ANALYSIS THE EFFECTS OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ON BRAND EQUITY AMONG IRANIAN SELECTED COMPANIES

(1)

ijcrb.webs.com

INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL

OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS

ANALYSIS THE EFFECTS OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ON BRAND EQUITY AMONG IRANIAN SELECTED COMPANIES

Azadeh Sedaghati

Department of Management, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Kermanshah, Iran Refah Kargaran Bank, Iran

Abstract

Knowledge management is the process of creating, storing and using knowledge for organizational performance. It captures the explicit factual information that exists within an organization, codifies an individual’s knowledge and incorporates both into the firm’s structural capital. So, it can affect all aspects of organizational performance like brand equity. Although brands have long had a role in commerce, it was not until the twentieth century that branding and brand association became so central to competitors. In fact, a new characteristic of marketing in today’s world of competition has been its focus upon creation of differentiated brands that make more value for company. Market research has been used to help identify and develop bases of brand differentiation. But they forgot internal capabilities like knowledge management can make more brand equity that external relationship. This is the first study that aims to find effects of KM capabilities on brand equity and association to prove the importance of internal motivators in these fields. We selected three top Iranian exporter companies (Mana, Lorch and Hayer) to do our research. Two standard questionnaires distribute among 263 managers and staff in these companies. Our results using T student test and multiple regression analysis show direct effects among our variables. We suggest that using talent management system, attraction of competitor’s intellectual capital and developing a knowledge management system can promote our brand equity, association and corporate reputation.

Keywords: Knowledge Management, Brand Equity, Corporate reputation

1. Introduction

Knowledge management (KM) is on its way to becoming an integral business function (Grover and Davenport, 2001) and a new aspect of management for many organizations (Ponzi and Koenig, 2002). In recent years, organizational theorists have recognized knowledge to be one of the firm’s richest resources (Conner and Prahalad, 1996; Hansen et al, 1999). Proponents of the resource-based view of the firm consider knowledge to be one of the resources that lead to competitive advantage (Barney, 1991). In an effort to leverage their knowledge resources, organizations now consider the management of organizational knowledge to be an integral business function (Grover and Davenport, 2001). In fact, Knowledge Management (KM) is now considered a strategic and value-added endeavor for increasing organizational effectiveness Bennet and Bennet (2003) broadly defined the goal of Knowledge Management (KM) to be “for an organization to become aware of its knowledge, individually or collectively, and to shape itself so that it makes the most effective and efficient use of the knowledge it has or can obtain” (p. 440). In order to achieve this goal, organizations need to engage in “a dynamic and continuous set of processes and practices embedded in individuals, as well as in groups and physical structures where at any point in time, individuals and groups may be involved in different aspects of knowledge management process” (Alavi and Leidner, 2001, p. 123). The processes by which organizational knowledge is developed include the processes by which knowledge is created within the organization by its employees, the processes by which knowledge is acquired from outside the organization, and the processes by which knowledge that is created and acquired is retained or stored. In addition accumulating knowledge, KM also entails the mobilization processes by which this knowledge is disseminated and utilized within the organization. Knowledge mobilization comprises of the specific processes by which knowledge is shared and transferred within the

(2)

