TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. 2.0 2.1 INTRODUCTION ------------------------------------------------------------3 LITERATURE REVIEW ----------------------------------------------------5 KNOWLEDGE, KNOWLEDGE PROCESSES AND KNOWLEDGE CAPACITIES ---------------------------------------5 2.2 2.3 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. ORGANIZATIONAL INTELLIGENCE ----------------------------------9 DEFINITION OF KEY VARIABLES -------------------------------------13 STATEMENT OF PROBLEM ----------------------------------------------14 OBJECTIVES OF STUDY --------------------------------------------------14 METHODOLOGY -----------------------------------------------------------15 ORGANIZATION OF STUDY ---------------------------------------------17 JUSTIFICATION, CONTRIBUTION AND LIMITATION --------------18

REFERENCES ------------------------------------------------------------------------19 TABLE 1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------8 FIGURE 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------9 FIGURE 2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------12


performance (Harrington et al. either market or technological (Calantone et al. uncertainty and consequently change (Harrington et al. proliferation of information technology tools and fast-changing technologies among others. In the face of these present realities. Change as a whole has been responsible for the demise of many previously big.. 2003) brings the notion of instability. changing. Concepts like ambidexterity. whatever is the nature of the challenges the environment may pose. the concept of competitive advantage for organisations has to be redefined (Sharma and Singh. Buganza et.. processes or dispositions that are relevant to survive. Gamble et al. 2004). the best level of fit is one that ensures competitiveness and consequently sustained profitability. Turbulence. and learning organisation. unpredictable and/or uncertain (Calantone et al. organisations strive to attain a desired level of fit in any given operating environment.. With a changing environment come new standards of operation as previous standards lose their legitimacy. profitable and even ubiquitous organisations (Kumar et al. Factoring in that they don’t operate in isolation. capabilities. 2005). dynamic capability. INTRODUCTION Irrespective of the degree or speed of dynamism. considering the hegemonic status of globalization. changes in most nations’ economic realities. 2011. 2009). The life span of the status quo can be described as short relative to what is the norm in the past. risky. the economic environment has been termed as one that is characterised as turbulent – volatile. 2012). Concerned organizational scholars thus advocate that organisations need to strive for a disposition that permits flexibility on one hand and swiftness to attain fit with the new realities presented to 3 .1... dynamic. 2004) and survival. be profitable or remain relevant in turbulent environments. In recent times. have been employed to delineate skills.. 2003.

The process may be constrained by several factors which the extant literature on knowledge has tried to identify. 4 . products. knowledge capacities. 2004). Acquiring or utilising appropriate knowledge is not without its bottlenecks. capabilities.. 2009) as sustainable competitive advantage lies in their ability to do so (Calantone et al. The ability to align with present realities and flexibility to adapt as new ones emerge has been termed as organizational ambidexterity (Gibson and Birkinshaw.them by their operating environment on the other (Raisch et al. Prior to ambidexterity is an organization’s openness to knowledge and knowledge processing. Teece et al. and knowledge necessary to create or recreate structures. processes. However. 2006..and services (innovation) that ensure the organisation adjusts suitably (adaptability) and maintains a fit (alignment) with its new environment or takes advantage of it (Boccardelli and Magnusson. for the purpose of this study. The key constructs in this study would thus include knowledge. the two constructs of organisational intelligence (OI) and knowledge capacities (KC) would be the focus. Organisations need to be well-positioned to be able to identify knowledge that may serve as signals to oncoming changes due to turbulence (alertness). knowledge that is essential to identify new opportunities in the environment due to turbulence (discovery). This study would use a mixed method approach to empirically identify how OI or KC constrains or enables organisations’ ability to deliver appropriate value at successive levels of the value delivery process in the face of present or changing realities.. and organisational intelligence. 1997). 2003).

