The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management publishes original articles on topics relevant to studying, implementing, measuring and managing knowledge management and intellectual capital.

For general enquiries email administrator@ejkm.com
Click here to see other Scholarly Electronic Journals published by API
For a range of research text books on this and complimentary topics visit the Academic Bookshop

Information about the European Conference on Knowledge Management (ECKM) is available here.

For info on the International Conference on Intellectual Capital, Knowledge Management and Organisational Learning (ICICKM), click here
Information about the European Conference on Intangibles and Intellectual Capital (ECIIC) is available here
 

Journal Article

Tacit Knowledge and Pedagogy at UK Universities: Challenges for Effective Management  pp61-74

Harvey Wright

© Jul 2008 Volume 6 Issue 1, Editor: Charles Despres, pp1 - 74

Look inside Download PDF (free)

Abstract

This paper hopes to persuade readers of current thinking around Knowledge Management that more emphasis should be placed on tacit knowledge in management and its education and how it might be better communicated to students within universities and in organisations in general. It reflects upon what appears to be the predominant attention being paid to explicit knowledge in the curriculum and pedagogy of UK Universities which offer courses entitled Knowledge Management, and that this may be at the expense of more tacit knowledge 'management' approaches.

 

Keywords: knowledge management, KM, tacit knowledge communication pedagogy curriculum didactic v constructionist university curriculum on knowledge management

 

Share |

Journal Article

The Role of Knowledge Flow in the Thai GUIN Version of the Triple Helix Model  pp287-296

Lugkana Worasinchai

© Jun 2009 Volume 7 Issue 2, ICICKM 2008, Editor: Kevin O'Sullivan, pp199 - 296

Look inside Download PDF (free)

Abstract

The "triple helix" model is considered as being a spiral model of innovation contributing to the country and regional improvement by fostering interactions between academic, industry and government. This model highlights the ties between the three parties at different stages in the process of knowledge capitalization and flow. Although, this model has proven to be effective in some countries, some questions remain regarding its effective implementation in Thailand. This paper presents an adapted version of the helix model that could contribute to development of ties among stakeholders through strategic alliances. The success key factors leading to an economic development mission by universities are as well discussed.

 

Keywords: triple helix model, knowledge capitalization, Thailand, research network, innovation, university- industry interaction, framework G-U-I-N

 

Share |

Journal Article

Activities and Outputs of a Clinical Faculty: an Intellectual Capital Concept Map  pp647-662

Belinda Wilkinson, Clare Beghtol, Dante Morra

© Jan 2010 Volume 7 Issue 5, Editor: Kimiz Dalkir, pp535 - 662

Look inside Download PDF (free)

Abstract

The concept of intellectual capital (IC) was used to evaluate the activities and outputs of a university medical department. First, a conceptual framework was developed to highlight the importance of various activities as dimensions of IC. The conceptualization of IC was further developed using concept mapping (CM). The authors first considered the problem of what comprises IC and determined whether previous researchers have defined IC in terms of activities. The importance of IC, its definition as an organizational resource and activity, the link between IC and value creation and extraction activities, and the problem of the associated composition of IC taken from existing European guidelines and regulations were discussed. To begin to construct a classification of activities and outputs, the information currently employed for assessing the research, education, and related academic activities and outputs of faculty members were analyzed. Four different evaluation approaches were compared to identify the activities and outputs of a university medical department, and to consolidate the information being collected for evaluation of universities, university‑affiliated research institutes, researchers within universities, and faculty within university departments into an inclusive set of activities and outputs. These were two forms of IC reporting, one used in Austrian universities and the other at a university‑affiliated Swedish research institute together with two other long‑established means of assessing faculty, the Research Assessment Exercise in the UK, and the faculty evaluation and promotion requirements at the University of Toronto in Canada. Education administrators' perceptions were solicited to derive the IC used in a research faculty of a Canadian university. The results indicate that IC can be understood in terms of both activities and outputs. Clinical faculty can be expected to engage in research and its supervision, education, obtaining qualifications, clinical and professional practice, and service. Within these categories, individual activities and outputs were not considered to be of equal importance or impact. Among seventy activities and outputs, articles in internationally refereed journals was ranked as most important, whereas teaching awards was ranked as having the most impact by the most participants. This study extends existing research by using CM to generate a conceptual framework of IC for a department of medicine.

