What Really is a Knowledge-Intensive Firm?
- (Re)Framing Research in the “Knowledge Economy”
Anna RylanderRoyal Institute of Technology School of Technology and Health
Marinens väg 30 136 40 Haninge Sweden Phone: +46 8 790 48 29 e-mail: anna.rylander@syd.kth.se Joe Peppard
Cranfield School of Management Cranfield Bedfordshire MK43 0AL United Kingdom Phone: +44 (0)1234 751122 e-mail: j.peppard@cranfield.ac.uk ABSTRACT
The concept of a knowledge intensive firm (KIF) is seemingly an important category of organizations that is being increasingly studied. The underlying inference from the literature is that the KIF constitutes a category of organizations that is distinct and different from other organizational categories. The research reported in this paper explores how scholars are using the concept in their studies, analyzing how it is portrayed in the literature, and critiquing the implications that are drawn from these studies. As categories are important for ordering reality and in shaping meaning, the consequence of our analysis surfaces a number of problems that this research raises for the perpetuation of the knowledge economy rhetoric and its potential flaws. We suggests that what is needed is not a better definition of a KIF, but a better understanding of the classification systems and their underpinning assumptions that guide how we present research on knowledge in organizations.
Introduction
The notion that we have entered a new era in economic development where knowledge and information are the primary sources of value creation is widely established in the management literature (Bell 1973; Drucker 1993; Winter, 1987). For well over twenty years now, it seems like “knowledge” has become an all-embracing term that has come to stand for all the “magic” that goes on within contemporary organizations, making them successful; an elusive, yet pervasive “asset” that cannot be seen or touched, that resides in people’s heads as well as in the connections between them and embodied in people or embedded in texts or artefacts. The task many researchers in various
disciplines have set for themselves has been, in one way or another, to uncover the mystery of knowledge or, as Durand (1998) expressed it, the search for “organizational alchemy.”
Within this so-called “knowledge economy”, many different terms have been used to describe successful contemporary organizations, including the knowing organization (Choo 1998), knowledge company (Stewart 1997; Sveiby 1997), knowledge-based business (Davis and Botkin 1994), knowledge-based organization (Leonard-Barton 1995), knowledge-creating company (Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995), and learning organization (Senge 1994). In the organization sciences literature, this development is reflected in the concept of the knowledge-intensive firm (KIF), a term that has become widely used, and now represents a category of organizations within scholarly research. An increasing body of research reported in the organization sciences literature is now devoted to investigating KIFs. The underlying inference from this literature is that the knowledge-intensive firm constitutes a category of organization that is distinct and different from other organizational categories. But is this actually the case? And if not, what are the implications of this for the knowledge economy rhetoric?
According to the New Oxford Dictionary of English, a category is a “class or division of people or things regarded as having particular shared characteristics”. Categories should be mutually exclusive and exhaustive (Doty and Glick 1994). Such systems of
classification are seen as important in ordering reality (Douglas 1987). By suggesting the existence of different categories for a particular phenomenon there is an implicit assumption that there are specific criteria and decision rules that enable the distinctions that underpin the categorisation to be made (Doty and Glick 1994; McKelvey 1975). In organizational research, organizational categories thus provide a parsimonious
framework for describing complex organizational forms that allows research findings to be applied to a specific type of organization and not another.
There is thus a relatively straight-forward lexical meaning of the word “category”, based on a classical technical theory that has been with us for more than two thousand years, and also reflected in our everyday folk theory, which tells us that categories are defined by common properties (Lakoff 1987). However, there is also a much wider meaning of how we actually use categories in our everyday lives, to a large degree unconsciously. Categorization is the process of understanding what something is by knowing what other things it is equivalent to and what other things it is different from (McGarty 1999). It is widely studied in both cognitive psychology and social
psychology and in other areas such as linguistics and philosophy. Every living being categorizes. This is necessary for our brains to handle the enormous amounts of incoming information (Bowker and Star 1999; Lakoff and Johnson 1999; McGarty
1999; Tajfel and Forgas 1981). We all spend large parts of our days doing classification work, often tacitly, and we devise and use a range of ad hoc classifications to do so (e.g. sorting important e-mails from e-junk). These guiding standards and categories,
however imbricated in our lives, are ordinarily invisible (Bowker and Star 1999) but they are critical for how we attach meaning to situations, people and artefacts in our everyday lives.
Not only how we construct categories, but also the labels we attach to them have consequences. The words that we use, and more importantly, how we use them and the meanings that thus becomes attached to them, actively construct a version of the social world. That is, they do not just describe things; they do things. And being active they have social and political implications (Potter and Weatherell 1987). According to Bowker and Star (1999) a category is therefore something “in between” a thing and an action. Classification systems can be seen as infrastructures that guide everyday sense making and behaviour. Each standard and each category valorizes some point of view and silences another. This is not inherently a bad thing – indeed it is inescapable – but we need to become aware of these infrastructures to be able to see and analyze their effects.
The “knowledge-intensive firm” as an organizational category can thus be analyzed from two perspectives. Firstly, in the lexical/technical sense of the term, i.e. from the point of view of classifying organizations or to classify research. This requires fulfilling certain criteria, essentially relating to the characteristics and delimitations of the
category or classifications system. Secondly, the particular words used to describe the category have implications for the meanings that are ascribed not only to the category, but also to the particular organizations under study as well as other organizations, people or institutions we relate to the category. Given the alleged importance of “knowledge” in management literature it is important to study how knowledge and knowledge-based concepts are used in organizational research. What are the infrastructures that guide how we as organization scientists make sense of our own research on knowledge in organizations and how we position it to the outside world? In this respect KIFs are particularly interesting as they are portrayed as contemporary organizations facing new challenges – the kingpin and mainstay of the “knowledge economy” we have seemingly irrevocably entered.
In this paper we analyse the organizational category of the “the knowledge-intensive firm”1 as portrayed in the research literature and the implications thereof. We first critically examine the depiction of the knowledge intensive firm in the research literature, consider how authors define and describe the category and the firms belonging to it, as well as how the term is used in this literature. We then look at the implications of using the label KIF in terms of how it contributes to shaping meaning for researchers themselves and for other audiences, as well as the underpinning infrastructures that may have guided the construction of the KIF category. Finally we reflect on what the requirements for alternative approaches to framing research on knowledge in organizations might be.
1
The purpose of this paper is to gain a better understanding of the meaning of organizations that are classified as knowledge-intensive and its implications. We therefore do not intend to debate the terms organization, firm and company as this is outside of the scope of this paper, but rather use them interchangeably.
The knowledge-intensive firm in the research literature
To undertake our research, we first identified potential papers to analyse by searching a number of online library databases using the keywords “knowledge intensive firm”, “knowledge-intensive” and “knowledge intensive organization”. We were keen that the journals we drew from came from the broad area of organization science and reflected a variety of editorial policies and reviewing processes in order to provide a cross section of contemporary research, aiming for a representative rather than comprehensive review. The abstracts of papers identified from this search were reviewed and potential articles to be included in our research database determined. These were then read in full. The 23 papers we ultimately selected are those that specifically ground, or claim to ground, the reported research in knowledge-intensive firms. To be included, these studies must also have referred explicitly to the KIF as a specific organization category. Papers reporting research in professional service firms (PSFs) were discarded unless the terms PSF and KIF were used interchangeably. The research studies included in our analysis are presented in the Appendix. It summarizes the content of each paper by presenting the definition used to define a KIF, the organization(s) studied and the issues and topics explored in the reported research.