Prior knowledge inevitably influences the absorptive capacity of organizations and individuals. Davenport and Prusak’s (2000) definition of knowledge is adopted. Knowledge itself is a potential moderating factor involved in justifying the validity of new encounters (Johnson et al. Marinova. The ability to effectively utilise and create knowledge is a firm’s most important source of sustainable competitive advantage (Ichijo and Nonaka. For the purpose of this research. 2007. Ichijo and Nonaka. 2004). von Krogh et al. 2002. 2000))... 2002). 2000. Consequently. 2004..2. Knowledge is central to any attempt to plan strategies that would help organisations manage change effectively. contextual information. 2006. 5). Sumita. that is. 2009). and expert insight that provides a framework for evaluating and incorporating new experiences and information” (Davenport and Prusak.. their 5 . products and services) (KMWorld. 2007. 2008). Knowledge is defined as “a fluid mix of framed experience. managing all knowledge-related processes then becomes a key task for organisations. Merali.. von Krogh et al. 2000). 2000.1 LITERATURE REVIEW KNOWLEDGE. It is a prerequisite for the creation of new knowledge. Zheng et al. values. Knowledge could be either tacit (cannot be easily codified). 2003. explicit (could be expressed in codified forms) (Coakes et al. 2008.0 2. or embedded (organizational knowledge found in business processes. sometimes referred to as innovation (Hui and Idris. Prusak and Matson. 2009) which is fundamental to continued success in a changing world (Trainor. KNOWLEDGE PROCESSES AND KNOWLEDGE CAPACITIES Knowledge is a key factor in the creation of competitive success over time (Hasan and Crawford.

however. implicitly or explicitly. 1999/2000). scholars have advocated that knowledge need to be effectively managed and constantly renewed.. Drawing from the literature on dynamic capability (Ambrosini et al. 2006. 2006). Prusak and Matson. Connell et al. Grant. 1990. These processes are not mutually exclusive but rather can coexist within a given boundary (Lichtenthaler and Lichtenthaler. 2000.ability to recognize the value of new. The former helps secure an organization’s current viability while the latter is responsible for its future viability (O’Reilly and Tushman.. retention and transformation. 2006) consciously or unconsciously (Tuomi. To avoid the inherent inhibiting trait of knowledge. Teece. 2004. what present literatures. 2006.. 2009). Suzuki and Methe. 2009. With the exclusion of Lichtenthaler and Lichtenthaler (2009). 2000. Eisenhardt and Martin. as relevant to renewing or managing knowledge (Gupta et al. Much work has been done on these two processes. depending on what needs to be addressed. a particular combination of the processes that underlie exploitation and exploration will be more 6 . Teece et al. 2011). Nonaka et al. 2007) and organizational ambidexterity (Birkinshaw and Gibson. retain or create knowledge. Exploitation and exploration are two processes recognised.. Ichijo and Nonaka. assimilating and applying it (Cohen and Levinthal. don’t clearly delineate are the capacities (Table 1) that develop at strategic stages of the knowledge process and their resultant effect on organisations’ ability to acquire. 2011). At the core of exploitation and exploration are the processes of acquisition.. Raisch et al. 2009).. 2011. 2007. as firms try to be ambidextrous and simultaneously engage in exploitation and exploration.. Walrave et al. Knowledge has a lifespan and a deterioration rate which is hastened in environments that are potentially turbulent (Boccardelli and Magnusson. 2003. the friction between them and the trade-offs that have to be made in running them one at a time or simultaneously. utilise. utilisation. external information. 1997.

Kumar et al. inertia (Lichtenthaler. 2000.. the knowledge transfer capacity of the source or that of the recipient (Martin and Salomon. 2009. the creativity intent (DeGraff and Lawrence. The success of carrying out each of these combinations can be moderated by several factors. 2005) or extinction (Dawson. competency traps. Six knowledge capacities result from the combination of the knowledge processes that underlie exploitation and exploration (Table 1). 2000). 2012) with the aim of 7 .appropriate than other alternatives (Posen and Levinthal. and perceived knowledge gaps (Hall and Andriani. Figure 1 tries to highlight which knowledge capacity is relevant at each stage of the value delivery process (Kotler and Keller. 2003). Depending on how they are combined within a given context. 2011).. The study thus wants to look into the nature of these inherent powers and the role they play on organizational performance through the lens of successive levels of the value delivery process of a firm. they can be employed to determine which knowledge process(es) are more prevalent and what kind of innovation or creativity is possible within an organization or unit. 2002). the dominant strategic intent. adaptability or opportunism (Aaker and McLoughlin. 2003) or overdependence on one. value placed on knowledge external or internal to an organization (Menon and Pfeffer. hence the development of the knowledge capacities that results from them are affected likewise. 2010). 2002). either strategic commitment. 2012). Johnson et al. Depending on the predominant moderating factor in an organization. This study is of the view that the knowledge capacities (KC) that develop might have inherent in them the potential to constrain or enable appropriate acquisition. Among factors identified from existing literature are the perception concerning the nature of the challenges that need to be addressed or how long they would last (Winter. greater competency in a given combination may occur (Helfat and Peteraf. 2003). which may expose an organization to the risk of strategic drift. utilisation and retention of knowledge and consequently an organizations’ ability to ensure fit with its environment.

