Scholar

[79]

Stenmark, D. (2001). Leveraging tacit organizational knowledge. Journal of Management Information Systems, 17(3), 9-24.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[80]

Taguchi, G. (1986). Introduction to quality engineering: Designing quality into products and processes. New York: Krans.

Google Scholar

[81]

Walsh, J., & Ungson, G. (1991). Organizational memory. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 57-91.

Crossref

Google Scholar

[82]

Weick, K. (1979). The social psychology of organizing (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Google Scholar

[83]

Weick, K. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Google Scholar

[84]

Wendt, R. (1994). Learning to "Walk the Talk": A critical tale of the micropolitics at a Total Quality university. Management Communication Quarterly, 8(1), 5-45.

Crossref

Google Scholar

[85]

Winter, S. (1996). Organizing for continuous improvement: Evolutionary theory meets the quality revolution. In M. Cohen & L. Sproull (Eds.), Organizational learning (pp. 460-483). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Google Scholar

[86]

Woolf, H. (Ed.). (1961). Quantification: A history of the meaning of measurement in the natural and social sciences. New York: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc.

Google Scholar

[87]

Zack, M. (1999). Managing codified knowledge. Sloan Management Review. 10(4), 45-58.

Google Scholar

Cited By

View all

Buschman J(2007)Democratic theory in library information science: Toward an emendationJournal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology10.5555/1285300.128531258:10(1483-1496)Online publication date: 1-Aug-2007
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/1285300.1285312
Montequín VFernández FCabal VGutierrez N(2006)An integrated framework for intellectual capital measurement and knowledge management implementation in small and medium-sized enterprisesJournal of Information Science10.1177/016555150606712732:6(525-538)Online publication date: 1-Dec-2006
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1177/0165551506067127

Index Terms

Organizational measures as a form of knowledge management: a multitheoretic, communication-based exploration
1. Information systems
  1. Information retrieval
2. Social and professional topics
  1. Professional topics
    1. Computing and business
    2. Management of computing and information systems

Recommendations

Organisational knowledge creation strategies: A conceptual framework

The main purposes of this article are to identify the dimensions of organisational knowledge creation strategies (EICE model: exploration, institutional entrepreneurship, combination, exploitation) and to clarify the relationship between the ...
System perspective of knowledge management, organizational learning, and organizational innovation

In knowledge economics, enterprises need to adapt and update its knowledge to keep their capability of innovation. Therefore, the relationship between knowledge management and organizational innovation is getting an important issue in research and in ...
Organizational Knowledge Management: A Contingency Perspective

Prior research examines several knowledge management processes, considering each as universally appropriate. Instead, we propose that the context influences the suitability of a knowledge management process. We develop a contingency framework, including ...

Reviews

Reviewer: John R. Ray

The authors of this paper hypothesize that one method of knowledge management is the use of measures to foster learning, to transform individual tacit understanding to shared explicit sense making, evaluate and improve processes and customer service, and rationalize and control organizational activities and workers. This paper summarizes and applies four theoretical approaches - organizational learning, sense making, quality management, and critical theory - to explore how measures are constructed, interpreted, and used within organizational settings as forms of knowledge management. A return to the stages of knowledge management, introduced earlier, allows the application of the concepts of the four approaches. The extent or success of knowledge creation may be indicated in measures, such as patents, suggestions, new network relationships, concepts, and so on. Measures can play a central role in storage and retrieval, by indicating various characteristics (such as age, source, and amount), as well as the extent to which stored knowledge is related to or associated with the stated needs of the user or of others. The conclusion is that accepted and applied measures indicate some level of organizational learning, retention of sense-making through reduction of equivocality, benchmarks by which to evaluate processes and quality, and the extent to which jobs and organizational members are rationalized and controlled. The application of multiple theoretic approaches to analyzing the use of organizational measures, and the communication processes surrounding, and embedded in, measures, provides for a better understanding, development, and application of this particular form of knowledge management. Online Computing Reviews Service

Access critical reviews of Computing literature here

Become a reviewer for Computing Reviews.

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology Volume 53, Issue 12

October 2002

108 pages

ISSN:1532-2882

Issue’s Table of Contents

Publisher

John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

United States

Publication History

Published: 01 October 2002

Qualifiers

Article

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

2
Total Citations
View Citations
0
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)0
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

Reflects downloads up to 29 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all

Buschman J(2007)Democratic theory in library information science: Toward an emendationJournal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology10.5555/1285300.128531258:10(1483-1496)Online publication date: 1-Aug-2007
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/1285300.1285312
Montequín VFernández FCabal VGutierrez N(2006)An integrated framework for intellectual capital measurement and knowledge management implementation in small and medium-sized enterprisesJournal of Information Science10.1177/016555150606712732:6(525-538)Online publication date: 1-Dec-2006
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1177/0165551506067127

View Options

View options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Abstract

References

Cited By

Index Terms

Recommendations

Organisational knowledge creation strategies: A conceptual framework

System perspective of knowledge management, organizational learning, and organizational innovation

Organizational Knowledge Management: A Contingency Perspective

Reviews

Access critical reviews of Computing literature here

Comments

Information

Published In

Publisher

Publication History

Qualifiers

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View options

Login options

Full Access

Figures

Other

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media

Affiliations