Definitions and descriptions
The most glaring observation from our examination of the literature is that despite the widespread usage and apparent acceptance of the concept of the knowledge intensive firm in the research literature, there is no obvious or widely used and agreed definition. From our survey we observe that different authors focus on different aspects and
characteristics when describing knowledge-intensive firms, but with a clear objective of distinguishing them from other organizational types or, at the very least, suggesting that they represent a new category. With little consistency across empirical studies and vague definitions, the focus of the introductory preamble in many of the papers – particularly the earlier studies – is to justify the research site as a KIF. Two different perspectives, commonly used for classifications of firms, can be discerned in
descriptions of KIFs: input and output perspectives.
Characterizing the input perspective, Starbuck (1992) argues that the term “knowledge-intensive” imitates the economists’ labelling of firms as “capital-“knowledge-intensive” or “labour-intensive”. These terms describe the relative importance of capital or labour as inputs to the production process. Labelling a firm as being knowledge-intensive would thus imply that knowledge has more significance than other inputs (i.e. capital and labour2). Similarly, several other researchers also emphasize this aspect, usually expressing it in terms of knowledge, knowledge base and knowledge workers (Ditillo 2004; Donaldson 2001; Pina e Cunha 2001; Nurmi 1998) or communities with highly specialized
expertise (Boland and Tenkasi 1995). In this vein, KIFs are characterized as
organizations where well-educated and qualified employees form a major part of the work force and engage in mainly “intellectual work” (Starbuck 1992). Nurmi (1998),
2
Note that the term “labour” is used here within the context of classic economic theory, where labour is seen as an additive resource similar to other forms of capital - i.e. workers are seen as interchangeable and that their production capacity can be measures in time units.
for example, describes knowledge as the “raw material” for processing in knowledge-intensive firms, while Alvesson (2004) states that a strong knowledge base is a key feature of the KIF.
In contrast to the input perspective, Sveiby and Riesling (1986) have written that knowledge-intensive firms “sell knowledge” while Blackler (1995) has described knowledge-intensive firms as “… staffed by a high proportion of highly qualified staff who trade in knowledge itself”, with Alvesson (2004, p.17) writing that “KIFs can be loosely and preliminary defined as organizations that offer to the market the use of fairly sophisticated knowledge or knowledge-based products”, thus also including knowledge as the output of the production process. This perspective reflects the tradition with industrial classification schemes where organizations are grouped in industries by their outputs, and it is this logic that governs the widely acknowledged distinction between products and services. Indeed most authors use industries to exemplify what firms are included in the KIF category. While management and IT consulting are most commonly referred to (Alvesson 1995; Kärreman et al 2002; Morris, 2001; Morris and Empson 1998; Robertson and Swan 2003, 2004; Starbuck 1992) there is little consistency across empirical studies as to what industries can – and perhaps more importantly, what industries cannot – be included within the category. Most researchers tend to use what have traditionally been labelled professional service firms3 as exemplars of KIFs (Sveiby and Riesling 1986; Starbuck 1992; Winch and Schneider 1993; Alvesson 1993, 2001; McGrath 2005; Morris 2001; Robertson and Swan, 2003) with case studies and practical descriptions focused on such organizations. Indeed, Morris (2001) uses both terms interchangeably. In a paper with Empson (Morris and Empson 1998) they use the term PSF to refer to organizations “that trade mainly on the knowledge of its human capital, that is, its employees and the producer-owners, to develop and deliver intangible solutions to client problems” (p. 610).
Despite this, a number of scholars discuss the problematic overlap and confusion between the categories “knowledge-intensive” and “professional services”, concluding that there is a difference, stressing that knowledge-intensive firms are not necessarily professional services organizations (Alvesson 1995, 2000; Robertson and Swan 2003; Starbuck, 1992). Alvesson (2000) suggests that the term KIF “is broader and does not emphasize the features ascribed to a typical profession, such as a code of ethics, standardized education and criteria for certification, a strong professional association” (p. 1101). This theme is perhaps a reflection of the view that the traditional category of PSF has become less relevant as the importance of the “professions” has decreased, particularly as the main way of regulating abstract knowledge. Yet claims about the possession of knowledge are an important element in the constitution of professions and professionalism (Grey 1998) just as knowledge also plays a central role in the
constitution of KIFs. However, Morris and Empson (1998) argue that, although used in imprecise ways, the meaning of the term PSF has instead become widened today with
3
Professional service firms have been defined as “high contact organizations” where customers spend a considerable time in the service process. Such service is seen as providing high levels of customization with the service process being highly adaptable in order to meet individual customer needs. They are also portrayed as being ‘people based’ rather than ‘equipment based’, with staff given high levels of
discretion. Examples often provided include those organizations involved in law, civil engineering, architecture, consulting, advertising, accounting and software production. See Lowendahl et al. (2001), Slack et al. (2001), Morris and Empson (1998), and Maister (1993).
many scholars, such as Alvesson (1993) and Starbuck (1993), using the terms KIF and PSF interchangeably.
That services (as opposed to products) are the sole preserve of knowledge-intensive firms has also been challenged in the literature. Clegg et al. (1996) suggest that the notion of knowledge work should also be extended to more traditional forms of work, including manufacturing, while Styhre et al. (2002) and Kärreman et al. (2002) embrace pharmaceutical companies in their analysis of knowledge-intensive industries, as do Boland and Tenkasi (1995), who also emphasize firms involved in new product
development in leading edge technologies. Alvesson (2004) adds hospitals, universities and investment bankers to the list, with Swart and Kinnie (2003b) suggesting
advertising agencies as typical examples of KIF, and even include a call centre in their analysis, based on the argument that such organizations perform knowledge work. In his study, Yinnon (1996) focuses on the plastics processing industry, which he describes as the manufacturing of high-value added products with characteristics that meet
customers’ specifications. Referring to the production process as “knowledge-intensive production”, he points at requirements for a vast technological infrastructure, the need for services of experts, an educated labour force, R&D facilities, data bases and specialized trading companies for these firms. In addition, McGrath (2005) has argued the central “people-based dilemmas” explored in the KIF literature are not so new, and suggested that early medieval Irish monasteries have “an impressive set of parallels” with contemporary KIFs.
It would be naive to suggest that definitions are as clear-cut as might be suggested above; while some researcher emphasise one viewpoint, many incorporate both perspectives in developing their position. However, most fall back on the logic of industry classifications when exemplifying what are KIFs. For example, Nurmi (1998) defines KIFs as those organizations that “process what they know into knowledge products and services”. Or, as proposed by Swart and Kinnie (2003a, p.61) “the distinctive characteristics of KIFs are examined by considering the type of input, or capital, the type of work and the industry characteristics.” These sweeping statements are perhaps a reflection of the difficulty of separating input from output and process when analysing knowledge work, but also an illustration the fuzziness of the concept. Yet, as stressed by Starbuck (1992), classifications grouping organizations by input differs from those grouping by output in terms of their usefulness for topic of study.