serving as a framework for this study in its quest to identify the resultant trade-off effect at each stage. to generate new knowledge inside the firm Firm’s ability to explore external External knowledge exploration Transformative Firm’s capability of internally capacity retaining knowledge over time Connective capacity Innovative Capacity Desorptive Capacity Firm’s capability of externally retaining knowledge over time Firm’s ability to internally exploit knowledge that has been explored and retained inside or outside the firm Firm’s ability to externally exploit knowledge Internal exploitation External exploitation 8 . i.e. Table 1: Integration of Lichtenthaler and Lichtenthaler’s Overview of Framework and Illustration of Knowledge Capacities (2009. 1318 and 1323) Knowledge Capacity Inventive Capacity Absorptive Capacity Knowledge processes Internal exploration Capacity Components  Generate  Integrate  Acquire  Assimilate  Maintain Internal retention  Reactivate  Maintain External retention  Reactivate  Transmute  Commercialize  Identify  Transfer Definition Firm’s ability to internally explore knowledge.

Intelligence is. This means that how we do what we do is a result of what we know and what we know also stems from what we do which is usually termed as experience.2 ORGANIZATIONAL INTELLIGENCE The process of knowing and doing is a continuum. however. 210). it is the “aggregate or global capacity of the individual to act purposefully. It needs to be accounted for if individuals’ or organizations’ anticipation of effective utilisation or creation of knowledge would be realised. a very important factor in this process.Value Exploration •Absorptive Capacity (Acquire + Assimilate) •Inventive Capacity (Generate + Integrate) •Transformative Capacity (Maintain + Reactivate) •Connective Capacity (Maintain + Reactivate) Value Creation •Innovative Capacity (Transmute + Commercialize) •Transformative Capacity (Maintain + Reactivate) •Connective Capacity (Maintain + Reactivate) Value Delivery •Desorptive Capacity (Identify + Transfer) •Innovative Capacity (Transmute + Commercialize) Figure 1: Value delivery process and corresponding knowledge capacities Source: Author 2. “Intelligence entails the ability to solve problems or fashion products that are of consequence in a particular cultural setting or community” (Gardner. 2007. We know by learning and learn by doing (Montanheiro and Spiering. to think rationally. In Wechsler’s view (1958 cited in Goyal and Akhilesh. and to deal effectively with his/her 9 . 2001). A person acts on an understanding rooted on what he knows. 6). 2006.

3). artificial intelligence. 2008) and cultural intelligence (Sternberg and Grigorenko. The organization’s intelligence (OI) is an attribute of the aggregate of the individual intelligences present within it (Akgun et al.. It may be displayed in individuals as an information-processing and reasoning ability used to understand relations and abstract prepositions (crystallized intelligence) or as an ability to acquire. 2000). competitive intelligence (Calof and Wright. 1996). however. 2003). business intelligence. a firm will inevitably push itself into collective stupidity (Albrecht. As the SECI model of Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) identifies. when people share knowledge. 2005. 2008). organize and conceptualize information (Furnham et al. Failure to recognize this fact has made firms to put in large investments in obtaining up-to-date technologies and hiring the brightest people with the expectation that it would result in an intelligent organization (Veryard. retain. An organization overcomes the limitation of each individual member and becomes smarter than its individual members by collective effort but individual members become smarter than it when it fails to “institutionalize intelligent ideas or recognize the intelligent contributions of members” (Glynn. It is not identical but is related to the intelligence of each individual (Glynn. Without regard to how to connect the individual parts and facilitate collaboration and sharing. Intelligence is an ability that is used to draw from stock of knowledge (Seidl. 1094). In an organization. 2007).environment”. 2006). 1996. 2007. 2007). market intelligence (Trim and Lee. 1996). 2008). Koman and Wolff. the potential knowledge that results from the 10 .. Yolles. determines an organization’s cognitive agility in combining knowledge (Fiol. It is defined as “the capacity of an organization to mobilize all of its brainpower and to focus that brainpower on achieving its mission” (Albrecht. 2002. 2005). It. several forms of intelligence exist including but not limited to emotional intelligence (Kernbach and Schutte.

