Professional Documents
Culture Documents
management model
Jorge Muniz, Edgard Dias Batista Jr and Geilson Loureiro
Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to propose a model of production management that integrates knowledge
management, as a third dimension, to the production and work dimensions and to identify factors that
promote a favorable context for knowledge sharing and results achievement in the production
operations shop floor environment.
Design/methodology/approach – The model proposed is built from opportunities identified in the
literature review.
Findings – The factors in the model integrate its three main components: knowledge management,
production organization and work organization, providing a representation of the dynamics of the
workplace and shop floor environment.
Practical implications – The proposed model and its factors allow managers to better understand and
to improve the organization activities, because it integrates knowledge management with the production
organization and work organization components of traditional models.
Jorge Muniz is Professor of
Originality/value – Literature acknowledges the role of knowledge as competitive advantage, but it is
Production Management still dealt in an implicit way within the traditional models of production management. This paper
and Edgard Dias Batista Jr proposes a model and factors that provide a favorable context for tacit knowledge sharing and results
is Professor of Information achievement in the production operations shop floor environment. The model explicitly integrates
System, Statistics and knowledge management with traditional models’ components.
Transport Planning Field, Keywords Production management, Knowledge management, Knowledge sharing, Modelling
both in the Production Paper type Conceptual paper
Department, São Paulo
State University,
Guaratinguetá, Brazil.
Geilson Loureiro is
Professor of Systems 1. Introduction
Engineering at the
Traditionally, production management models are comprised of two dimensions: the
Laboratory of Integration
technical dimension and the social dimension. The technical dimension refers to production
and Testing (LIT), Brazilian
Institute for Space organization, hereafter called the P-dimension, processes, activities, types and physical
Research (INPE), São José arrangement of equipment and to the flow of material that result in services and goods. The
dos Campos, Brasil. social dimension refers to work organization, hereafter called the W-dimension.
However, knowledge management is recently gaining more attention from those subjects
related to organizational sciences (Serenko and Bontis, 2004; Paiva et al., 2007), especially
those related to improvement processes and incremental process innovation, more
specifically in the shop floor production operations environment. Recent papers on
knowledge management reinforce the need to research:
B Factors that affect the tacit knowledge in groups within the organizations (Erden et al.,
2008).
B Methodologies for business improvement (Hazlett et al., 2005; Nonaka et al., 2006;
Received 29 December 2009
Accepted 30 April 2010
Fugate et al., 2009).
PAGE 858 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 14 NO. 6 2010, pp. 858-871, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1367-3270 DOI 10.1108/13673271011084907
B Pragmatic guidelines on how the manager can develop favorable contexts in order to
encourage knowledge conversion processes within groups in the organization or within
the entire organization (Nonaka et al., 2006).
This paper aims to propose a model of production management that integrates knowledge
management, as a third dimension, hereafter called the K-dimension, to the P and
W-dimensions. In order to achieve the above-mentioned general objective, this paper has as
specific objective, which is to identify factors, in the K, P and W-dimensions, that promotes a
favorable context for knowledge sharing and results achievement in the production
operations shop floor environment, based on literature review.
In order to achieve the specific objective above, this paper is structured as following:
Section 2 reviews the traditional production management models. Sections 3, 4 and 5 review
models and processes of production organization, work organization and knowledge
management, respectively. This leads to the K, P and W factors described in Section 6.
Section 7 proposes the model. Section 8 draws conclusions. Section 9 anticipates potential
further research.
SOCIAL-TECHNICAL
PERSPECTIVE of RESULTS
PRODUCTION MANAGEMENT
• Job Satisfaction
• Innovation
WORK
ORGANIZATION • Quality
• Time
PRODUCTION
ORGANIZATION • Quantity
• Cost
j j
VOL. 14 NO. 6 2010 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 859
Biazzo and Panizzollo (2000) state that the differences between the socio-technical and
Taylorist models are related to work organization, which, in the socio-technical model, it
should be as taken an advantage for the people’s intellectual and creative capabilities,
allowing continuous learning, generating recognition and social support, providing a clear
relationship with social life and social values of the workers, making the visualization of the
final product, ‘‘the big picture’’, possible, permitting the control on the results, minimizing
hierarchical differences and group composition to be heterogeneous.
