سرمایه فکری در بازارهای تجاری بنگاه به بنگاه
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|23755||2009||17 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||محاسبه نشده|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Industrial Marketing Management, Volume 38, Issue 2, February 2009, Pages 159–165
This paper reports on research concerning the level of knowledge assets possessed by firms in business-oriented vs. consumer-oriented industries. Further, the research also covers the level of competitive intelligence activity in these industry groups, estimating the level of interest of competitors in acquiring another firm's knowledge assets. From this information, we can begin to develop ideas about what types of firms and industries can really benefit from knowledge management systems and investment, as well as which can benefit from knowledge protection systems. As a result, the issues of knowledge management and knowledge protection become much more strategic and more obviously dependent on circumstances. Such a conclusion begs the question of what measures will help us to determine important circumstances and optimal knowledge strategies for competitive advantage, clearly opening up the field to a wide range of future research streams.
Intellectual capital (IC) and knowledge management (KM) are related in a number of ways, including their growth in practitioner circles prior to scholarly interest. Although there is a deep and lengthy research history in the broader area of organizational learning, the more specific concept of actually identifying and managing the knowledge possessed by employees is younger and grew out of observed phenomena affecting firms, phenomena such as sky-high market capitalizations relative to physical assets, losses of key employees and their expertise, and new abilities to share knowledge across modern information technology systems. Both IC and KM concern themselves with identifying and better leveraging the knowledge assets of the organization. But the two concepts also differ somewhat in emphasis and application. KM tends to be more human resources oriented, including both the big IT systems necessary to collect, store, and distribute codified knowledge and more person-to-person applications such as communities of practice, storytelling, wikis, and related techniques. KM also tends to focus more on the details of the nature of the knowledge (e.g. tacit vs. explicit) and the motivational issues involved in getting individuals to participate in knowledge-sharing systems. IC, on the other hand, grew more out of accounting, trying to tease out the components of the intangible assets that have become so prominent in recent decades. By determining ways to measure specific intangibles, especially those we would consider knowledge assets, we can then better manage them. As the metrics and understanding get more precise, our ability to manage human capital, structural capital, and relational capital improves. So the two fields, KM and IC, are talking about the same things, just with slightly different emphases. Both get into the strategic and competitive issues we'll be addressing in this paper. Consequently, this literature review includes background on both disciplines as a foundation for our study. The main thrust of the study, however, uses a measure of intellectual capital to assess the level of knowledge assets (and, thus, knowledge management success) in business-oriented vs. consumer-oriented industries. Similarly, we assess the level of competitive intelligence activity in business and consumer industries. In general, it appears that industrial markets do not manage or protect knowledge assets at as high a level as consumer markets.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
This study approaches some questions concerning the management and protection of knowledge assets in several new ways. In identifying the level of knowledge assets in specific industries, we capture the different levels of application of knowledge. These different levels clearly vary by industry (and, obviously, by firm) suggesting that the management of knowledge is conditioned by environment and is thus strategic. The protection of knowledge is similarly circumstance-specific. What are those circumstances? We have a lot of guidelines from theory, including the type of knowledge (tacit/explicit, human/structural/relational capital, complexity, stickiness, etc.) and the conditions of use. But these have often been applied at a very micro level, not leading to broad conclusions. Our results suggest that differences, at a more macro level, are readily apparent by industry, and thus we can start working backward in terms of explaining what variables might influence these differences. Further, by demonstrating that business markets are very different from consumer markets in terms of the knowledge employed by competitors, the nature of the variables, or at least the questions we need to ask about them, become clearer. And as we move even more deeply into specific types of business markets and specific types of consumer markets, the clarification only increases. Further research, then, will flow in two directions. Initially, we can take these results and seek correlations with financial performance. Does a higher level of knowledge assets actually lead to better financial performance? On the industry level, do industries utilizing more knowledge actually see better returns? Perhaps even more enlightening would be individual firms within industries: do firms with more knowledge relative to industry averages perform better than those with less? Secondly, we can take the knowledge asset levels and try to associate them with measures of types of firm knowledge. If we can measure tacit knowledge vs. explicit or if we can measure human capital levels, we can shed more light on what best generates the higher knowledge levels (that might lead to better financial performance). And, of course, all of the same concepts apply to competitive intelligence activities and protection mechanisms as well. Does more CI activity correlate with higher financial performance? Can we associate certain knowledge variables with the higher levels of CI activity? The end result of this sort of research will be strategic prescriptions for individual firms. If we can measure the knowledge situation of a firm, we can start to make recommendations on strategy. Should the firm invest in systems that help it to manage its knowledge assets more effectively, increasing intangibles relative to tangibles? Or are knowledge assets just not that important in its given industry? Should the firm invest in an aggressive CI operation and/or counterintelligence and protection systems? Or is the payoff just not great enough in its given industry? What is important in the industry relative to knowledge development and protection and what isn't? Once we start to answer those questions, we'll be getting into areas where strategists really do begin to care about how knowledge is managed.