business and artificial intelligence at its disposal. however. This study is of the view that intelligence resides in every individual (Gardner. Taking into account OI. 11 . is not the only barrier or enabling factor to effective knowledge utilisation that results in creation of new knowledge. this study thus wants to look at its role in the intended knowledge capacity combination (as deduced from the organization’s strategic intent) and the realized one (Figure 2). Intelligence.combination of the individuals’ stores of tacit knowledge (Madhavan and Grover. Intelligence. 1998). 2006) and consequently the organization and the difference among individuals or organizations in terms of intelligence is dependent on how it is being deployed and developed (Akgun et al. 2007). in all its variations is an essential component in an organization’s bid to combine existing knowledge in new and different ways and in its cognitive agility to effectively do so (Fiol. 1996). Organizational Intelligence as an attribute of the whole means that an organization that is intelligent is one that is able to effectively coordinate together all the resources including human. 2000). via interaction with their existing knowledge sparks ideas that both have neither encountered before (Davenport and Prusak.

12 .

contextual information.3 DEFINITION OF KEY VARIABLES Knowledge – a fluid mix of framed experience.2. providing and communicating value Value Exploration – the process of identifying new value opportunities Value Creation – the process of creating value Value Delivery – the process of delivering or communicating value Organizational Intelligence – the capacity of an organization to mobilize all of its brainpower and to focus that brainpower on achieving its mission. or retain knowledge. 13 . 2009) Value – the sum of the tangible and intangible benefits and costs to individual stakeholders Value delivery process – the sequence of identifying. values. generating and commercializing knowledge Exploration – the act of acquiring. the ability to acquire. It is a firm’s capabilities of managing different knowledge processes (Lichtenthaler and Lichtenthaler. generating or creating knowledge from pre-existing knowledge (without its being commercialised) Knowledge Retention – the process of storing acquired knowledge Knowledge Transformation – the process of transmuting stored knowledge Knowledge Competence . and expert insight that provides a framework for evaluating and incorporating new experiences and information Exploitation – the act of utilizing. Knowledge Capacity – is an organization’s resulting ability from the combination of two knowledge competencies.

2002). 2007. converted from one form to another and created. declaring bankruptcy. 4. STATEMENT OF PROBLEM There is a plethora of studies that have focused on how knowledge can be shared.. Albrecht. which organizations are going into administration. 14 . There are studies that also stress the relevance of organizational intelligence (OI) in realising the full potential of the resources available to an organization and consequently to avoid collective stupidity and organizational failure (Akgun et al. study into the knowledge capacities that may evolve as a result of various potential combinations of the knowledge processes (first order processes of exploration and exploitation and the second-order processes of acquisition. Nokia and Motorola. OBJECTIVES OF STUDY The study would be carried out with the objective of identifying the structures or mechanisms that enable or constrain the effective deployment of organizational intelligence and knowledge capacities in an organization with respect to addressing changing environmental contexts. utilization. The extant literature on exploitation-exploration tensions and trade-offs have likewise been able to delineate possible challenges that knowledge utilization and knowledge processes face. In effect. transferred.3. the relevance of examining the interplay between the two constructs becomes apparent. acquired. closing down or simply losing a cherished strategic position as in the case of organizations like Kodak. retention and transformation) is still in its infancy. However. Its three main objectives would be the following: I) To examine how knowledge capacities are developed and combined within an organizational context. the interplay between the knowledge Looking at the spate at capacities and organizational intelligence is yet to be researched.

2004). The research would employ quantitative methods to identify regularity.II) To examine the relationship between organizational intelligence and knowledge capacities development and combinations within an organizational context. that a research paradigm cannot corroborate the findings of another does not 15 . and what can be seen or discovered by differing ontological perspectives differ. METHODOLOGY A mixed method approach would be employed for this research. 2007). A philosophical perspective of Critical Realism (CR) would be employed as the metatheory to help take advantage of the strengths of different paradigm lenses. frequency of occurrence (Fleetwood and Ackroyd. IV) To examine the impact of the relationship between organizational intelligence and knowledge capacity combinations on the value delivery process in an organization. patterns or associations (through the use of a structured questionnaire with predefined possible responses) while qualitative methods (semi-structured interview) would be used to gain insight into complex issues or allow for the possibility of generating previously unanticipated findings or entirely new ones (McEvoy and Richards. 2006). Critical Realism recognizes that there are various ontological realms. A positivistic perspective of ontology helps to capture observable social reality and that of the interpretivistic school of thought helps to capture issues that may not be within the discursive consciousness of social actors and those that may be peculiar to a given organisation or context (Bryman and Bell. 2007). This approach was chosen due to the perceived complexity of the chosen constructs (Bryman and Bell. III) To identify the role knowledge capacities and their combinations play at each stage of a value delivery process. 5. Thus.