The differences above also contain elements that require knowledge organization, and
suggest that the P-dimension and the W-dimension are not enough for representing the
increasingly important need for knowledge sharing among workers.
Factors influencing knowledge sharing among workers are little understood, probably due to
the emphasis on information technology (Bisalyaputra, 2004; von Krogh et al., 2000).
Procedures prepared by the workers themselves in order to enhance productivity, quality,
skills and understanding of the work place, attenuate the little involvement that bureaucracy
can bring (Adler, 1993).
Knowledge management is definitely an opportunity to complement those traditional
models.
j j
PAGE 860 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 14 NO. 6 2010
4. Work organization, the W-dimension
Work organization refers to methods, job content and roles and responsibilities in a given
production system (shop floor production operations is the context of this paper). It focuses
on the social relationships among individuals and groups, their behavior, skills, capabilities,
feelings and other human aspects.
According to van der Zwaan (1975), it is impossible to draw limits between the technical and
social dimensions. Among the various work organization models, the Swedish
(semi-autonomous group) and the Japanese (enriched group) models deserve to be
highlighted. Table I presents the main differences between them.
This paper calls the Swedish model for work organization as semi-autonomous group and
calls the Japanese model as enriched group.
The semi-autonomous group emphasizes group autonomy and flexibility, which allows the
participation of workers in the assignment and reviewing their roles and responsibilities in
order to improve the local and global results of their organization. The autonomy in a
semi-autonomous group may comprise work methods review, leader selection, tasks
distribution, target definitions. Volvo Udevalla is an example of a factory where the
semi-autonomous work organization took place (Sandberg, 1995).
The enriched group is based on responsibility and multi-skills of the local management, with
restricted autonomy to pre-defined roles stated by the organizational structure. Therefore,
the enriched model limits workers participation on assignment and review their roles and
responsibilities. In the enriched group, the worker has less autonomy than in the
semi-autonomous group but more autonomy than in the Taylorist worker arrangements. Lean
manufacturing groups are organized according to the enriched group model.
Semi-skilled workers with high initial training Semi-skilled workers with generally high training
starting qualifications
Work totally uncoupled from the production cycle Work tied to the production cycle
Wholistic tasks with long work cycles (. one Highly repetitive work; cycle times around one
hour) minute on the assembly lines, around five
minutes in the machining area where
multi-machine work is the norm
High partial autonomy for teams through process No partial autonomy for the teams through JIT
layout design
De-hierarchization with elected speaker and self Strong hierarchical structures, group leader
regulation of group affairs appointed by management, no group self
regulation
j j
VOL. 14 NO. 6 2010 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 861
According to Serenko and Bontis (2004), knowledge management is a relatively new field of
the general theory of administration. Many of its concepts are still evolving (Nonaka et al.,
2006; Pasternack and Viscio, 1998 in Hazlett et al., 2005).
Using Kuhn’s (1996) scientific paradigm, Hazlett et al. (2005) consider knowledge with two
main focuses (Figure 2):
Management
(Organic Paradigm)
Knowledge
Information system
(Computational Paradigm)
Sources: Adapted from Spender and Scherer (2007); Hazlett et al. (2005)
j j
PAGE 862 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 14 NO. 6 2010
Figure 3 Knowledge spiral
Knowledge
Level
S E
I C
S E
I C
Krogh et al., 2000). When the organization formalizes and makes such actions explicit,
obtaining the Ba is improved.
Alvesson and Kärreman (2001) and Gourlay (2006) perform a critical analysis of Nonaka’s
work. They acknowledge the comprehensiveness of the knowledge conversion processes
proposed. However, they argue that Nonaka treats the subject ‘‘management’’ in a vague
way and still rooted on the Taylorist idea that only the manager ‘‘adjusts the direction, selects
the participants, provides the interaction environment, establishes guidance and schedule
to projects and supports the innovation process’’ (Alvesson and Kärreman, 2001). Nonaka’s
work is empirically founded on a product and development context. Garvin (1993) indicates
the lack of prescriptive elements, mainly those related to process performance
measurement and management.