ijcrb.webs.com

INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL

COPY RIGHT ©2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research ₉₂₇ SEPTEMBER 2012 VOL 4,NO 5 organization. The knowledge accumulation and mobilization processes are closely associated as organizational knowledge is developed through the cyclic iterations of storage, retrieval and transformation and can affect corporate brand value (Carlile and Rebentisch, 2003; Nonaka, 1994). Brand equity has been one of the main marketing research topics since late 1980s. While there are numerous conceptualizations of brand equity (e. g. Aaker, 1991; Keller, 2003), brand equity is usually defined as the marketing effects or outcomes that accrue to a product given its brand name compared with those that would accrue if the same product does not have the brand name (e.g. Aaker, 1991; Keller 2003). Brands with high levels of equity are associated with outstanding performance including sustained price premiums, inelastic price sensitivity, high market shares, successful expansion into new categories, competitive cost structures and high profitability (Keller and Lehmann 2003). Since brand equity has financial benefits for the firm, researchers have been looking for ways to measure this valuable asset (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001). To explain the phenomena of brand equity, Keller and Lehmann (2006) developed the brand value chain (BVC) model. It theoretically explains how brand related investments affect firm financial value by changing customer mindsets and subsequent market performance. Brand value creation begins with the firm’s investment in marketing programs such as product research, development, trade support, marketing communication, advertising, promotion, etc. These marketing activities affect the consumer mindset with regard to the evaluation of the brand. The consumer mindset consists of multi-dimensional attributes, including brand awareness, associations, attitudes, attachment, activities and experiences. The consumer mindset determines how consumers act in the marketplace. The outcome of these actions are reflected in market performance indicators such as price premiums, reduced price elasticity’s, increased market share, brand expansion into other categories, etc. Based on the brand’s market performance, the financial market makes assessments and adjustments to reflect the value of the brand. Some important financial metrics are the stock price, price-earning ratio, the overall market capitalization of the firm that owns the brand, etc. (Ambler et al, 2002). The concept of brand equity and KM relationship and improvement is relatively new among institutions especially Iranian firms, and there is a lack of studies focusing of brand and KM in Iranian academic research and this is the first study of its kind. In addition, the study provides useful insights and guidance for managers to measure and improve Brand and reputation of corporation toward improving customer satisfaction.

2. Literature review

2.1. Knowledge Management Implementation

The primary motivation for KM is that knowledge is considered an organizational resource or asset. The resource based view of the firm enumerates organizational knowledge as one of the organization’s resources, along with capital, land, machines, etc. Since organizational knowledge is valuable, rare, and difficult to imitate or substitute, it is a sufficiently important resource to help achieve sustainable competitive advantage (Barney, 1991). However, Bartlett and Ghoshal (1995) stress that in the current post-information age, knowledge (composed of information, intelligence, and expertise) is the organization’s most critical and scarce resource. The knowledge based view of the firm extends the resource based view of the firm and further builds on the premise that organizational knowledge is the most strategically significant resource of the firm (Conner and Prahalad, 1996). This theory posits that more than the existence of knowledge within the organization, it is the organization’s capability to effectively utilize this knowledge that leads to achieving competitive advantage (Grant, 1996). Within the different perspectives, there is a general consensus regarding the significance of organizational knowledge, however, there is an ongoing debate regarding a succinct and concise definition of what precisely constitutes organizational knowledge. As precursor to the study of how organizational knowledge should be managed,

(3)

ijcrb.webs.com

INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL

COPY RIGHT ©2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research ₉₂₈ SEPTEMBER 2012 VOL 4,NO 5 academics in various disciplines have tried to articulate what knowledge is. In the following discussion, we synthesize the various view points to develop a working definition of what constitutes the knowledge that organizations strive to manage. Moreover, as we shall see, a clear understanding of the concept of “knowledge” has implications for the role of the individual in KMS and subsequently the success of the systems. Knowledge is a complex and multifaceted concept. The search for the meaning of knowledge has its roots in both Eastern and Western philosophy and epistemology. This ongoing debate has seen a resurgence in the past century in the fields of economics (Arrow 1962; Hayek 1945; Marshall 1965), organizational theory and philosophy (Polyani, 1958). Many scholars have used Plato’s definition of “knowledge is the justified true belief” as a starting point for their discourse on knowledge (von Krogh and Grand, 2000). Others have taken a more simplistic approach, using the terms information and data to describe knowledge of individuals and understand what knowledge is. Others have noted a significant distinction between data, information and knowledge (Tsoukas and Vladimirou, 2001) These researchers have argued that unlike data or information, knowledge presupposes interpretation and contextualization of information and is closely tied to action (Davenport et al, 1998; Tsoukas and Vladimirou, 2001). The distinction between data, information and knowledge has an important implication for KMS. The personal and contextual nature of knowledge presents unique challenges in articulating and communicating knowledge when compared to data or information, and it is this aspect of knowledge that differentiates KMS from other IS. In fact, the use of the terms knowledge and information interchangeably has led managers to sink billions of dollars in information technology ventures that have yielded marginal results. The distinction between data, information and knowledge, however, is also a simplification and most scholars employ more sophisticated definitions of knowledge. In their review, Alavi and Leidner (2001) identified five commonly adopted perspectives of knowledge in management and organizational studies. First, knowledge has been perceived as a state of mind and is described as “the state of understanding gained through experience or study” (p. 111). Second, knowledge can also be perceived as an object that can be stored or manipulated as required. Third is the process perspective of knowledge, that views knowledge as both knowing and acting. In other words, knowledge is perceived as the process of applying expertise. The fourth perspective is an extension of the view of knowledge as an object, where knowledge is perceived as the condition of having access to information. Fifth, knowledge is viewed as the capabilities with the potential to influence future actions. The implications of these different perspectives for KMS are summarized by Alavi and Leidner (2001, Table 1 p. 111). Regardless of the perspective of knowledge that one may adhere to, the overarching purpose of KM efforts is to ensure that (a) knowledge is being created or acquired by the organization, and (b) knowledge is being effectively mobilized within the organization (Alavi and Leidner 2001; Davenport et al. 1998). Therefore, the processes and IT that constitute the KMS must be used by the organization’s employees in a manner that leads to the accomplishment of these goals. Before proceeding to a more detail discussion of these KM processes, we must first further explore the characteristics of organizational knowledge that are pertinent for these processes. The discourse on the taxonomy of knowledge makes two important classifications that are more pertinent to the study of KM than the different perspectives of knowledge listed above, and have important implications for the action of individuals in regard to KMS. The first classification makes the distinction between tacit and explicit knowledge, while the second makes the distinction between individual and organizational knowledge.