The measures that would be used in the structured questionnaire would be developed by reviewing items employed in measuring the same constructs by other scholars and adjusting them so as to reflect and correspond with the direction of the intended research. Same constructs used in the questionnaire would be used to develop a guide for the semi-structured interviews.. Sayer. (ii) What is acceptable and what is unacceptable. A nonprobability sampling method would be used because of anticipated constraints in gaining access to potential respondents. Critical Realism believes in the empirical. Mingers. respectively.mean the findings are not legitimate (as is in the case of most triangulation work in research). This sampling method is preferred because it offers a greater degree of freedom and flexibility in selecting the individual respondents (Parasuramanet al. and (iii) What is central and peripheral to inquiry (Carpendale and Muller. as it serves as a guide in effectively taking advantage of what they both can reveal. (i) What is meaningful and what is meaningless. 2004). 2004). The guide would however be revised as the research goes on and as new issues that need answers arise. 2001. Respondents would be drawn from various industries from the private sector. Its role. as the metatheory employed for this research work is to help define/identify the following. 16 . 2004). 2000. The data collected from the use of the quantitative and qualitative tools would be analysed using available current versions of the Statistical Package for Social Scientists (SPSS) and Nvivo. as intended to be used for this research work. It thus permits the use of both quantitative and qualitative methods. but likewise agrees that not all realities are observable (Dobson. A Likertscale of 1 – 5 would be used to facilitate easy statistical comparison.

ORGANIZATION OF STUDY The study would follow the outline below. Overview of the study Chapter One: Introduction Chapter Two: Literature Review Chapter Three: Methodology  Research context  Data collection  Sample  Semi-Structured Interview  Self-administered questionnaire  Measures  Data Analysis Chapter Four: Findings and Analysis  Quantitative data analysis  Qualitative data analysis Chapter Five: Discussion Chapter Six: Conclusion  Summary  Contributions  Limitations 17 .6.

It would also help shed greater light on the nature of the knowledge capacities that emanate from various combinations of knowledge processes. CONTRIBUTION AND LIMITATION Considering that change is inevitable and organizations have to ensure that they are able to consistently deliver value. It would add to the work on knowledge capacities particularly. knowledge capacities. an area that is just newly developing. and knowledge management strategy. using samples from areas other than that which was used by previous work thus bringing in a different perspective to the work. It would help to understand the interplay among the chosen constructs thereby making problem identification in declining value and reluctance or resistance to change scenarios fast and possible. From a strategy perspective. JUSTIFICATION.7. innovate and survive or simply to make strategic use of knowledge. The study would add to the body of knowledge in the areas of organizational intelligence. It should be noted that at the moment. practitioners or researchers can use the findings from this study as a platform to research or develop further the identified strategic issues with an understanding and clarity on how they can constrain or enable organizational strategy and agility and consequently performance. this study would be of relevance to both organizational practitioners and scholars by helping to identify strategic areas that may impede an organization’s ability to change. Being saddled with the task of not only achieving appropriate fit with current environmental contexts but also being able to deliver and adjust their value offering to fit with both present and future demands. This study thus aims to help to ascertain the role of organizational intelligence and knowledge capacities in the list of possible bottlenecks. organizational learning. management needs to be able to preempt and identify possible bottlenecks. there are very few studies on the construct and this may prove to be a limitation for this research work. 18 . the study would present factors responsible for identified gaps in intended knowledge capacity configurations and the realized ones. Managers.

C. Bryman. and McLoughlin. and Wright (2008) ‘Competitive intelligence. 20: 90–103 10. E. Aaker. Calantone. D. J. H. 20(3): 272 – 289 3. USA: Oxford University Press. Dell’Era. Birkinshaw.. (2009) ‘Exploring the relationships between product development and environmental turbulence: the case of mobile TLC services’.. Buganza. Journal of Product Innovation Management. T. and Magnusson. MIT Sloan Management Review. Akgün. P. Albrecht. United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Calof. USA: Karl Albrecht. R. (2006) ‘Dynamic Capabilities in early-phase entrepreneurship’. 8. British Journal of Management. A. Bowman. and Verganti. (2004) ‘Building ambidexterity into an organization’. J. (2009) ‘Dynamic Capabilities: An exploration of how firms renew their resource base’. C. D. Byrne.REFERENCES 1. A practitioner. 2nd edition. (2010) Strategic Market Management: Global Perspectives. Knowledge and Process Management. (2007) Business Research Methods. 20: S9 – S24 5. Garcia. 26: 308–321 9. Boccardelli.. V. N.. A. C. R. Journal of Product Innovation Management. 4. E. C. 2.. and Gibson. 13(3): 162–174 7. Journal of Organizational Change Management. K. 45: 47 – 55 6. Ambrosini. and Droge. (2007) ‘Organizational intelligence: a structuration view’. 42(7/8): 71–730 19 . and Bell. European Journal of Marketing. R. (2003) The Power of Minds at Work: Organizational Intelligence in Action. (2003) ‘The effects of environmental turbulence on new product development strategy planning’. academic and interdisciplinary perspective’. L. G. M. and Keskin. and Collier.