How the term is used in the literature
Then what do scholars use the term for? What is immediately apparent from our analysis is how broadly authors use the concept of the KIF in their studies. Taking a critical perspective Alvesson (1993, 2001) for example, reflects on the notion of a KIF and knowledge work and questions the functionalist understanding of the nature and significance of knowledge, yet still refers to the KIF as a category. Some use the concept of a KIF as an umbrella term when discussing their research. For example, Lee (1999) suggests a “taxonomy of HRM policies of knowledge-based firms”. Others, and this represents the bulk of studies, treat the KIF as an organizational category for which their research findings are relevant.
If there is a common thread in this literature, regardless of the definition of KIF or the organization studied, it is the emphasis placed on the reliance on people to perform intellectual work as opposed to manual labour. It is this premise that underpins much of the research in KIFs, which have recently been described as “particularly good
examples of contemporary forms of ‘people dependent’ organizations” (Robertson and Swan 2004, p. 124). KIFs are seen as operating under conditions that invalidate
industrial-bureaucratic forms of managerial control (Ditillo 2004; Kärreman et al. 2002) and consequently issues around structure and control are among the most common themes addressed by researchers. The dilemmas surrounding the balance between autonomy and control is a frequent research topic and it is generally argued that resolving such dilemmas lends itself to control based around normative processes and culture rather than around hierarchy and structure. Culture, identity and leadership are therefore among the common themes as well as the ability to manage relationships and interactions with clients and other external parties.4
Most studies on KIFs use one, or perhaps two, case companies to illustrate the arguments put forth. It appears that the characteristics of the particular organization under study, as well as the topics of interest in the study, guide authors’ descriptions of KIFs and their characteristics. For example, Starbuck’s (1992) engineering firm
‘Garden Company’ and law firm ‘Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen and Katz’5 and Alvesson’s (1995) Enator seems to shape each study’s understanding of what is a KIF. Authors’ definitions of KIFs therefore tend to retrospectively borrow the characteristics of the empirical case companies studied; it thus becomes self-referential.
Indeed, it is unclear as to whether empirical cases used as examples of KIFs by some authors would qualify as such by others. As an illustration, the issue of organizational size (critical given the themes typically addressed such as structure, control and
identity) is treated very differently by scholars. Accordingly, is unlikely that “Beta”, the large, global consulting firm described in Kärreman et al. (2002) would be eligible as a KIF in Starbuck’s (1992) terms as he claims that as they grow, organizations lose their knowledge-intensity. In contrast, Alvesson (2004, p. 1) writes that the term KIF relates to “large firms employing substantial numbers of people”, thus by implication
dismissing the possibility of small boutique consulting firms being considered, presumably meaning that he would not regard Winch and Schneider’s (1993)
architectural practice or Robertson and Swan’s (2003) “Universal Consulting” or Morris and Empson (1998) “Valley Consulting” as KIFs. A third contrasting position is taken by Swart and Kinnie (2003b), who contend that one of the key characteristics that distinguishes KIFs from more traditional organizational forms is their growth patterns. According to them, KIFs typically develop from an innovative idea addressing a niche market, but then tend to expand employment rapidly.
Noting the inherent problems with the concept of knowledge in considering KIFs, Starbuck (1992) emphasises “esoteric expertise” that is unique as a key characteristic of KIFs, while in contrast Winch and Schneider (1993) refer to some standardized
intangibility as being of central concern in determining whether an organization is a
4
See Appendix for a more detailed description of research topics.
5
Indeed, these are two very different firms, with clearly different organizational challenges. We suspect this might be the source of the contradictions in Starbuck’s text, some of which are noted below. In addition, in his later study of law firm Wachtell (Starbuck 1993), he reports on his surprise of discovering that a law firm could indeed be a KIF, and thus had to modify his own idea of what is a KIF.
KIF or not. In distinguishing an “expert” from a “professional” and deploying it as a key criteria in defining a KIF and to differentiate it from professional service firms, Starbuck (1992) is at odds with many scholars who include PSF within what they understand the concept of KIF as encompassing (c.f. Alvesson 2001; Donaldson 2001; McGrath 2005; Morris 2001; Morris and Empson 1998). However with this position, Starbuck (1992) seems to later contradict himself when he notes “KIFs may be professional firms” (p. 717).
Despite these contradictions, authors cite each other’s work. This is confusing as the argumentation in a paper might covertly dismiss research by other scholars, essentially as their research site does not meet criteria laid down in the paper for a KIF. Yet that very same work is frequently drawn upon and often the reported research builds on the results of the “dismissed” papers. In addition, the intellectual inheritance of KIF research is limited to a few foundational papers, notably the work of Sveiby and Riesling (1986), Alvesson (1993, 2001), Starbuck, (1992, 1993) and Blackler (1995), but as illustrated above, these scholars do in fact have quite different conceptions of what is a KIF. When referenced, these studies are typically lumped together, usually illegitimately. Several of the later studies use some of the “core features” from earlier foundational papers when defining KIFs, and then add additional features relevant for their own study. For example, Lee (1999) defines knowledge-based firms6 as “those that are staffed by a high proportion of highly qualified staff”, referencing Alvesson (1993), Blackler (1995) and Starbuck (1992, 1993). On top of this, Lee adds that KIFs “are typically involved intimately in research and development activities” as well as a number of observations relating to the conditions for human resource management in KIFs (e.g. that KIFs typically outsource non-core processes, that job requirements change more often in KIFs than in not so knowledge intensive firms and that many KIFs have developed cultures and systems that support empowerment). However, for these observations Lee references other fields of literature. The publication outlet is a journal on innovation management and the focus of the paper is on HR practices. In a similar vein, Swart and Kinnie (2003a), studying knowledge sharing and HRM practices in KIFs, uses a similar “core definition” of KIFs and then add two more characteristics: that KIFs tend to have different growth patterns when compared with more traditional firms, and they emphasize the importance of market relations that KIFs encounter. Not surprisingly, Swart and Kinnie specifically study ‘growing KIFs’ and the impact of client relationships on HRM systems. With this line of reasoning, the KIF becomes a term to which almost any meaning can be attached. In addition, it is
interesting to note that the “foundational papers” referred to above do not treat the KIF category as unproblematic, but spend considerable space on discussing the problems inherent in the concept, sometimes even from a highly critical perspective. Yet, what is subsequently picked up from these papers by other authors are often not so much the problematic aspects of the category, but they are used as a reference to justify their own research site as belonging to “the category of KIFs”.
How does the “KIF category” shape meaning?
6
Like some other authors, Lee (1999) uses the terms “KIF”, “knowledge-based firms”, or “knowledge firms” interchangeably.