2.2. Brand Equity

The extant literature has proposed brand equity measures at three levels: individual, product and firm. One approach is to measure consumer’s state of mind with regard to a brand, i.e. consumer-based brand equity (CBBE). This family of mindset measures includes awareness, attitude, attachments, associations, loyalty toward a brand, etc. (Keller and Lehmann, 2003). These measures demonstrate the basic underlying

(4)

ijcrb.webs.com

INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL

COPY RIGHT ©2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research ₉₂₉ SEPTEMBER 2012 VOL 4,NO 5 dimensions of brand equity. They have good diagnostic power by signaling the change of a brand’s value and providing the reasons for the change (Ailawadi, Lehmann, and Neslin, 2003). Another approach involves measuring product level outcomes. These measures of brand equity include loyalty, price premium, market share, revenue, net profit, etc. (e.g., Ailawadi, Lehmann, and Neslin, 2003; Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001). Since these metrics can be obtained and computed through sales information, they maintain the desirable features of being accessible and objective. Moreover, because these measures are closely related to financial returns, they provide a valuable reference for brand valuation. Finally, some researchers focus on firm financial returns associated with a brand. These measures involve the consideration of discounted future cash flows or projected future earnings associated with a brand (Simon and Sullivan, 1993). Because this approach puts a brand’s future potential into the formula, it treats brand as a long-term intangible financial asset. Despite the efforts that researchers and practitioners have put into investigating the association between brand equity and its antecedents, our understanding for the relationships among different elements within the brand value chain (Keller and Lahmann, 2003) is not complete. First, there are a limited number of empirical studies investigating the brand equity drivers. The existing research has shown that brand equity is influenced by marketing mix, product attributes, product line structure, customer characteristics, etc. Among them, some studies are based on opinion surveys instead of real purchase behavior data. Some others focus on only a limited number of categories or drivers (Randall, Ulrich, and Reibstein, 1998). Moreover, few of them if any have addressed the differences across categories of products. More important, no study has empirically explored the important drivers such as within category brand structure, brand positioning and firm brand strategy. All these limit our ability to generalize and apply the results of extant works in academic research and business practice. Second, in understanding the conversion of customer based brand equity (CBBE) into brand market performance, the field has well documented and widely accepted the conceptualization that improved consumer mindsets (e.g. awareness, association, attitude, attachment, activity, etc.) have positive impact on brand market performance (e.g. price premium, market share, loyalty, penetration, etc.) (Keller & Lehmann, 2003). However, there is no empirical evidence to demonstrate that it is true. The extant empirical works on the contribution of customer based brand equity (CBBE) focus on the value relevance of the measure, i.e. linking it to firm financial performance. Because the impact of customer based brand equity (CBBE) is largely, if not completely mediated by brand market performance. The exploration of the link between customer based brand equity and brand market performance may add more knowledge to our understanding of the brand value chain. Lastly, from a firm’s perspective, there is an emerging need to understand the effectiveness of brand portfolio management on brand market performance. Current literature has mainly focused on the determinants of the brand strategy, i.e. why firms choose specific brand portfolio strategy (Olins, 1989). The reasons for firm specific brand portfolio strategy are generally believed to be, among other issues, market occupation, segment targeting, product line expansion, firm history, company strategy, managerial philosophy, etc. (LaForet & Saunders, 1999). However, there are limited understanding on how these brand portfolio strategies works in terms of performance lifting. There are few researches linking the elements of brand portfolio strategy and brand market level performance. Almost all extant studies on brand performance developed models based on individual brand or a few brands, neglecting the fact that brands within a firm are closely associated with a set of sibling products offered by the parent firm.