Despite the criticism, Nonaka’s work has been applied to empirical studies in many contexts,
such as the analysis of:
B organizational knowledge creation processes in the automotive industry (Vaccaro et al.,
2009; Dyck et al., 2005);
B influences of the adoption and use of the information on communication in organization
learning (Lopez-Nicolas and Soto-Acosta, 2010); and
B confirmatory factors were conducted to test Nonaka’s model with the Japanese middle
managers (Nonaka et al., 1994), among others.
j j
VOL. 14 NO. 6 2010 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 863
organization models catalyze collective and individual learning, job satisfaction and
productivity (van der Zwaan, 1975). Also, autonomy, in the daily routine and improvement
production activities, is related to knowledge creation, storage, sharing, use and
assessment. Many factors related to work organization are relevant to promote the Ba.
Training, for example, cannot be separated from learning in the workplace (Darrah, 1995).
Objectives represent a measurable way to relate the work of the group to the achievement of
results, indicating progress, establishing priorities and justifying the claim for material and
time resources to be used in problem solving and improvement projects.
Structure encompasses the specification of roles and responsibilities of people in the
working group, that is, group members, group leader and direct supervision, and, also, the
availability of material and time resources. The formal organization of people, material
resources and time allocation stimulate the initiative and the autonomy of the group
members to seek support and to meet for creating, sharing, using and assessing new ideas
of improvement and results gained. Barton and Delbridge (2006) state that the role of the
supervisors and shop floor operators is important for continuous improvement and for the
plant innovation process, and emphasizes the importance of teamwork and empowerment.
They also state that supervisors must translate the company’s global objectives into
objectives specifically to working groups, as a workforce motivation element.
Communication is the process by which, ultimately, ideas and feelings are transmitted from
people to people, from people to group, or from group to group (including to supporting
groups, e.g. maintenance and logistics), making the social interaction necessary to
knowledge management possible.
Training is the skills development in production activities by emulating situations similar to
working situations. Training shall provide the working groups with knowledge to action
(Nonaka, 1994).
Incentive is related to stimulus to carry out action, such as, to motivate shop floor operators
to make suggestions for improvement in the workplace.
Nakano (2007) classifies Nonaka’s ideas as analytical-constructivist, in other words,
knowledge is considered as the creation process from people interaction and provides a
larger range in the description, analysis and understanding of the phenomenon.
Relevant K-factors are based on the work of Nonaka (1994). They are the processes of
socialization, externalization, combination and internalization. The institutionalization of
Nonaka’s processes as factors to create the Ba is expected to:
B support socially built knowledge;
B stimulate cooperation and teamwork;
B emphasize the importance of transferring and transforming knowledge from personal to
organizational and from tacit to explicit; and
B stimulate interactive work on problems (try and error) as a learning process.
Table III presents the acronyms assigned to each dimension and factor.
Socialization (tacit ! tacit) SOC Problem-solving method (PSM) PSM Objective OBJ
Externalization (tacit ! explicit) EXT Standard operating procedure SOP Structure STR
Internalization (explicit ! tacit) INT 5S 5S Communication COM
Combination (explicit ! explicit) CBN Poka Yoke PY Training TRN
Quick change over QCO Incentives INC
Personal characteristics PCH
j j
PAGE 864 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 14 NO. 6 2010
7. K-PMM model – the knowledge-based and integrated production management
model
Traditional product management models have two dimensions, human or social,
represented by the work organization is the W-dimension and a technical dimension is
represented by the production organization, the P-dimension.
The P and W-dimensions capture, essentially, the explicit structure and behavior of the
production management system. Such a system has also a tacit structure that is
progressively converted into explicit as it is better understood. Tacit knowledge exists, is
important and needs to be formally included in a model of production management system,
especially to model shop floor environment relationships.
The knowledge conversion process acknowledges the importance of a tacit knowledge and
focuses on the various processes of conversion of such knowledge into explicit and other
tacit knowledge and vice versa.
This paper proposes the K-PMM model, including a third dimension in a production
management model. The K-PMM is a model of production management, focused on shop
floor operations, and has three dimensions, the K, P and W dimensions. In the model it is
proposed that these three dimensions must be integrated.