 

Keywords: intellectual capital, guidelines, concept mapping, university medical department, clinical faculty, education administrators

 

Share |

Journal Article

Inter‑generational learning dynamics in universities  pp10-18

Constantin Bratianu, Adriana Agapie, Ivona Orzea, Simona Agoston

© Mar 2011 Volume 9 Issue 1, ECKM Special Issue, Editor: Eduardo Tome, pp1 - 84

Look inside Download PDF (free)

Abstract

Inter generational learning is an open process people of all ages can learn from each other in a stimulating context. It is a complex process of knowledge sharing that overcomes age and cultural barriers. Inter‑generational learning is more specific for those organizations where people group together in age layers or strata. Universities are such kind of layered or nested organizations. The purpose of this paper is to present some results of our research in the field of inter‑generational learning and knowledge sharing in universities. This topic is important because a university is by its own nature a nested knowledge organization, due to a continuous flow of students and the bottom‑up regeneration of the faculty staff. Knowledge creation and knowledge loss are intertwined processes, and both of them are strongly influenced by the age scale. A university is a multilayered knowledge organization, where the inner most layers are represented by older professors who concentrate the fundamental structures of knowledge, and the outer layers are represented by students in their different learning cycles. In this paper we are interested in assessing the choices done by the academic staff, in the context of the determinant criterions and trade‑offs in inter‑generational learning. This had been done in the framework of Analytic Hierarchic Processes (AHP). We thought that this is a proper tool since it mainly belongs to the field of decision‑making with the possibility to determine vectors of priorities for the individuals participating in the decisions under study.

 

Keywords: learning dynamics, university, knowledge sharing, knowledge creation, analytic hierarchy process

 

Share |

Journal Article

Knowledge Creation through University‑Industry Collaborative Research Projects  pp43-54

Julie Hermansand Annick Castiaux

© Mar 2007 Volume 5 Issue 1, ECKM 2006, Editor: Charles Despres, pp1 - 130

Look inside Download PDF (free)

Abstract

It is obvious from the study of literature that university‑industry (U‑I) relationships and their subsequent knowledge transfers are topics of high political, economical, managerial and academic interest. Indeed, technological knowledge is seen as a major source of long‑term economic growth and its transfer to the firm is critical since it acts as a significant innovation factor. In order to access this knowledge, a portfolio of sourcing strategies is available to the firm: knowledge creation through internal RandD departments, knowledge sharing with suppliers or market relationships, and also transfer from knowledge institutions such as public and private research centres. In this paper, we recognISe that University is a central source of knowledge but we question the general belief that knowledge is per se flowing between private and academic sphere through the conduct of University‑Industry relationships. As a result, this paper presents our literature analysis concerning this research topic and explores one particular mean of inter‑organisational knowledge transfer, namely the University‑Industry collaborative research project. We present findings from an exploratory study, which aims at examining knowledge flows and collaborative behaviours at stake in such research projects. This interview survey has been realised with respondents actively involved in Belgian university‑industry (U‑I) interactions and provides qualitative data analysed through the theoretical framework of organisational knowledge creation developed by Nonaka and Takeuchi. We found evidence supporting the existence of a knowledge spiral as a dynamic for the whole projects and identified some knowledge‑based limits to the reconciliation process between university's interests and company's needs.

 

Keywords: university-industry interactions, knowledge transfer, Nonaka

 

Share |

Journal Article

Constructing Accountability for Intellectual Capital in Accountability Settings: Coupling Of Spaces And Logics  pp99-112

Victoria Konovalenko Slettli, Anatoli Bourmistrov, Kjell Grønhaug

© Sep 2018 Volume 16 Issue 2, The Management of IC and Knowledge “in action”, Editor: Dr Maria Serena Chiucchi and Dr Susanne Durst, pp73 - 154

Look inside Download PDF (free)

Abstract

Several challenges face the notion of accountability in the context of non‑profit organizations. Included among these are multiple principle stakeholders with different objectives, interests, and level of influence, as well as output that is intangible or difficult to measure. In order to align stakeholders’ contradictory interests, for‑profit organizations employ market mechanisms. The non‑profit sector, however, lacks this type of regulation. It is suggested that governing bodies should adopt the responsibility of aligning various interests with the mission of the non‑profit organization. This paper addresses the issue of accountability for intellectual capital in the context of a non‑profit organization using the case of Severstal Corporate University. It approaches accountability by examining accountability practices that are socially constructed in their settings in terms of accountability relationships, the content of accounts, and justification mechanisms. The study suggests that accountability is constructed through the interaction of two subjects: ‘spaces’ and ’logics’. The study contributes to the research on accountability for IC in non‑profits by demonstrating how the mechanisms of customer feedback, reputation and ‘corporate rumors’ can be used in the alignment function of the governing bodies. Furthermore, the study contributes to the field of IC by suggesting a new framework/guidance for the organizations that do not use IC reporting but nonetheless want to provide stakeholders with IC information.