So what can we conclude from this review? In summary, from the literature we have established that there is no set of characteristics or criteria that can permit the
construction of a consistent and coherent category of organizations that is meaningfully distinct from other organization types. Simply by using the word “intensive” the term “knowledge-intensive firm” becomes vague by definition. Any evaluation of
intensiveness is likely to meet with heated debate. Furthermore, no coherent or
commonly agreed set of criteria – crucial in differentiating across categories – is given as to how distinctions are made; what should, and perhaps more to the point, what should not be included in this category?
The KIF can therefore not be considered a category in the lexical/technical sense of the term and is thus not useful for classifying research. While providing material for debate and dialogue, the notion of a KIF does not help us in better understanding the
characteristics of some relatively coherent and homogenous group of organizations with implications for their strategy and management. Yet, authors persistently continue to use “the KIF category” to report on their research. Though many authors seemingly take the meaning of KIFs for granted (thus treating it as unproblematic), or at least abstain from providing a definition, others are not unaware of the difficulties inherent in the KIF concept and indeed often highlight and discuss them in their papers. Winch and Schneider (1993), for example, note “a remarkable heterogeneity among these
organizations that seem to defy classification at first sight”. Alvesson (2001) writes that “the category does not lend itself to precise definition or delimitation and it includes organizations which are neither unitary nor unique”, but still concludes that “it makes sense” to refer to KIFs as a vague, but meaningful category, a position supported by both Newell et al (2002, p. 26) and Ditillo (2004). While the KIF is not a meaningful category in the lexical/technical sense of the term, it is clearly meaningful to these researchers.
We presume that the KIF category may work as a vague organizing principle for authors, helping them make their own research meaningful perhaps as much to themselves as to other audiences. A challenge faced by all scholars doing case-based research, the dominant research approach adopted in studying KIFs, is to somehow make their findings relevant for some group of firms. As Alvesson (2004) writes: “[d]espite the problems in clearly defining KIFs, the term encourages an interest that goes beyond the single case of, say, a pharmaceutical, IT, or accountancy firm, without aspiring to talk about organizations in general, loosely pointing to an organizational category about which one may say something interesting” (p.30). The problem with the KIF label, however, is that different authors use the same term to denote vague and overlapping, but different and not well-articulated constructs. Yet, the use of the word “category” provides the illusion of pertaining to a particular set of firms. In the words of Bowker and Star (1999, p.319) “[c]lassification does indeed have its consequences – perceived as real, it has real effect.” Therefore, a critical question to pose is what those consequences might be? How does the “KIF category” contribute to shaping meaning for other audiences?
The political context of the KIF
As noted in the introduction to this paper, the “knowledge economy rhetoric” has become widespread and seemingly accepted across all realms of society. According to
this rhetoric, which infuses all management disciplines today, knowledge is seen as the quintessential resource; the key to success, which we have to learn to manage
effectively.7 The very word “knowledge” conjures a promise of insight, skill, prestige and power (Blackler 2002) and indeed there is a certain “mystique” associated with terms such as ‘knowledge’ and ‘knowledge worker’ (Blackler 1995, Davenport et al. 2002). Traditionally, knowledge work is associated with those who occupy a privileged position within the division of labour. Knowledge workers are understood to be highly qualified individuals who belong to, or form a distinct component of, an elite group of professional and managerial employees (Knights et al. 1993; Schultze 2000). As a consequence, conceptions about knowledge-intensive companies just take over highly idealized views about professionals and the nature of knowledge (Alvesson 1993). If knowledge is power and a source of competitive advantage, is it not better to be more rather than less knowledge-intensive? And if so, why would not all companies desire to be KIFs?
Consequently, the concept of a KIF itself has become politicised. At a country level, national governments have been promoting the importance of knowledge for success in a post-industrial economy. The rhetoric of politicians is dotted with reference to
knowledge and the imperative to establish knowledge organizations. As a typical
illustration of this rhetoric, British Prime Minister Tony Blair in his forward to the UK’s Department of Trade and Industry report Our Competitive Future: Building the
Knowledge Driven Economy wrote: “The modern world is swept by change. New technologies emerge constantly, new markets are opening up. There are new
competitors but also great new opportunities. Our success depends on how we exploit our most valuable assets: our knowledge, skills and creativity. These are the key to designing high value goods and services and advancing business practice. They are at the heart of a modern knowledge driven economy” (Department of Trade and Industry 1998).
Research funds are made available for conducting research in knowledge-oriented domains. This can lead to a refocusing of research efforts, a repositioning of research or merely a re-labelling of research as being in more “knowledge-intensive” domains in order to fit in with calls for proposals. The knowledge economy is a key theme in the European Union’s Fifth and Sixth Frameworks research programme. Accordingly, the knowledge-intensive firm becomes an attractive label for designating organizations being studied in research proposals. This inevitably adds to the current dilemma where the concept of a KIF is obligated to accommodate such a wide range of organizations. Authors in general may therefore wish to attach the label KIF to their study to give it a contemporary feel – whether consciously or not. The term does indeed have intuitive appeal. Would it not seem natural for there to be knowledge-intensive firms in a knowledge economy? The KIF is typically portrayed as the “flag bearer” of the knowledge-economy and so it becomes a symbol for the cutting-edge or “leading organization”. Such a term obviously stands more chances of grabbing attention and excitement among readers as well as providers of research grants and thus becomes an attractive label. Yet, at the same time, the portrayal of the KIF as an organizational category is not innocent in itself, as the choice of words and the way they are used adds to the “knowledge economy rhetoric”. Given the role assigned to KIFs, scholars’
7
For a review, and indeed a rather typical example, of what we call the “knowledge economy rhetoric” from an economic perspective, see Harris (2001).
interpretation of what a KIF actually is becomes important. There is thus what might be called a “meaning-making spiral”. When designating research as studying KIFs it grabs attention and is assigned a particular meaning (as “leaders of the knowledge economy”), at the same time it contributes to the understanding of the knowledge economy and what it entails to be successful in this new competitive landscape. The interpretation of what knowledge is and how it manifests itself in organizations is, of course, core to the knowledge economy rhetoric. Consequently, it is important to study how knowledge is interpreted and portrayed in the KIF literature – as well as what other possible
interpretations there might be.
Interpretations of knowledge
Plato and Aristotle produced vastly different theories of knowledge and philosophers today disagree as vividly as ever about what knowledge is, about how you get it, and even about whether there is any to be gotten (Lehrer 2000). It is therefore not surprising that, within the organization science literature, knowledge is an all-embracing, and therefore somewhat empty, notion (Alvesson and Kärreman 2001). As noted by
Starbuck (1992), knowledge is almost as ambiguous an idea as “value” or “importance”. Blackler (1995) asserts that all individuals and all organizations, not just “knowledge workers” and “knowledge-intensive firms” are dependent upon knowledge, as
knowledge in it's various forms is an integral feature of all individuals and
collectivities. Knights et al (1993), Swart and Kinnie (2003a) and Alvesson (2001; 2004) similarly acknowledge the presence of knowledge in all forms of work and organization.