3. Research Methodology & Results

Two separate data analyses were conducted based on the data collected from each participant. To better understand the relationship between the KM and the brand equity, a Linear mixed-model regression was used to assess differences in each outcome measure between and within companies and the relationship

(5)

ijcrb.webs.com

INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL

COPY RIGHT ©2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research ₉₃₀ SEPTEMBER 2012 VOL 4,NO 5 between variables. This methodology was appropriate to the longitudinal nature of data collected at baseline and post baseline time points, and was constructed using all data collected in both intervention and comparison groups, at each time point. A linear mixed model regression, for analysis of each outcome measure under consideration, to assess differences between baseline and post-baseline time points, as well as between intervention and comparison groups over time, was constructed. In constructing this model, adjustments could be made for covariate information such as demographic characteristics. Between-subject comparisons were made to compare groups, while within subject comparisons were made to assess changes over time within groups using appropriate test variances that have been corrected for correlation in measures taken within subject. Interaction terms were included in the model to assess if trajectories of changes over time for each outcome measure differed by intervention / comparison group. The formula for the regression equation (Hinkle, Wiersma, & Jurs, 1998) is as follows:

Ŷ = β 1 X 1 +β 2 X 2 where

Ŷ = predicted scores for KM, and Level of brand equity

β 1 = the regression weight for the KM score X 1 = total score of the KM

β 2 = the regression weight for the Brand equity score X 2 = total score of the KM

In a multiple regression analysis, the multiple correlation coefficient (R) generally assumes the characteristics of a Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient, except that it takes only the positive values from 0.0 to 1.0 (Hinkle, Wiersma, & Jurs, 1998). The square of the multiple correlation coefficient (R 2 ) is interpreted in the same way as the square of the bivariate correlation coefficient (r 2 ). That is, R 2 is the proportion of the variation in the criterion variable that can be attributed to the variation of the combined predictor variables (Hinkle, Wiersma, & Jurs, 1998). The significance value was .07, indicating no statistical significance, assuming an alpha level of .05, or the risk that a researcher is willing to take in rejecting the stated null hypothesis when it is actually true within the underlying population.

Table 1: Multiple Regression

Model

Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized Coefficients

t Sig.

B Std. Error Beta weights

Brand Equity 1.095 .134 -.208 8.176 .031

Knowledge

Management -.145 .190 .357 -.764 .074

a. Dependent Variable: Brand equity

Table 2: Model Summary

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square

Std. Error of the

Estimate Durbin-Watson

1 .733a _.537 _.527 _.32820 _2.444

a. Predictors: (Constant), VAR00002 b. Dependent Variable: VAR00001

(6)

ijcrb.webs.com

INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL

Table 3: ANOVAb

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression 5.988 1 5.988 55.589 .000a