The P, K and W dimensions of the K-PMM model were translated into factors. The factors
were chosen focusing on the shop floor environment and, especially, for demonstrating the
relevance of including knowledge as a third dimension of production management. The
factors chosen in this work are the ones that promote the Ba, a favorable context that
facilitates knowledge conversion processes.
j j
VOL. 14 NO. 6 2010 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 865
Figure 5 Dimensions for promoting the Ba
Work R
Organization E
Knowledge (W-Dimension) S
Management Favorable U
(K-Dimension) (P-Dimension)
Context L
Production (Ba) T
Organization S
Figure 6 Knowledge based production management model (K-PMM) with dimensions and factors
INTEGRATED PERSPECTIVE
of PRODUCTION
MANAGEMENT
RESULTS
WORK
ORGANIZATION K-Dimension
1. Socialization
• Job Satisfaction
S E
2. Explicitation
3. Combination Measurables • Innovation
4. Internalization
and • Quality
W-Dimension I C
1. Objective
Ba
Procedures • Time
2. Structure
3. Communication PRODUCTION P-Dimension • Quantity
4. Training ORGANIZATION 1. Problem Solving Method
5. Incentive 2. Standard Operating
Procedures
• Cost
6. Personal
Characteristics 3. 5 S
4. Poka Yoke
5. Quick change Over
j j
PAGE 866 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 14 NO. 6 2010
reduction in number of defects, in manufacturing time, in time of product model changeover
during production, in costs, and in rework hours.
The use of the P-factors enhances operators learning, by systematically seeking
improvement in the production environment. Lean manufacturing and mass production
were considered when selecting such factors. In order to promote the Ba integrated to the
production work routine, the use of P-factors not only requires socialization, externalization
and internalization of knowledge (K-factors), but also the implementation and use of the
W-factors.
In the K-PMM, work organization includes the level of autonomy at the various hierarchical
levels of the people on the shop floor, for the definition, management and improvement of the
production processes, in order to create opportunities for those people to develop
pro-activity, learning and creativity to implement incremental innovative solutions. Attention
must be given to cooperation and communication, to the incentives and training needs and
to operators’ development, in order to get results for the organization and for the operators
themselves. Among these results, the number of suggestions implemented; percentage of
people participating in improvement projects; percentage of trained people who used, in a
real work situation, the knowledge acquired; percentage of people who have a qualified
substitute; percentage of people who declare themselves sufficiently motivated and
satisfied can be highlighted as an example.
The W-factors to promote the Ba, presented in Section 6, support the interaction between the
operators and the organization, by sharing measurable objectives, by work and
communication structure and by training and incentives. For the selection of those
factors, two work organization models were considered: the semi-autonomous models and
the enriched model.
The W-factors adopted in the K-PMM contribute to organize people in order to get the best
from operators’ knowledge and to obtain results. They are adequate to the production
environment. It is intended, with the use of those factors, to enhance people involvement in
order to get the organization objectives, systematically, by the creation, retrieving, sharing
and using knowledge. The factors consider the needs of the group members when
executing their routine and improvement activities, outlining: ‘‘who can help to do what’’,
material and time resources availability, communication among group members and among
the group and other people in the organization, training required by the various activities and
by the operation of the production machinery, and incentives.
The K-dimension as presented in Figure 6, promotes the integration between the P and
W-dimensions, because it is formally concerned with the tacit and explicit knowledge
conversion modes, incorporating them to the procedures and assessing, by measures, their
use in the shop floor knowledge identification and sharing activities. Therefore, K-PMM
recognizes the spontaneous and collective knowledge generation process and the
workforce flexibility for the operation of shop floor machinery and for a better communication
among the people involved.
In Figure 6, the integration of K, P and W dimensions lead to improvement activities, such as:
problem solving, kaizen projects, waste reduction, standard operation procedure
elaboration and review. Those activities are the result of people’s interaction in a working
group and of their knowledge application in the production environment. Kaizen
improvement activities, applied continuously, incrementally and in a participative way for
obtaining results, are in line with the socio-technical model. Brunet and New (2003) state that
kaizen activities must be outside contractual scope. However, as mentioned in Section 6,
related to the W-factors, there must be formal support (W-STR, structure) and time allocation
(W-COM, communication by meetings) for improvement activities. Therefore, kaizen
activities must be carried out, routinely, for improvement, without conflict with production
objectives (e.g. pieces produced per day).
j j
VOL. 14 NO. 6 2010 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 867
8. Conclusions
In the context of the shop floor production operations environment, this paper proposed a
production management model which integrates knowledge management as a third
dimension, hereafter called the K-dimension, to the already traditional P and W-dimensions
(see Figure 7)
Factors on the K, P and W-dimensions that promote a favorable context for knowledge
sharing and results achievement in the production operations shop floor environment were
identified based on literature review. Factors were initially identified in the literature. Those
factors were presented in Section 6.