There is a multitude of possible interpretations of knowledge and many different
“forms” or “types” of knowledge, or different ways of conceptualizing knowledge, have been suggested in the management literature. Blackler (1995) has identified five
“images of knowledge” in the organizational learning literature, depending on where it is located (i.e. relating back to how knowledge was acquired): embrained (in brains), embodied (in bodies), encultured (in dialogue), embedded (in routines) and encoded (in symbols). Knowledge has been labelled multifaceted and complex (Blackler 1995), esoteric (Starbuck 1992; Blackler 1993), “sticky” and “leaky” (Seely Brown and
Duguid 2001). Some observers distinguish between knowledge creation and knowledge use (Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995; von Krogh et al. 2000). Others have focused on the difference between individual (or personal) and organizational (or common) knowledge (Dixon 2000; Edvinsson and Malone 1997; Sveiby 1997; Tsoukas and Vladimirou 2001). The importance and practice of knowledge transfer or sharing have also been the focus of many studies, not just intra-organizationally (Leonard-Barton 1995; Dixon 2000), but also through alliances and joint ventures (Badaracco 1991; von Krogh and Roos 1996; Zajac and Olsen 1993).
Grant (2002) notes that different workers use different types of knowledge and it is therefore difficult to compare the knowledge intensity of different occupations. While it might be argued that a manufacturing organization is somehow different from a
software company or a law firm, is it more or less knowledge intensive? Is this not the central aspect that the concept of a KIF promotes? Yet, all workers are dependant on knowledge and apply knowledge in their work. The tradesman installing windows in a house applies knowledge that she has gleaned from her training and experience, as does
the gardener tending flowers and shrubs. Is she any less of a knowledge-worker than a management consultant developing a competitive strategy for a client or the research chemist attempting to synthesize a new compound? Do manufacturing processes not contain embedded knowledge? Or does the practice of continuous improvement not demand the application of knowledge and the creation of new knowledge? Consider, for example, a producer of furniture emphasizing the novel design and ergonomic qualities of their products. Is this company not likely to be highly dependent on their designers, ergonomics researchers and marketing professionals? Do they not face many of the same managerial challenges as so-called KIFs?
The literature on KIFs tends to stress knowledge as related to intellectual competencies at the expense of other possible understandings and conceptualizations of organizational life and work (Elkjaer 2000). For example, Alvesson (2004, p.13), uses the concept of knowledge “to draw attention to analytic, intellectual and theory-guided activities”, proposing that “[p]ractical skills, the ability to use the body and creative talents – crucial in arts, crafts and sport for example – are not necessarily best understood in terms of knowledge”, and suggests that they might instead be called ‘talent-intensive’ work. Yet, creativity is often said to be a key feature of KIFs (e.g. Alvesson 2004; Roberson and Swan 2003; Sveiby and Riesling 1986; Starbuck 1992; Swart and Kinnie 2003a) – in fact, it seems to be one of the few aspects KIF authors agree on. Does this mean that there are not only different kinds of knowledge, but also different kinds of creativity; one “intellectual” and one “artistic”? Once again the difficulties of drawing borders and making distinctions becomes apparent. It is far from evident what should be called “talent” and what should be labelled “analytical/intellectual” work.8 For example advertising agencies are portrayed as KIFs, yet their output can be difficult to
distinguish from contemporary forms of art, and is sometimes shown in art exhibitions. Equally, Starbuck’s (1992) “Garden Company” clearly has features of art and craft. There is indeed a growing stream of research questioning the separation between the purely analytical and the purely aesthetic, advocating an aesthetic understanding of organizations and organizational life (Strati 1999) and portraying organizations as art and management as aesthetics (Guillet de Monthoux 1993).
On the one hand, while choosing to focus on knowledge as “intellectual” or
“theoretical”, at the expense of other possible interpretations of knowledge, the KIF literature (re)defines what should be meant by “knowledge”. In this sense it contributes to shaping our understanding of what is desirable in the “knowledge economy”.
However, on the other hand, in his analysis of knowledge work, Alvesson (2001) asserts that “the extent to which knowledge is a particularly significant element in the functions of knowledge-intensive companies remains an open question” (p. 867). From a critical perspective he suggests that KIFs might be usefully seen purely as ‘systems of
persuasion’, relying primarily on their persuasive strategies (esoteric skills) rather than expert knowledge or skills per se to convince clients of their superior ability and expertise to satisfy their expectations. In other words, the heavy reliance on knowledge (as portrayed in the KIF literature; i.e. the “intellectual kind”) in KIFs may be largely a myth.
It can also be questioned whether the general trend towards “knowledge-intensification” is actually reflected in empirical changes in the economy. Take for example banks and
8
Following the choice of words, the assumption seems to be that one cannot have a talent for “analytic, intellectual and theory-guided activities”.
insurance companies with their droves of “knowledge workers”. These organizations have been in existence for many hundreds of years, but are they any more or less knowledge-intensive today than they were a hundred years ago? While the managerial challenges for these organizations are certainly different today, is this not so much a consequence of the increasing role of knowledge but the increasing rate of change and technological progress in the economy in general that has made these institutions more complex? Over the last number of years, due to the introduction of IT and industry consolidation, many work tasks have become routinized and automated and thus less demanding from an intellectual perspective. Thompson et al. (2001) have argued that despite the emergence of the so called knowledge economy, the key growth in
employment has not been and will not be knowledge work, but rather low skill service jobs that draw on broader social competencies and the aesthetic qualities of employees. Some politicians have also started to question the logic behind the knowledge economy rhetoric and the policy decisions that have followed suit. In Sweden, for example, some politicians in opposition recently argued that the value of practical knowledge is
subordinate to that of theoretical knowledge in the eyes of the government and that this view has had severe consequences for the educational system and the structure of the labour market: “The contempt for practical knowledge undermines our country’s welfare in the long-term” (Dagens Industri 2005).
In summary, it seems impossible to pin down what knowledge actually is as it can be “all things to all people”. Using the word “knowledge” to discriminate among
organizations would therefore seem an impossible task. The KIF literature tends to emphasize certain “forms” or aspects of knowledge, and as such are often described as organizational “role models” in the knowledge economy. Yet, whether knowledge, as thus construed, has actually increased in importance in today’s economy, or is actually a significant element in what KIFs do, has been questioned. This is confusing, to say the least. It seems to us that the literature that we have reviewed, seen as a collective, on the one hand uncovers and questions “the myth of the KIF”, yet on the other hand
reinforces this very same myth by persisting to use the term KIF, treating it as an organizational category. As noted by Chia (2000) it is through the process of differentiating, fixing, naming, labelling and classifying that social reality is systematically constructed. Categories are active constructions imposed on the environment that affect our perception and interpretation of incoming information (Tajfel and Forgas 1981).