How Organizations Manage What They Know. P. A. (2000) ‘Knowledge capabilities as the focus of organizational development and strategy’.). Strategic Management Journal. N. 13. (2001) ‘The philosophy of critical realism – an opportunity for information systems research’. (2002) Creativity at Work: Developing the Right Practices to Make Innovation Happen. J. 54(2): 140-152 15. USA: Harvard Business School Press. Academy of Management Review. Journal of the Operational Research Society. (2002) Knowledge Management in the Sociotechnical World. J. 21: 1105–1121. and Clarke (Eds). Inc. 21(4): 1012–1021 21. D. U. W. inc. D. Davenport. Great Britain: Springer-Verlag London Limited. S. (1996) ‘Squeezing harder doesn't always work: continuing the search for consistency in innovation research’. and Levinthal. H. L. DeGraff. R. C. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. I. 35(1): 128 – 152 14. M. (2004) Social Interaction and the Development of Knowledge. San Franscisco: John Wiley and Sons. Klein. A. Journal of Knowledge Management. Cohen. Fiol. K. S. Fleetwood. 18. L. London: Routledge.. and Martin. and Prusak. M. Critical Realist Applications in Organisation and Management Studies. Eisenhardt. (2000) ‘Dynamic Capabilities: what are they?’. the Graffiti Continues. 12. J. K. Willis. (2003) ‘It's tacit knowledge but not as we know it: redirecting the search for knowledge’. H. Connell. (2000) Working Knowledge. and Muller. S. Dobson. A. (2004) (ed. Administrative Science Quarterly. 20. D. and Lawrence.11. J. and Ackroyd. 4(4): 320–327 17. Information systems frontier. M. 3(2): 199–209 19. M. 20 .. E. (1990) ‘Absorptive Capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation’. Coakes. Carpendale. and Powell. A. Dawson. 16.

(2007) ‘Interplay among innovativeness. and Akhilesh. M.22. 24.. 21(4): 1081-1111 27. 35: 29–48 21 . R. (2006) ‘Creating a leadership culture for knowledge utilisation’. Smith. Tapp. J. consequences. Journal of Business and Psychology. A. emotional intelligence and social capital of work teams’. and Birkinshaw. Furnham. P. 47(2): 209-226 26. 13(7/8): 206–226 28.. (2002) ‘Managing knowledge for innovation’. (1996) ‘Innovative genius: a framework for relating individual and organizational intelligences to innovation’. K. Glynn. A. A.. and Andriani..).. Great Britain: Kogan Page Limited. Knowledge Management and Organizational Learning. (2004) ‘The antecedents. the Brand and the Bottom Line. 25. T. Gardner. B. J. A. and Matson. (2007) ‘Personality and intelligence in business people: a study of two personality and two intelligence measures’. Long Range Planning. (2006) ‘The interplay between exploration and exploitation’. K. and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity’. USA: Basic Books. New York: Oxford University Press. R. P. 30. Marsella. P. M. Goyal. and Aitken. Gamble. 49(4): 693–706 29. L. K. R. The Academy of Management Review. Journal of Medical Marketing. (2006) Knowledge Management and the Knowledge-Based Economy. A. 22(1): 99–109 23. Sloan. Hall. Academy of Management Journal. E. Academy Management Journal. and Chamorro-Premuzic. P. Gibson. cited in Prusak. Dissou. (2005) Marketing Revolution: The Radical New Approach to Transforming the Business.. Grant. (2006) Multiple Intelligences: New Horizons. and Shalley. 6: 94–104 31. (ed. G. B. E. C. Gupta. Green. C. H. Team Performance Management. and Stone. cognitive intelligence. G.