Literature review (see Figure 4) showed that those factors, and therefore their corresponding
dimensions, are relevant to the model and are integrated.
In Section 7, a model with the three K, P and W integrated dimensions is proposed.
By translating the P, K and W dimensions of the model into factors that promote a favorable
context for the knowledge conversion process in the shop floor operations environment, the
integration of the dimensions was demonstrated.
The K-PMM developed is robust to different work and production organization models and to
the various functions related to shop floor environment. Ongoing researches conducted by
the authors in the automotive, electronics and glass industries suggest this statement.
The K-PMM expands the scope of the manager over the reality of his work. This enhances
the analysis of this reality and, therefore, contributes for his decision making process.
9. Further work
The present paper suggests potential for developing a diagnostic tool to identify which
factor should be further developed in order to get the favorable Ba.
The scope extension mentioned above and the deepening of the understanding of the
integration of K, P and W dimensions suggest the creation of a tool to diagnose qualitatively
and quantitatively the situation of a plant that wants to promote a Ba.
The K-PMM provides the basis for building a diagnostic tool for assessing the presence of
the factors in a given shop floor production operation environment and orientate the formal
integration of people, physical production means and knowledge. The tool would allow that
the needs of the people and of the production system can be jointly met by the use of the
Knowledge
Production
Work
j j
PAGE 868 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 14 NO. 6 2010
sources of knowledge, in a formal process, for waste reduction and other incremental
improvement. Tacit knowledge can be particularly of difficult management, but the tool
would enhance the creation and operation of a favorable context for the use of the operator
knowledge.
K-PMM was conceived for the shop floor production operations environment, where direct
work force is predominant, with focus on the application of experience and skills of operators
in the assembly line of the automotive sector. As future work, it is also proposed the analysis
of the application of the K-PMM in other sectors, such as the electrical-electronic and
chemical, and also in areas with more specialized workforce, not completely automated,
such as maintenance and tooling groups.
References
Adler, P.S. (1993), ‘‘Time and motion regained’’, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 71 No. 1, pp. 97-108.
Alvesson, M. and Kärreman, D. (2001), ‘‘Odd couple: making sense of the curious concept of
knowledge management’’, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 38 No. 7, pp. 995-1018.
Barton, H. and Delbridge, R. (2006), ‘‘Delivering the ‘learning factory’? Evidence on HR roles in
contemporary manufacturing’’, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 385-95.
Berawi, M.A. and Woodhead, R.M. (2005), ‘‘Application of knowledge management in production
management’’, Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 249-57.
Biazzo, S. and Panizzollo, R. (2000), ‘‘The assessment of work organization in lean production:
the relevance of the worker’s perspective’’, Integrated Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 6-15.
Black, J.T. (1991), The Design of the Factory with a Future, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Brunet, A.P. and New, S. (2003), ‘‘Kaizen in Japan: an empirical study’’, International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, Vol. 23 No. 12, pp. 1426-46.
Darrah, C.N. (1995), ‘‘Workplace training, workplace learning: a case study’’, Human Organization,
Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 31-41.
Dyck, B., Starke, F.A., Mischke, G.A. and Mauws, M. (2005), ‘‘Learning to build a car: an empirical
investigation of learning organization’’, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 387-416.
Emery, F. (1959), Characteristics of Socio-technical Systems, Document No. 527, Tavistock Institute,
London.
Emiliani, M.L. (1998), ‘‘Lean behaviors’’, Management Decision, Vol. 36 No. 9, pp. 615-31.
Erden, Z., von Krogh, G. and Nonaka, I. (2008), ‘‘The quality of group tacit knowledge’’, Journal of
Strategic Information Systems, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 4-18.
Fugate, B.S., Stank, T.P. and Mentzer, J.T. (2009), ‘‘Linking improved knowledge management to
operational and organizational performance’’, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 27 No. 1,
pp. 247-64.
Garvin, D.A. (1993), ‘‘Building a learning organization’’, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 71 No. 4,
pp. 78-90.
Gilmour, D. (2003), ‘‘How to fix knowledge management’’, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 81 No. 10,
pp. 1-2.
j j
VOL. 14 NO. 6 2010 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 869
Hazlett, S.A., McAdam, R. and Gallangher, S. (2005), ‘‘Theory building in knowledge management: in
search of paradigms’’, Journal of Management Inquiry, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 31-42.