 

Keywords: accountability, intellectual capital, spaces, logics, settings, corporate university

 

Share |

Journal Issue

Volume 5 Issue 1, ECKM 2006 / Feb 2007  pp1‑130

Editor: Charles Despres

View Contents Download PDF (free)

Editorial

"The 7th annual European Conference on Knowledge Management 2006 held in Budapest produced a particularly interesting set of papers. KM as a field of academic endeavor continues to produce signs of maturity in the sense that the quality of contributions is markedly higher than in the past. But the tendency to fracture along multiple disciplinary boundaries remains.

The result is that selecting papers from the conference for inclusion in the Journal is more challenging than ever. Fourteen papers were chosen in the end however, and these from a wide range of authors based in Universities around the world.

Topics addressed by papers included in this edition are especially eclectic which, given KM´s multidisciplinary roots and transversal nature, reflects the multiplicity of the basic phenomenon (human and collective cognition, secondarily applied to organizational contexts). In some respects this characteristic is frustrating but also challenging, and there are researchers who find this motivating. Perhaps because the intellectual perimeters are multiple and loose. Perhaps because paradigms shift by traversing a path of intellectual mosaics.

On the other hand the fact is that after about two decades of serious research by the academic community KM is ‑ at best ‑ showing only weak signs of convergence. If maturing in terms of quality and productivity, it remains young in terms of disciplinary comportment. I once listened to a French cultural anthropologist explain to a French television crew why he had chosen to live and work in the United States (his business being to de‑code European culture for the American marketing machine).

He told them that European culture was an old culture with its codes well sorted and established. He characterized American cultural codes as young, searching and mixed, not unlike adolescents the world over no matter what their national origin. In the end he explained that after weighing the pros and cons he finally decided that he thoroughly preferred being mixed up with the young and the restless. The freedom and frontiers of youth being ""better"" than the standards and strictures of establishment.

This could very well be part of the attraction that KM has for a growing number of academics around the world. I have found the papers in this edition of value and I hope that you will as well."

 

Keywords: adaptive testing, affects, collective search, communities of practice, concept design, discourse analysis, information exchange, innovation, intellectual capital, knowledge cooperation, knowledge process, knowledge sharing, knowledge spiral model, knowledge transfer, Nonaka, online communities, ontology, organisational learning, story telling, tacit knowledge, university-industry interactions, user-centred design

 

Share |

Journal Issue

Volume 5 Issue 2, ICICKM 2006 / May 2007  pp131‑254

Editor: Dan Remenyi

View Contents Download PDF (free)

Editorial

This Special Issue of EJKM originated from the papers delivered at ICICKM 2006 in Santiago de Chile in October last year. Of course the papers have been improved by their authors since they were first presented and are now offered to a much wider audience.

The 12 papers in this edition are especially interesting in that I have seldom seen such a wide diversity of subjects. This collection is indeed strong evidence that the topic of Knowledge Management and its co‑traveller Intellectual Capital have a remarkably diverse scope. A few years ago, perhaps a dozen or so, some academics might have thrown up their hands in horror. ""How can we have a discipline with such porous boundaries?"" I imagine them to have said. Well in today's academic world boundaries are increasingly difficult to define and more difficult to maintain. Subjects blur into each other. And this phenomenon is not the result of a new way of research or thinking. It is simply the result of being more cognoscente of the way the world actually works.

It would of course be wrong to say that boundaries between subjects no longer exist or that they are no longer relevant. But it is true to say that we have now a much more open mind about how we think of research and how we combine different fields of studies. We have for a while been talking about multidisciplinary research. Then we focused on interdisciplinary research. Today we sometimes talk about trans‑disciplinary research. When anyone is brave enough to ask what these terms actually mean academics often run for cover.

For me the terms multidisciplinary research or interdisciplinary research or trans‑disciplinary research signals that we are focusing on a real problem which like so many situations in business needs to be understood and managed while bearing in mind that it is unlikely that any one centre of knowledge will be able to provide the whole answer.

The diversity in this edition of EJKM supports this notion.

 

Keywords: adaptive testing, affects, collective search, communities of practice, concept design, discourse analysis, information exchange, innovation, intellectual capital, knowledge cooperation, knowledge process, knowledge sharing, knowledge spiral model, knowledge transfer, Nonaka, online communities, ontology, organisational learning, story telling, tacit knowledge, university-industry interactions, user-centred design

 

Share |