K. M. Kernbach. K. J. Scholes. Journal of Business and Management. Johnson. M.. Journal of International Marketing. New Challenges for Managers. Sohi. (2009) ‘What makes growth-oriented small-scale companies innovative? a look at absorptive capacity’. 19(6/7): 438-444 41. 54(2): 184-193 34. G. R. Martin. KMWorld. (2005) ‘The impact of service provider emotional intelligence on customer satisfaction’.. Exploring Corporate Strategy. Morgan. Lemak. J. England: Pearson Education Limited. strategy formulation and performance’. (2004) ‘The role of relational knowledge stores in interfirm partnering’. Harrington. Reed. W. K. R. Journal of Global Business Issues. 10(1): 15-38 33. 40. Produced by KMWorld Magazine. R.32... and Peteraf. Journal of the Operational Research Society. (2010) ‘Realizing productmarket advantage in high-technology international new ventures: the mediating role of ambidextrous innovation’. K. D. (2003) ‘Codifying or enabling: the challenge of knowledge management systems’. 39. L. R. H. and Robson. and Schutte. (2007) Knowledge Creation and Management. (2002). K. Johnson. L. Helfat. Hughes. S.. Hui.. I.. S. Specialty Publishing group 22 . S. (2003) ‘The dynamic resource-based view: capability lifecycles’. and Whittington R. S.. 7th Edition. Sponsored by FileNET and Intelliseek. and Nonaka. 68: 21–36. 18(4): 1-21 36. Hasan. Ichijo. The Journal of Services Marketing. M. (2005). 24: 997–1010 35. C. and Idris. E. B. Journal of Marketing. J. and Kendall. and Grewal. 3(1): 15-22 37. White paper on Best Practices in Business and Competitive Intelligence. New York: Oxford University Press 38. C. Strategic Management Journal. (2004) ‘A question of fit: the links among environment. R. and Crawford. J.

E. and competency trap’. environmental turbulence. Marinova. and Richards. Venkatesan. P. and Lichtenthaler. and the complementarity of organizational learning processes’. 11: 66-78 23 . (2009) ‘Absorptive capacity. Koman. Journal of Research in Nursing . D. D. (2009) ‘A capability-based framework for open innovation: complementing absorptive capacity’. R. Lichtenthaler. Academy of Management Journal. and Salomon. R. and Grover.. Jones. Journal of Marketing. 27(1): 55 . (2012) Marketing Management 14th Edition. Liu. McEvoy. (2006) ‘Knowledge exploitation. Kotler. R. and Wolff. 75: 16–30 45. S. Journal of Marketing .42. 34(4): 356-37 51. B. S. 62(4): 1-12 49. and Keller. U. 68: 1–20 50. V. W. ‘Is market orientation a source of sustainable competitive advantage or simply the cost of competing?’. New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc. (2011). (1998) ‘From embedded knowledge to embodied knowledge: new product development as knowledge management’. ‘Emotional intelligence competencies in the team and team leader: A multi-level examination of the impact of emotional intelligence on team performance’. 44. Journal of International Business Studies. E. U. Martin. 1315–1338 47. K. Knowledge and Process Management. E. 13(3): 144–161 48. R. X. 46(8). (2003) ‘Knowledge transfer capacity and its implications for the theory of the multinational corporation’. R. Kumar. Journal of Marketing. Journal of Management Studies. (2008). (2006) ‘A critical realist rationale for using a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods’. P.75 43. P. Lichtenthaler. (2004) ‘Actualizing innovation effort: the impact of market knowledge diffusion in a dynamic system of competition’.. Madhavan. 52(4): 822–846 46. and Leone. Journal of Management Development. knowledge exploration.