Herron, C. and Braiden, P.M. (2006), ‘‘A methodology for developing sustainable quantifiable
productivity improvement in manufacturing companies’’, International Journal of Production Economics,
Vol. 104 No. 1, pp. 143-53.
King, W.R., Chung, T.R. and Haney, W.H. (2008), ‘‘Knowledge management and organizational
learning’’, International Journal of Management Science, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 167-72.
Kolb, D.A. (1984), Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Kuhn, T.S. (1996), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 3rd ed., The University of Chicago Press,
Chicago, IL (originally published in 1962).
Kulkarni, U.R., Ravindran, S. and Freeze, R. (2007), ‘‘A knowledge management success model:
theoretical development and empirical validation’’, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 23
No. 3, pp. 309-47.
Lopez-Nicolas, C. and Soto-Acosta, P. (2010), ‘‘Analyzing ICT adoption and use effects on knowledge
creation: an empirical investigation in SMEs’’, International Journal of Information Management (in
press).
Murman, E.M. (2002), Lean Enterprise Value: Insights from MIT’s Lean Aerospace Initiative, MIT,
Cambridge, MA.
Nonaka, I. (1994), ‘‘A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation’’, Organization Science,
Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 14-37.
Nonaka, I., Von Krogh, G. and Voelpel, S. (2006), ‘‘Organizational knowledge creation theory:
evolutionary paths and future advances’’, Organizational Studies, Vol. 27 No. 8, pp. 1179-208.
Nonaka, I., Byosiere, P., Borucki, C.C. and Konno, N. (1994), ‘‘Organizational knowledge creation
theory: a first comprehensive test’’, International Business Review, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 337-51.
Ohno, T. (1988), Toyota Production System: Beyond Large-scale Production, Productivity Press,
New York, NY.
Paiva, E.L., Roth, A.V. and Fensterseifer, J.E. (2007), ‘‘Organizational knowledge and manufacturing
strategy process: a resource-based view analysis’’, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 26 No. 1,
pp. 115-32.
Peltokorpi, V., Nonaka, I. and Kodama, M. (2007), ‘‘NTT DoCoMo’s launch of IMode in the Japanese
mobile phone market: a knowledge creation perspective’’, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 44 No. 1,
pp. 50-72.
Serenko, A. and Bontis, N. (2004), ‘‘Meta-review of knowledge management and intellectual capital
literature: citation impact and research productivity ranking’’, Knowledge and Process Management,
Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 185-98.
Shingo, S. (1989), Study of the Toyota Production System: From an Industrial Engineering Viewpoint,
Productivity Press, New York, NY.
Smith, E.A. (2001), ‘‘The role of tacit and explicit knowledge in the workplace’’, Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 311-21.
Spear, S. and Bowen, H.K. (1999), ‘‘Decoding DNA of the Toyota Production System’’, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 77 No. 5, pp. 97-106.
Spender, J.C. and Scherer, A.G. (2007), ‘‘The philosophical foundations of knowledge management:
editors’ introduction’’, Organization, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 5-28.
Taylor, F.W. (1998), The Principles of Scientific Management, Dover, New York, NY.
j j
PAGE 870 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 14 NO. 6 2010
Vaccaro, A., Veloso, F. and Brusoni, S. (2009), ‘‘The impact of virtual technologies on knowledge-based
processes: an empirical study’’, Research Policy, Vol. 38 No. 8, pp. 1278-87.
van der Zwaan, A.H. (1975), ‘‘The socio-technical systems approach: a critical evaluation’’, International
Journal of Production Research, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 149-63.
von Krogh, G., Ichijo, K. and Nonaka, I. (2000), Enabling Knowledge Creation: How to Unlock the
Mystery of Tacit Knowledge and Release the Power of Innovation, Oxford University Press, New York,
NY.
Wiig, K.M. (1994), Knowledge Management: The Central Management Focus for Intelligent-acting
Organizations, Schema Press, Arlington, TX.
Worley, J.M. and Doolen, T.L. (2006), ‘‘The role of communication and management support in a lean
manufacturing implementation’’, Management Decision, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 228-45.
j j
VOL. 14 NO. 6 2010 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 871