Residual 5.170 48 .108

Total 11.158 49

a. Predictors: (Constant), VAR00002 b. Dependent Variable: VAR00001

Table 4: Residuals Statisticsa

Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation N

Predicted Value .5360 1.8238 .9879 .34958 50

Residual -.63689 .93336 .00000 .32484 50

Std. Predicted Value -1.293 2.391 .000 1.000 50

Std. Residual -1.941 2.844 .000 .990 50

a. Dependent Variable: VAR00001

However, to better understand the regression score, the researcher analyzed the standardized regression coefficients or beta coefficients. This transforming of raw scores to standard scores and comparing the two absolute values allows for a better interpretation of scores. Of the two surveys used in the regression model, the KM has a beta weight of .357 compared to the BE beta weight of .208. The beta weights also tell us how much change can be expected in the independent variable when there is a change in the dependent variable. For more exact we used Tukey test to find significant difference between knowledge management groups. Tukey's test or the Tukey–Kramer method, is a single-step multiple comparison procedure and statistical test generally used in conjunction with an ANOVA to find which means are significantly different from one another. Named after John Tukey, it compares all possible pairs of means, and is based on a studentized range distribution (this distribution is similar to the distribution of t from the t-test). It is important not to confuse the Tukey HSD tests with Tukey Mean Difference tests (also known as Bland-Altman Test), which is often used to compare two methods, where there are no gold standards. Tukey's test is based on a formula very similar to that of the t-test. In fact, Tukey's test is essentially a t-test, except that it corrects for experiment-wise error rate (when there are multiple comparisons being made, the probability of making a type I error increases — Tukey's test corrects for that, and is thus more suitable for multiple comparisons than doing a number of t-tests would be). The formula for Tukey's test is:

SE Y Y q A B s  

(7)

ijcrb.webs.com

INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL

Table 5: Tukey HSD Test between KM groups

(I) VAR2

(J) VAR2

Mean Difference

(I-J) Std. Error Sig.

95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound Upper Bound

Tukey HSD 1 2 -.21953 .14396 .023 -.5909 .1519 3 .13333 .14396 .791 -.2381 .5048 4 -.35152 .14396 .071 -.7229 .0199 2 1 .21953 .14396 .023 -.1519 .5909 3 .35286 .14396 .069 -.0186 .7243 4 -.13199 .14396 .796 -.5034 .2394 3 1 -.13333 .14396 .791 -.5048 .2381 2 -.35286 .14396 .069 -.7243 .0186 4 -.48485* .14396 .005 -.8563 -.1134 4 1 .35152 .14396 .071 -.0199 .7229 2 .13199 .14396 .796 -.2394 .5034 3 .48485* .14396 .005 .1134 .8563

In this study we categorized knowledge management into four dimensions of balanced scorecard: Financial, Customers, Internal business process, learning and growth relatively. Based on Tukey test, there is significant difference between KM groups toward enhancing brand equity. According to table 5, there is significant difference between Financial dimension with (Customers dimension) but there is no difference with (Internal business process, learning and growth dimensions). From statistical sample points of view, priority of KM dimension toward promotion of brand equity is: Learning and growth, Customers, Internal business process and financial dimensions.

4. Discussion & Conclusion

Knowledge - According to Alle (1997, p. 46-47), three views of knowledge exist: “knowledge as an object,” “knowledge as a process,” and “knowledge as a complex system.” Alle asserts that those who view knowledge as an object believe that one can store, maintain, and measure knowledge. Alle suggests that this view of knowledge leads organizations to focus on knowledge transfer activities by using technologies such as databases (Alle, 1997). The ever-increasing global competition and new forms of collaboration to enhance the innovation process led to a renewed interest in knowledge management by scholars and practitioners. Research that examines which organizational culture type supports knowledge management is important to help managers understand how to improve their organizations’ competitiveness. The empirical evidence in the knowledge management literature is unclear how to determine the appropriate organizational knowledge management success toward enhancing brand reputation and equity. Academics and practitioners need more research to understand the relationship between these two variables.

(8)

ijcrb.webs.com

INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL

Researchers identified the customer’s service experience as the differentiating factor between a goods and

services model of brand equity. Although this interpretation has merit, it is interesting to consider what aspects of the service comprise this “experience”. The author maintains that the service experience is the most influential factor in forming brand associations and eventually brand equity for the product. However, he provides no guidance on what this experience constitutes. Delineating the possible service components

would be useful from a measurement perspective as well as a practitioner’s standpoint. Although this was

the first study about KM effects on brand equity, but there is lots of research limitation. For example this study was conducted among only there companies and we suggest that future research have to focus on more companies among several countries.

(9)

ijcrb.webs.com

INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL

References:

Aaker, David A. (1991), Managing Brand Equity. New York: The Free Press.

Ailawadi, Kusum L., Donald R. Lehmann and Scott A. Neslin (2003), “Revenue Premium as an Outcome Measure of Brand Equity,” Journal of Marketing, 67(October), 1-17.

Alavi, M., and Leidner, D.E. (2001). "Review: Knowledge Management and Knowledge Management Systems: Conceptual Foundation and Research Issues," MIS Quarterly (25:3), September, pp. 107-136.

Alle, V. (1997). The knowledge evolution: Expanding organizational intelligence. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Ambler, Tim, C.B. Bhattacharya, Julie Edell, Kevin Lane Keller, Katherine N. Lemon, and Vikas Mittal (2002), “Relating Brand and Customer Perspectives on Marketing Management,” Journal of Service Research, 5 (1), 13-25.

Barney, J.B. (1991). "Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage," Journal of Management (17:1), March, pp. 99-120.

Bartlett, C.A., and Ghoshal, S. (1995). "Changing the Role of Top Management: Beyond Structure to Process," Harvard Business Review (73:3), May-June, pp. 132-142.

Bennet, A., and Bennet, D. (2003). "A Partnership between Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management," in: Handbook on Knowledge Management, Volume 1: Knowledge Matters, C. W. Holsapple (ed.), Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, pp. 439-460.

Carlile, P.R., and Rebentisch, E.S. (2003). "Into the Black Box: The Knowledge Transformation Cycle," Management Science (49:9), September, pp. 1180-1195.

Chaudhuri, Arjun and Morris B. Holbrook (2001), “The Chain of Effects from Brand Trust and Brand Affect to Brand Performance: The Role of Brand Loyalty,”

Conner, K.R., and Prahalad, C.K. (1996). "A Resource Based Theory of the Firm: Knowledge versus Opportunism," Organization Science (7:5), September, pp. 447-501.

Davenport, T.H., and Prusak, L. (1998). Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know Harvard Business School Press, Boston.

Grant, R.M. (1996). "Toward a Knowledge-Based Theory of the Firm," Strategic Management Journal (17:2), Winter, pp. 109-122.

Grover, V., and Davenport, T.H. (2001). "General Perspectives on Knowledge Management: Fostering a Research Agenda," Journal of Management Information Systems (18:1), Summer, pp. 5-21.

Hansen, M.T., Nohria, N., and Tierney, T.(1999). "What's Your Strategy for Managing Knowledge?," Harvard Business Review (77, March-April, pp. 106-116.

Hinkle, D. E., Wiersma, W., & Jurs, S. G. (1998). Applied statistics for the behavioral sciences. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Journal of Marketing, 65 (2), 81-93.

Keller, Kevin L. (2003), Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity, 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Keller, Kevin L. and Donald R. Lehmann (2003), “How Do Brand Create Value,” Marketing Management, 2003 (May), (26-31).

Keller, Kevin L. and Donald R. Lehmann (2006), “Brands and Branding: Research Findings and Future Priorities,” Marketing Science, 25 (6), 740-59.

LaForet, Sylvie and John Saunders (1999), "Managing Brand Portfolios: Why Leaders Do What They Do,” Journal of Advertising Research, 39 (1), 51-66.

(10)

ijcrb.webs.com

INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL

COPY RIGHT ©2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research ₉₃₅ SEPTEMBER 2012 VOL 4,NO 5 Nonaka, I. (1994). "A Dynamic Theory of Organization Knowledge Creation," Organization Science

(5:1), February, pp. 14-39.

Olins, W. (1989), Corporate Identity: Making Business Strategy Visible Through Design, London: Design Council.

Polyani, M. (1958). Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post Critical Philosophy, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

Ponzi, L. and Koenig, M. (2002). Knowledge management: Another management fad? Information

Research, 8(1), paper no. 145 [available at http://InformationR.net/ir/8-1/paper 145.html].

Randall, Taylor, Karl Ulrich and David Reibstein (1998), “Brand Equity and Vertical Product Line Extent,” Marketing Science, 17 (4), 356-79.

Simon, Carol J. and Mary W. Sullivan (1993), “The Measurement and Determinants of Brand Equity: A Financial Approach,” Marketing Science, 12 (1), 28-52.

Tsoukas, H., and Vladimirou, E. (2001). "What is Organizational Knowledge?," Journal of Management Studies (38:7), November, pp. 973-993.

von Krogh, G., and Grand, S. (2000). "Justification in Knowledge Creation: Dominant Logic in Management Discourses," in: Knowledge Creation: A Source of Value, G. Von Krogh, I. Nonaka, T. Nishiguchi (eds.), Macmillan, New York, NY.