Reframing research on knowledge in organizations
So does this mean that we should ban the term knowledge from organization studies, or that research on knowledge in organizations is so complex it is doomed to lead
nowhere? Of course not. We are not arguing that knowledge in all it’s various shapes and forms is not critical for organizational success or failure, or for just it’s general functioning – on the contrary, knowledge is the essence of who we are and what we do, and therefore also of organizations of all kinds. This is precisely why we need to reflect on what makes us conceptualize knowledge the way we do, and the implications for how we frame our research, i.e. how we conceptualize and describe the research context. Assigning things, people or their actions to categories is a ubiquitous part of work in society today. It is indeed so fundamental to how we make sense of the social and material world that we seldom stop to think about the assumptions or conceptual
models that underpin the categories we use, or about the ethical, political or practical consequences. The knowledge economy rhetoric has become so enshrined in the
management studies discourse that we suspect many authors – and we include ourselves here – have tended to unreflexively add the pre-fix “knowledge-based” to describe their research context, almost as a knee-jerk reaction. It just seems like common sense. However, as Lakoff (2002) has explained, nothing is “just” common sense. Common sense has a conceptual structure that is usually unconscious. That’s what makes it “common sense”. The categories we use are fundamental building blocks of these conceptual structures, or models for how we view the world. That is why it is so
important – and so difficult – to study their origins and uses. Categories are historically situated artefacts, and like all artefacts, are learned as part of membership in
communities of practice (Bowker and Star 1999). The organization sciences make up one such community of practice with its own set of infrastructures that guide how we as researchers make sense of the world(s) that we study. So what might be the
infrastructures that guide us towards framing our research as pertaining to these “knowledge-intensive firms”? And more fundamentally, what are the underpinning assumptions – and where do they come from?
Perhaps the most glaring example of a dominating infrastructure within the management sciences is the industry classification scheme. Structuring and
conceptualizing organizations, as well as our research and research findings according to industry classifications has long and deep roots and has indeed become so “natural” to us that we classify firms into industries without thinking about it – it has become “just common sense”. As we saw in the analysis of the KIF category, organization scientists similarly tend to fall back on industry classifications when all else fails – whether relevant or not; it seems like a safe thing to do, and indeed, it is easily understood by all and has not (yet) been questioned. However, this infrastructure reflects the very same world view of the “industrial age” that the proponents of the knowledge economy are contesting. Industry classification schemes are fundamental to and inherent in the theory of the industrial organization. The logic behind the KIF category is that the old classification schemes are not enough, or not appropriate, for describing the characteristics of contemporary firms in the “knowledge economy”; certain conditions apply because of these firms’ reliance on knowledge and people doing knowledge work. The impetus for Sveiby and colleagues’ (Sveiby and Riesling 1986; Sveiby and Lloyd 1987) research, who are often credited as the originators of the concept, was a reaction against the traditional management theories and
conceptualisations of organizations, that were predominantly based on industrial age production companies. Management of knowledge-based companies, they argued, required completely different models for understanding these organizations as well as managing people and measuring its success. If this is so, then why latch on to the traditional logic of industry classifications, based on assumptions argued not to be relevant for “knowledge-intensive firms”, when seeking to find a new way to frame research based on a knowledge-based view of the firm?
Accordingly, given the topics studied within the KIF literature, one might ask why do researchers choose the organization as the level of analysis for framing their research. As argued by Hernes (2004), the main allegory of organization researchers is
modernity’s omnipresent phenomenon “organizations”. The “organization” imagery often becomes both the tool and the object to us as researchers and we therefore do not see other things that fall outside the “organization” imagery; our imageries and
methodological tools (or infrastructures) do not allow us to see them, much less explain them. As highlighted by Czarniawska (1997), conceptualizing organizations as “super persons”, allowing us to discuss how organizations learn, produce strategies and do all the other things individuals do, is among our most popular and taken for granted images for organizations. However, she notes, human beings are social constructors and
organizations are social constructions, thus a consequence of the discourse in the
management sciences. Whether we think of organizations as super persons, machines or organisms (the most common images of organization according to Morgan, 1986), these images imply an entity bounded in time and space. In the KIF literature, the research themes often evolve around social interactions – whether “internal” or “external”. Knights et al (1993) therefore suggest we conceptualize knowledge work as “networking”. If so, is the bounded notion of “the organization” the most fruitful perspective for exploring so-called knowledge work?
The previous discussion on the interpretation of knowledge in the KIF literature illustrated the complexity of the infrastructures involved in any discussion of knowledge. It is, of course, beyond the scope of this paper to explore these
infrastructures in full and we will only point to some of the most blatant examples. The view of knowledge as purely “intellectual” reflects the Cartesian separation of body and mind, so deeply rooted within Western thought in general and, perhaps, Western
management literature in particular. However, as modern research in cognitive sciences has clarified, everything that we can experience, think and know is dependent on how our bodied and brains cooperate in thinking and acting. In other words, all so-called “intellectual” activity is embodied (Damasio 1994, 1999; Johnson 1987; Lakoff and Johnson 1999; Maturana and Varela 1987; Varela et al. 1991). While this is probably not a controversial statement among KIF authors, it seems the Cartesian duality still overshadows the way knowledge is conceptualized in the papers of this study.
The use of metaphors in exposing perspectives of knowledge is revealing in this respect. Knowledge is an abstract concept that has no referent in the physical world and thinking about knowledge therefore generally requires the use of metaphor. Building on Lakoff and Johnson’s (1980, 1999) theory of metaphors, stating that all abstract reasoning is based on metaphorical thought, Andriessen (2005) has analyzed how knowledge is conceptualized in the two most cited publications in the knowledge management literature: Davenport and Prusak (2000) and Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995). He found that virtually all statements about knowledge (ninety five percent) in these texts were metaphorical, with the dominant metaphor being that of knowledge as “something physical”, followed by knowledge as “thoughts and feelings” (i.e. our bodily experiences are used to conceptualize the intangible nature of knowledge) and
knowledge “a living organism”.9 Following this analysis, and based on the definitions of KIFs cited earlier in this paper, the concept of a “knowledge-intensive firm” implies metaphors of knowledge as something physical; knowledge as resource (input
perspective) and knowledge as product (output perspective) using Andriessen’s vocabulary. Using the term KIF entails building on, and thus perpetuating, these
9
The difference between the authors is noteworthy because of their different cultural origins. While the Japanese (Nonaka and Takeuchi) used a mix of metaphors for conceptualising knowledge; as “thoughts and feelings” (31%), as “a process” (23%) and as “something physical” (29%), the metaphors of knowledge as “something physical” dominated the Americans’ (Davenport and Prusak)
conceptualizations of knowledge completely (59%). Metaphors of knowledge as “thoughts and feelings” and as “a process” only accounted to 4% together of statements about knowledge in their book.
functionalist assumptions. This is in line with the bulk of the literature on knowledge management where the metaphor of knowledge as something physical is implied. Even the label “knowledge management” projects a meaning of knowledge as an artefact or object that can be managed directly and hence the deployment of information and communications technology. It is however in conflict with the non-positivist view of knowledge that several of the KIF authors seemingly ascribe to, as well as the basic rationale behind the concept of the KIF; that the heavy reliance on highly qualified employees to perform knowledge work (i.e. with freedom to act based on their own understanding and judgement) requires new frameworks, models and tools.
Before concluding we would like to illustrate our reasoning with a case from the KIF literature reviewed. Boland and Tenkasi (1995), in their paper on the importance of language (de)construction for knowledge work and its implications for how to design electronic communications systems, repeatedly state that their arguments pertain to knowledge-intensive firms. While they contend that “all organizations are becoming more knowledge-intensive across the service, industrial and governmental sectors” (p.350), they fail to provide a definition or description of what organizations might qualify as KIFs, or what it means to be a KIF, beyond asserting that “[k]nowledge intensive firms are composed of multiple communities with highly specialized technologies and knowledge domains” (p.350).
As we have previously noted, the point of departure for authors when defining KIFs often seems to have been the case company studied and reported in the paper. The category takes on the characteristics of that (or those) particular firm(s) and the topics treated in the study. This also seems to be the case, albeit implicitly, in Boland and Tenkasi’s paper. The pharmaceutical industry is mentioned when exemplifying KIFs and they use an incident collected during field work in a pharmaceutical company to illustrate an argument. They further write that the fundamental importance of
knowledge work is easiest to recognize in firms involved with “new product
development in leading edge technologies” but that organizations increasingly rely on creating new knowledge and adopting lateral organizational forms. In spite of the somewhat confusing description of the research context as relating to KIFs (which seems to be loosely all “contemporary firms”), when reading the paper it seems to us that the picture of a KIF the authors have in mind is based on the empirical case(s) they have previously studied; a high-tech pharmaceutical firm facing the challenge of getting people with diverse skills, experiences and backgrounds, tasks and goals to work
together in developing innovative products. This is indeed a classic problem for firms with diverse work forces (e.g. engineering firms struggling to get engineers and sales people to communicate), albeit framed in a new way in this paper to address the challenges and opportunities posed by new electronic communications media. In this case, what does using the term KIF add? Nothing, we would argue. On the contrary, it merely confuses the reader and diverts attention from what is actually the research context; it makes the argumentation less precise. As far as we as readers can work out, the research context has particular features of relevance for the framework Boland and Tenkasi propose; it relates to firms, or perhaps more precisely particular units of firms, where innovation (primarily product development if we interpret their notion of “science work” correctly) is the primary driver, characterized by lateral organizational structures to incorporate a very heterogeneous work force (knowledge workers with different areas of expertise). What “sharing knowledge” actually means is
related to the challenges posed by this particular context, and consequently so are the description of, and recommendations for, “the ideal KIF” provided by Boland and Tenkasi. Although other firms labelled KIFs by other researcher may also face the challenge of getting employees to share knowledge in some form, we would argue that the way to address this challenge differs between contexts. Take for example the large, global consulting firm portrayed in Kärreman and Alvesson (2004). This type of firm is also critically dependent on its ability to leverage the knowledge (experience) of its employees, but is instead built on the premise of a homogenous work force where consultants are to a large extent replaceable between units and countries (employees are typically recruited from a small number of schools, with similar education and
background, a personality that fits well with the organizational identity and certain characteristics are emphasized when recruiting). In other words, employees are expected to be flexible generalists rather than experts. This poses completely different challenges for social interactions as well as an electronic communication system. In his review of the recent economic theories providing the intellectual foundation for the theorizing around the knowledge based economy, Harris (2001) argues that a serious focus on knowledge poses such fundamental challenges to traditional theories that very basic concepts such as how to define a market or a firm need to be rethought. Yet at the same time, most of the developments in the concepts and techniques of knowledge management and the knowledge-based view of the firm that appeared during the 1990’s were not specific to the present digitally-based, post-industrial economy, but represent a rediscovery of the discussion of knowledge by writers from the 1950’s and 1960’s (Grant 2002). The KIF may be the wrong answer as we are posing the wrong question using our current infrastructures. If the “old” perspective, i.e. existing organizational categories, are ill suited to study “new” phenomena (some aspect of knowledge in organizations), does that mean we need a new category to sit along-side the old ones? Or does it mean that we need to think differently about how we classify, or frame as we prefer to call it in a looser sense, this type of research? If we accept that knowledge is in some way situated and socially constructed, then knowledge is always knowledge in some context or situation. Knowledge cannot be extracted from its context, nor can it be defined apart from it (Despres and Chauvel 2002). Therefore, the question must be posed as to the context within which research studies on knowledge in organizations are relevant to be truly instructive.
To understand and describe this context we may need to let go of the notion of organizational categories at the level of the firm. Taking knowledge, or a knowledge-based perspective, seriously means framing our research knowledge-based the particular aspect of knowledge or knowledge work that we are actually studying. This approach is not as clear-cut as the traditional industry classification scheme and may lead to a multitude of research context rather than a few seemingly distinct organizational categories.
However, knowledge is messy, fluid and ambiguous and does not fit neatly into our traditional categories. If we are to fruitfully frame research on knowledge-based topics, we cannot ignore these attributes, however inconvenient they are.
Ridding ourselves of, or even recognizing, the currently dominating infrastructures is of course extremely difficult – in this paper we have attempted to uncover only some of the most dominant and obvious. Still, however natural they seem to us, we have to question our old classification schemes and ask ourselves what alternative ways of framing research on knowledge in organizations could be. While there may not be any
“right” or “true” way, there are surely many different ways; each providing different insights. As we have all been told – asking the right question is half the answer. Similarly, recognizing the contextual nature of knowledge implies we have to take the time and the effort to explore the context for which our research findings are relevant. For example, Boland and Tenkasi’s (1995) paper is an enlightening read for anyone interested issues relating to diverse work forces as it provides insights into the processes of integrating knowledge (information and experience) between different groups of specialized expertise. This should be the point of departure for exploring the research context.
Conclusions
The concept of the KIF has found widespread usage and acceptance in the organization science literature. It is also a concept that has gained widespread appeal outside of scholarly works, so much so that it has now entered the common vocabulary of the business and management press as well as the nomenclature of policy makers. In this paper we have analysed the notion of the category of KIFs, examined how it is used in the research literature and surfaced some implications thereof. In particular, we
explored the consequences of using the terms ‘category’ and ‘knowledge’ for how the research presented under the label of KIFs shapes meaning for authors and readers. Our analysis has shown that the KIF does not qualify as a category in the
lexical/technical sense as the literature we have reviewed cannot provide the distinctive characteristics or criteria that would set these firms apart from others. Definitions are vague with the literature replete with contradictions and inconsistencies. The
consequence is that it becomes empirically impossible to establish what firms can – and what firms cannot – be considered “knowledge-intensive”. By using the word category the scholarly literature provides the illusion of the KIF as representing a homogenous group of firms, and consequently that research finding could be applied to these particular firms. We have argued that the use of the word “knowledge” makes the KIF inherently flawed as an organizational category, as knowledge is an all-embracing concept within the organization science literature, covering everything and nothing. While the KIF may be a meaningless category in the technical sense it is clearly meaningful to the many scholars, practitioners and policy makers who continue to use the term. Knowledge is positively charged in the “knowledge economy rhetoric” and KIF becomes an attractive label to attach to research. The concept then evokes
particular meanings, giving studies the appearance of being cutting edge and promoting particular interpretations of knowledge and it’s role in contemporary organizations at the expense of other possible interpretations. As such, the use of the illusory category of KIFs contributes to shaping and perpetuating the more general discourse on the
knowledge economy.
The danger is that the notion of a KIF has become so intuitive that it is now used in an unquestioning way. While some earlier studies did question the whole notion of a KIF, the more recent papers, even those by authors who had earlier concerns, make little reference to its problematic nature. It has become, it seems, an integrated part of the knowledge economy rhetoric. This rhetoric is however, to a large extent a reflection – and an extension – of the very same “traditional” worldviews and assumptions that this
“new” economy is said to be calling into question. It is of course impossible to start wholly afresh, as from a blank sheet, stuck as we are in the current infrastructures that guide how we make sense of and interpret the world around us. But we can strive to uncover these infrastructures and their underpinning assumptions so that we can better understand and question how they influence the way we construct new concepts. We have argued that taking knowledge seriously implies exploring alternative conceptualizations of knowledge (such as categories and metaphors) as well as
alternative approaches for framing research on knowledge in organizations. While the conclusion from our analysis is that positioning research in terms of the KIF category is not appropriate, we are not recommending the research reported under this category be discarded. On the contrary, we believe that this research provides much insight. However, presenting it as belonging to an illusionary, all-embracing category does not do justice to the research and we suggest that it should be framed differently. Instead, we suggest that researchers should elaborate on the research context to establish what particular features are relevant for their particular study. Such an approach is no doubt more demanding from the researcher’s perspective and may lead to a multitude of research contexts rather than a few seemingly distinct, but in practice illusory, categories. Yet, we believe it is necessary if we acknowledge the complex and contextual aspects of all that which we call knowledge in organizations, and, in most cases, we believe it would significantly add to readers’ insights and understanding of the implications of the research study. We need to think differently about how we present research on knowledge in organizations to prevent it becoming banal.
References
Alvesson, M. (1993) ‘Organization as rhetoric: knowledge-intensive companies and the struggle with ambiguity’, Journal of Management Studies, 30 (6), 997-1015
Alvesson, M. (1995) Management of Knowledge-Intensive Companies. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter
Alvesson, M. (2000) ‘Social identity and the problem of loyalty in knowledge-intensive companies’, Journal of Management Studies, 37 (8), 1101 - 1122.
Alvesson, M. (2001) ‘Knowledge work: ambiguity, image and identity’, Human Relations, 54 (7), 863-886.
Alvesson, M. (2004) Knowledge Work and Knowledge-Intensive Firms. New York: Oxford University Press.
Alvesson, M. and Kärreman, D. (2001) ‘Odd couple: Making sense of the curious concept of knowledge management’, Journal of Management Studies, 38 (7), 995-1018. Alvessson, M. and Sveningsson, S. (2003) ‘Good visions, bad micro-management and ugly ambiguity: contradictions of (non-)leadership in a knowledge-intensive
Andriessen, D. (2005) ‘On the metaphorical character of intellectual capital: A textual analysis’, Paper presented at the 4th International Critical Management Studies Conference, 4-6 July, Cambridge, UK.
Badaracco, J.L. (1991) The Knowledge Link: How Firms Compete through Strategic Alliances. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Bell, D. (1973) The Coming of the Post-Industrial Society: A Venture in Social Forecasting. New York: Basic Books.
Blackler, F. (1993) ‘Knowledge and the theory of organizations: Organizations as activity systems and the reframing of management’, Journal of Management Studies, 30 (6), 863-84.
Blackler, F. (1995) ‘Knowledge, knowledge work and organizations: An overview and interpretations’, Organization Studies, 16 (6), 1021-46.
Blackler, F. (2002) ‘Epilogue: knowledge, knowledge work and organizations’, in N. Bontis, and C.W. Choo (eds) The Strategic Management of Intellectual Capital and Organizational Knowledge. New York: Oxford University Press.
Blackler, F., Reed, M. and Whitaker, A. (1993) ‘Epilogue – an agenda for research’, Journal of Management Studies, 30 (6), 1017-1020.
Boland, R. J. and Tenkasi, R. V. (1995). ’Perspective making and perspective taking in communities of knowing’, Organization Science, 6 (4), 350 - 372.
Bowker, G. C., and Star, S. L. (1999) Sorting Things Out: Classification and its Consequences. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Chia, R. (2000) ‘Discourse analysis as organizational analysis’, Organization, 7, 3, 513 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.
Clegg, C. W., Waterson, P. E. and Axtell, C. M. (1996) ‘Software development: Knowledge-intensive work organizations’, Journal of Behaviour & Information Technology, 15 (4), 437-49
Czarniawska, B. (1997) ‘Narratives of individual and organizational identities’, in S.A. Deetz (ed) Communication Yearbook, pp. 193-221. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Dagens Industri (2005) ‘Låt Finland visa vägen till bättre yrkeshögskola’, 21 June, p. 4 Damasio, A. R. (1994). Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason and the Human Brain. London: Picador.
Davenport, T.H. and Prusak, L. (2000) Working Knowledge. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Davenport, T.H., Thomas, R.J. and Cantrell, S. (2002) ‘The mysterious art and science of knowledge-worker performance’, MIT Sloan Management Review, Fall, 23-30. Davis, S. and Botkin, J. (1994) ‘The coming of knowledge based business’, Harvard Business Review, September-October, 165-170.
Department of Trade and Industry (1998) Our Competitive Future: Building the Knowledge Driven Economy, Competitive White Paper, Department of Trade and Industry, London, 1998.
Despres, C. and Chauvel, D. (2002) ‘Knowledge, context and the management of variation’, in N. Bontis and C.W. Choo (eds.) The Strategic Management of Intellectual Capital and Organizational Knowledge. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ditillo, A. (2004) ‘Dealing with uncertainty in knowledge-intensive firms: the role of management control systems as knowledge integration mechanisms’, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 29, 401-421.
Dixon, N. M. (2000) Common Knowledge: How Companies Thrive by Sharing What They Know. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Donaldson, L. (2001) ‘Reflections on knowledge and knowledge-intensive firms’ Human Relations 57, 7, 955-963.
Doty, D.H. and Glick, W.H. (1994) ‘Typologies as a unique form of theory building: toward improved understanding and modelling’, Academy of Management Review, 19 (2), 230-251.
Douglas, M. (1987) How Institutions Think. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Drucker, P. (1993) Post-Capitalist Society. New York: Harper Collins.
Durand, T. (1998) ‘The alchemy of competence’, in G. Hamel, C.K. Prahalad, H. Thomas and D. O’Neal (eds), Strategic Flexibility: Managing in a Turbulent Environment, pp. 303-330. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Edvinsson, L. and Malone, M.S. (1997) Intellectual Capital: Realizing Your Company’s True Value by Finding its Hidden Brainpower. New York: Harper Business.
Elkjaer, B. (2000) ‘Learning and getting to know: the case of knowledge workers’, Human Resource Development International. 3 (3), 343 – 359.
Grant, R. M. (2002) ‘The knowledge based view of the firm’, in N. Bontis and C.W. Choo (eds.) The Strategic Management of Intellectual Capital and Organizational Knowledge. New York: Oxford University Press.