Journal of the Operational Research Society. M. (2000) ‘Individual and collective congruence in the knowledge management process’. R. L. D. ba and leadership: a unified model of dynamic knowledge creation’. (2000) ‘SECI. Organization Science. and Spiering. and Konno. New York: Oxford University Press.. 57. Parasuraman. (2004) Marketing Research. W.. Long Range Planning. A. (2006) Knowledge Management and Organizational Learning. 20(4): 685–695 24 . 51: 1256–1270 55. I. 9(2-3): 213-234. (2000) ‘The contribution of critical realism as an underpinning philosophy for OR/MS and systems’. (2011) ‘Organizational ambidexterity in action: how managers explore and exploit’. T. (2012) ‘Chasing a moving target: exploitation and exploration in dynamic environments’. H. ‘Valuing internal vs. (Eds. and Matson. USA: Houghton Mifflin Company. Montanheiro. and Krishnan. 49(4): 497–513 53. Prusak. and Tushman. Probst. Grewal. and Levinthal. Toyama. M. L. O’Reilly III. I. Management Science. California Management Review.52. and Pfeffer. (2003). Raisch. J. A. H. E. 60. 53(4): 5–22 59.) (2001) Public and Private Sector Partnerships: The Enterprise Governance. and Tushman. New York: Oxford University Press 62. Mingers. L. and Takeuchi. 58(3): 587 – 601 61. G. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems. A. Sheffield: Sheffield Hallam University 56. Nonaka. D. (2009) ‘Organizational ambidexterity: balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance’. L. Management Science. C. D.. S. external knowledge: explaining the preference for outsiders’. Birkinshaw. R. N. Menon. Y. 33: 5–34 58. Posen. E. Nonaka. J. Merali. J. (1995) The Knowledge Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. 54.

and Devinney. 20(2): 37–45 25 . and Singh. Trainor. (2008) ‘Building knowledge from organizational experience: approaches and lessons learned from US army base camp workshops’. T. Seidl. 31(1): 27 – 39 68. A. ix(3): 4672 66.63. G. (2008) ‘Intellectual assets based management for innovation. O. (2004) Foreword: Why Critical Realism? in Fleetwood. Strategic Management>. Emergence: Complexity and Organization. <http://ssrn. (2012) ‘Change and competitive advantage: an investigative study of Indian pharmaceutical industry’. D. J. J. S. Soo. D. 9(2): 206-227 69. and Lindberg. no. Pisano. and Grigorenko. 8(2): 49–63 70.). W. S. L. D. Journal of Intellectual Capital.. Teece. Midgley. Group and Organization Management. Critical Realist Applications in Organisation and Management Studies. Sternberg. J. and Methe. T. Sayer. and Ackroyd. (2011) ‘Optimal ambidexterity and exploration valuableness: balancing short-term and long-term trade-off in pharmaceutical products development’ Journal of Business Chemistry. and Shuen. 64. Strategic Management Journal. 7: 509–533 71. Engineering Management Journal. The IUP Journal of Business Strategy. 18. A. accessed 26/07/09 67. (2007) ‘The dark side of knowledge’. (1997) ‘Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management’. Suzuki. (2002) ‘The process of knowledge creation in organizations’. (ed. 9(3): 16–29 65. New York: Routledge. K. Sharma. J.. D. M. K. Brazil. A. M. (2007) ‘Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance’. lessons from experiences in Japan’.. D. Sumita. (2006) ‘Cultural intelligence and successful intelligence’. Teece. 28: 1319–1350 72. E.

B. (2007) ‘Interplay among innovativeness. Veryard. 42(7/8): 731-745 74. van Oorschot. Team Performance Management. N. (1958) cited in Goyal.. G. Yolles. Strategic Management Journal. Y. A. 17(1/2): 99–114 cognitive intelligence. Von Krogh. Tuomi.. Trim. M.scribd. and Nonaka. and Lee. G. Walrave. strategy. Journal of Management Information Systems. (2000) Component-based business background material on intelligence. R. L. structure. (2000) ‘The satisficing principle in capability learning’. 76. (2005) ‘Organizational Intelligence’. A. E. J. I. and organizational effectiveness: mediating role of knowledge management’. B. and Akhilesh. Winter. Journal of Management Studies. (1999/2000) ‘Data is more than knowledge: implications of the reversed knowledge hierarchy for knowledge management and organizational memory’. 13(7/8): 206–226 79. European Journal of Marketing. 48(8): 1727-1751 78. I. G.06.005: 1 – 9 26 . http://www.. W. Zheng.jbusres. B. and McLean. Journal of Business Research. USA: Oxford University Press. How to Unlock the Mystery of Tacit Knowledge and Release the Power of Innovation. accessed 16/07/09. (2008) ‘A strategic marketing intelligence and multi-organisational resilience framework’. (2011) ‘Getting trapped in the suppression of exploration: a simulation model’.2009. (2009) ‘Linking organizational culture. Yang. and Romme. 16(3): 103–117 75. doi:10.73. K. K. K. (2000) Enabling Knowledge Creation.1016/j. 77. The Journal of Workplace Learning. Wechsler. 21(10/11): 981-996 80. emotional intelligence and social capital of work teams’. Ichijo. R.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful