Search results

The purpose of this paper is to present a new learning and growth perspective for the balanced scorecard (BSC) that includes more specific measures of integrated thinking and value creation to help improve integrated reporting (<IR>). Practical, relevant definitions of these historically vague concepts may improve intangible asset disclosures (IAD) and increase uptake of the<IR> framework.

The paper is conceptual. The authors use organisational learning to theorise about the learning and growth perspective of the BSC, within the context of the practice of IAD.

Several criticisms of IAD, the<IR>framework and the BSC have acted as barriers to implementing the<IR>framework. The improved version of the BSC’s learning and growth perspective, presented in this paper, addresses those criticisms by redefining the concept of integrated thinking (learning) and more fully connecting that learning to future value creation (growth). The model is designed to be used in tandem with the<IR>framework to operationalise integrated thinking. A new BSC strategy map illustrates how this revised learning and growth perspective interacts with the other three BSC perspectives to create long-term shareholder value through the management and growth of knowledge within an organisation.

Organisational learning is an important source of competitive advantage in the modern knowledge economy. Here, the authors encourage further debate on how to report and disclose information on intangible assets, driven by a new conceptual strategy for organisational learning that fully supports the BSC’s capacity to help integrated thinking and future value creation for the<IR>framework.

From its roots as a performance measurement system, the BSC has become a widely used strategy execution tool. The<IR>framework has struggled to gain traction, but still has value in exploring intangible assets and its disclosure from a systems thinking perspective. The model is designed to bring an explicit understanding of how to improve integrated thinking for the<IR>framework facilitating better measurement, management and reporting of human and structural capital. By doing so, the new model enables a firm to use the BSC to engage with<IR>more effectively, which should also be useful for practitioners given the widespread use of the BSC.

The analysis of the BSC’s learning and growth perspective reveals two dichotomies – one between resources and growth, and another between systems and capability. The revised perspective resolves these dichotomies with clear, forward-focused measures of learning and intangible asset growth, and multiple vertical and horizontal connections between the perspective’s four constructs. The authors demonstrate practical paths to value creation through a range of strategic impacts.

Knowledge loss caused by employee exit has become a significant corporate risk. This paper aims to explore how to measure the impact of knowledge loss. The paper is based on empirical evidence from a five-year longitudinal study.

This paper is based on a longitudinal change project for a large Australian Research Council Linkage Project grant in the period 2008-2013. The method was a single case study using a critical realism paradigm. The project was a transformational change programme which aimed to help make the partner organization a learning organization to minimize the impact of knowledge loss. The partner organization was a large Australian Government Department, which faced the threat of knowledge loss caused by its ageing workforce. The sample was 118 respondents, mainly engineering and technical workers. A total of 150 respondents were invited to participate in the study which involved an annual survey and attendance at regular training workshops and related activities, with a participation rate of 79 per cent.

The results found that knowledge loss has most negative impact in terms of organizational problems including low productivity (morale), strategic misalignment of the workforce (capability gaps), resource cuts (stakeholders unhappy with performance), decreased work quantity and quality (inexperienced employees), work outputs not being used (customers mistrust), longer time to competence (learning cost) and slow task completion (increased search cycle time). The second most significant impact was increased sense of risk associated with work activities and declining capacity to manage the risk. The third main impact was decreased organizational knowledge base: knowledge loss creates knowledge deficit which is unlikely to be filled over time, as shown by the knowledge accounts of surviving employees which remained stable overall. The two remaining measurement constructs – psychological contract and learning organizational capacity – improved, which suggests that the negative impact of knowledge loss may be addressed with appropriate knowledge management.

The research is based on a single case study in a public sector organization. While the longitudinal nature of the study and the rich data collected offsets this issue, it also presents good opportunities for researchers and practitioners to test the ideas presented in this paper in other industry contexts. The complexity and range of the constructs, concepts and scale items is acknowledged. Tables have been used wherever possible to help the reader access the findings.

Knowledge loss is perhaps the greatest corporate risk facing organizations today. This paper provides a method to measure the impact of knowledge loss. Managers may use this to assess the significance of the risk and use this as a business case to take action to minimize the impact of knowledge loss.

Prior research has found knowledge loss has caused decreased psychological contract, lost organizational memory, inefficiency and ineffectiveness and declining capability; however, these concepts are discussed in broad terms only. This paper addresses the need for measurement concepts which helps us understand the nature of the impact of knowledge loss. Five knowledge loss concepts are developed: knowledge resources, psychological contract, learning organization capacity, risk management and organizational problems. The results are based on a large-scale longitudinal study providing empirical evidence of change over a three-year period, situated within the context of a research intervention, i.e. knowledge management programme.

Increasingly, managers are becoming aware of the importance of knowledge resources in pursuing international business strategy. Knowledge provides the capability to identify, examine and capture market opportunities. It develops competence in important activities and helps resolve problems. Knowledge is also changing the way firms compete, particularly in international business where opportunities to create value are shifting from managing tangible assets to managing knowledge‐based strategies. This shifting competitive landscape is being driven by the speed of competition. Firms require a framework for managing knowledge resources in dynamic and rapidly changing market conditions. This article uses a case study approach to examine knowledge management for an Australian firm with operations throughout Asia. Based on depth interviews with the firm’s 20 most senior executives, we developed a knowledge management strategy for the firm’s international business operations that aimed to address these issues. Our model explains a process for managing knowledge in order to achieve a quantum change in international business strategy. This is particularly important in international business as firms’ recognize the need for different strategic approaches in overseas markets. Our model extends Kaplan and Norton’s concept of strategic themes to incorporate the strategic management imperative of value creating activities. In doing so, it provides a way to link strategy and knowledge resources in order to achieve significant strategic change.

This paper aims to evaluate a range of best practice knowledge management (KM) ideas used to manage knowledge flows and enablers. In total, four KM toolkits and 23 KM tools were tested over a five-year period (2008-2013), as part of a large-scale longitudinal change project. Each tool was assessed against an evaluative framework designed to test criticisms of KM: strategy, implementation and performance. The results provide empirical evidence about what KM tools work and which do not and why, and outcomes for practitioners, researchers and consultants.

This paper presents a summary of the findings of a large Australian Research Council (ARC) Linkage Project grant in the period of 2008-2013. The case study organisation (CSO) was a large public sector department, which faced the threat of lost capability caused by its ageing workforce and knowledge loss. The project aimed to solve this problem by minimising its impact via achieving learning organisation capacity. The CSO participating in the study was selected because it was a knowledge-intensive organisation, with an ageing workforce. All 150 engineering and technical staff at the CSO were invited to participate, including management and staff. An action research methodology was used.

The results provide empirical evidence that KM can be used to manage knowledge flows and enablers. The highest rating toolkit was knowledge preservation, followed by knowledge usage. The most value was created by using KM to provide “why context” to structural capital (e.g. reports, databases, policies) (meta-data) and to create opportunities to reflect on experience and share the learning outcomes (peer assists and after action reviews). The results tended to support criticism that KM is difficult to implement and identified the main barriers as participation located at the tactical action research level, i.e. why is this useful? Evidence that KM works was found in progress towards learning organisation capacity and in practical outcomes.

The action research cycle and learning flows provide opportunities to examine barriers to KM implementation. The research also presents opportunities for further research to examine the findings in other organisational and industry settings, for example, the relationship between the KM toolkits and organisational change and performance, presents an important area for further research. Researchers might also consider some of the toolkits which rated poorly, e.g. knowledge sharing, and challenge these findings, perhaps selecting different KS tools for testing. The paper has limitations. It is based on a single case study organisation, offset, to some degree, by the longitudinal nature of the empirical evidence. It is ambitious and the findings may be controversial. However, the depth of the study and its findings provide rare longitudinal empirical evidence about KM and the results should be useful for practitioners, researchers and consultants.

For practitioners, the research findings provide management with an evaluative framework to use when making decisions regarding KM. The findings provide discussion of KM toolkits and tools that may be used to manage knowledge flows and enablers. In addition to the discussion of each tool, there is analysis of what works and what does not and why, barriers to implementation as well as explanation of their impact on organisational change and performance, and a scorecard to guide toolkit choices. This method should allow managers to make sensible decisions about KM.

The paper addresses criticisms of KM by examining the KM toolkits within the context of whether knowledge can be managed, implementation barriers may be addressed and improved organisational performance can be demonstrated. This approach allows generalisability of the findings to enable others to apply the research findings in their organisational contexts. The outcome is three sets of guidelines: strategy: which KM tools work; implementation: addressing barriers; and organisational performance: how to measure value. In doing so, the paper provides a systematic framework for evaluating KM tools. It also provides a rare opportunity to present empirical evidence gathered over a five-year longitudinal study.

This paper aims to evaluate a range of best practice knowledge management (KM) ideas used to manage knowledge resources. In total, four KM toolkits and 16 KM tools were tested over a five-year period (2008-2013), as part of a large-scale longitudinal change project. Each tool was assessed against an evaluative framework designed to test criticisms of KM: strategy, implementation and performance. The results provide empirical evidence about which KM tools work and which do not and why, and outcomes for practitioners, researchers and consultants.

The case study organization participating in the study was selected because it was a knowledge-intensive organization, with an ageing workforce. An invitation and cover letter explaining the study were sent via email to all 150 engineering and technical staff at the case study organization. Therefore, the entire population was included in the study. Respondents were asked to attend training workshops. Following each workshop, respondents were asked to complete feedback in the form of learning journals and to be involved in work-place based trials of the KM tools. Both management and staff participated in the project.

The results provide empirical evidence that KM can be used to manage knowledge resources. The highest rating toolkit was knowledge strategy, followed by knowledge measurement. The most value was created by using KM to introduce objectivity into future thinking (future capability requirements) and decisions when filling competency gaps (sourcing). The results tended to support criticism that KM is difficult to implement and identified the main barriers as participation located at the operational action research level, i.e. how do we make this work? Evidence that KM works was found in progress towards learning organization capacity and in practical outcomes.

The action research cycle and learning flows provide opportunities to examine barriers to KM implementation. The research also presents opportunities for further research to examine the findings in other organizational and industry settings, for example, the relationship between the KM toolkits and organizational change and performance, presents an important area for further research. Researchers might also consider some of the toolkits which rated poorly, e.g. knowledge creation (KC), and challenge these findings, perhaps selecting different KC tools for testing. The paper has limitations. It is based on a single case study organization, offset, to some degree, by the longitudinal nature of the empirical evidence. It is ambitious, and the findings may be controversial. However, the depth of the study and its findings provide rare longitudinal empirical evidence about KM, and the results should be useful for practitioners, researchers and consultants.

There are many critics of KM. It has been described as overwhelmingly optimistic and managerial rhetoric; that its claims are false; and that many KM initiatives fail and, therefore, it does not create value for the firm, and its return on investment is unlikely. There is a shortage of empirical studies demonstrating an actual connection between KM and organizational performance. Despite widespread interest and growth in investment by practitioners and growth in research, KM needs validation to give people confidence in its value and some of the problems associated with implementation. This paper provides rare empirical evidence gathered from a five-year (2008-2013) large-scale longitudinal change project to address this gap. For practitioners, the research findings provide management with an evaluative framework to use when making decisions regarding KM.

Much of the previous research on this topic looks at specific KM tools only, and often at one point in time. This study examined a wide range of best-practice KM tools as part of an integrated set of KM systems, launched at the same time and studied over five years. The study did not examine what the case study does in terms of KM. Instead, it deliberately introduced tools which were new to the case study organization. The results provide practical outcomes in terms of the effectiveness of KM when introduced to an organization as a system of integrated tools, and what happens in the five years that follow.

The paper examines ways that Knowledge Management (KM) can demonstrate practical value for organizations. It begins by reviewing the claims made about KM, i.e. the benefits KM can provide to organizations. These claims are compared with traditional firm performance metrics to derive a criterion to measure the value of KM. Seven practical outcomes of KM are then presented as methods to persuade managers to invest in KM. These practical outcomes are then evaluated against the value criterion. The paper is based on empirical evidence from a five year longitudinal study.

This paper is based on a longitudinal change project for a large Australian Research Council (ARC) Linkage Project grant in the period 2008-2013. The Project was a transformational change program which aimed to help make the partner organisation a learning organisation. The partner organisation was a large Australian Government Department, which faced the threat of knowledge loss caused by its ageing workforce. The sample was 118 respondents, mainly engineering and technical workers. A total of 150 respondents were invited to participate in the study which involved an annual survey and attendance at regular training workshops and related activities, with a participation rate of 79 per cent.

This paper provides a checklist from which to evaluate KM in terms of financial and non-financial measures and seven practical outcomes from which to identify the organisational problem which may be addressed by KM. Lead and lag indicators – what needs to be done and what will result – are also provided. Managers may use this framework to identify the value proposition in any KM investment.

The research is based on a single case study in a public sector organization. While the longitudinal nature of the study and the rich data collected offsets this issue, it also presents good opportunities for researchers and practitioners to test the ideas presented in this paper in other industry contexts. The seven practical outcomes also vary in the maturity of the empirical evidence supporting KM ' s impact. Strategic alignment, value management, and psychological contract, in particular, are still under-developed and could be areas for specific further research testing the ideas presented here.

This paper argues that investment decisions regarding KM may benefit from focusing on significant and on-going organisational problems, which will connect KM with firm performance and demonstrate financial and non-financial impact. The seven practical outcomes were evaluated against measurement criteria and against KM ' s claims. Overall, common themes were time and cost, as well as capability growth and performance improvements. Financial impact was mainly found in cost savings. Non-financial impact was found across the seven practical outcomes. It provides management with a checklist to make investment decisions regarding KM.

The decision whether to invest in KM begins with methods used to evaluate any organisational project. Managers must determine first whether necessary funds are available; and then whether the project is worthwhile. The standard method for evaluating a project ' s worth is return on investment (ROI). However, calculating ROI for KM investment is problematic. Unless KM can be proven to directly improve performance in financial terms, managers may struggle to see its ROI. The paper begins by reviewing the claims made about KM, i.e. the benefits KM can provide to organizations. These claims are compared with traditional firm performance metrics to derive a criterion to measure the value of KM.

The purpose of this article is to examine the affect of national culture on knowledge management (KM) for multinational companies (MNCs). MNCs often have to decide whether to standardize or adapt their operations. Previous research has found that national culture has an effect in a range of MNC operations, e.g. human resources, marketing. However, there has been limited research on the influence of culture on knowledge management. The aim of this article is to propose a framework for standardization and adaptation of knowledge management processes based on differences in national culture.

The following literatures were reviewed: knowledge management processes, the effect of culture on knowledge management, and the standardization versus adaptation decision in international business. These perspectives were combined to develop a conceptual framework that explores the decision to standardise or adapt knowledge management practices.

There are several key findings. First, the impact of national culture on KM may be understood at the level of KM's processes and sub‐processes, e.g. knowledge creation. Second, the level and nature of impact will vary by process or sub‐processes. Third, the variance by process allows us to isolate the impact and better manage it. Fourth, the impact of national culture standardization versus adaptation decision for KM may be resolved through two competing tensions: pressures for cultural responsiveness and pressures for scope economies. Fifth, while there are conditions where standardization is appropriate and where adaptation is appropriate, at the KM system, process and sub‐process levels, the decision must still be implemented effectively. This leads to four potential outcomes of the standardization versus adaptation decision: appropriate and inappropriate standardization, and appropriate and inappropriate adaptation.

The article's conceptual framework provides managers with guidelines on how to understand the impact of national culture on their knowledge management practices, leading to effective standardization versus adaptation decisions. The main contribution is the notion that the impact of culture may be isolated at the process level, providing more flexibility and manageability. Academics may use the conceptual framework as a basis for further empirical research on the standardization and adaptation of knowledge management practices.

This article is the first to examine the standardization and adaptation of knowledge management practices in an international context. The standardization versus adaptation decision has been explored in other disciplines (e.g. strategy, marketing, human resources) and has been found to be an important international business decision. Our conceptual framework makes an innovative contribution to this debate by suggesting there are two tensions involved: pressures for cultural responsiveness and pressures for scope economies. By understanding the factors underlying these pressures and linking these to knowledge management processes, we suggest that firms may isolate and better manage the standardization versus adaptation decision.

The purpose of this paper is to address the subjectivity inherent in existing methods of human capital value measurement (HCVM) by proposing a 360‐degree peer review as a method of validating self‐reporting in HCVM surveys.

The case study is based on a survey of a section of the Royal Australian Navy. The sample was 118 respondents, who were mainly engineering and technical workers, and included both civilian and uniform.

The research may be summarised in three main findings. First, it confirms previous research demonstrating that correlations between self‐ and other‐ratings tend to be low. However, while previous research has found that self‐rating tends to be higher than other‐rating, it was found to be the opposite: other‐rating was higher than self‐rating. Second, personality is discounted as an influencing variable in self‐rating of knowledge. Third, there are patterns in the size of the discrepancy by knowledge dimension (i.e. employee capability, employee sustainability) that allow generalisation about the adjustment necessary to find an accurate self‐other rating of knowledge.

The findings are based on a single case study and are therefore an exercise in theory development rather than theory testing.

The 360‐degree peer review rating of knowledge has considerable application. First, use the outcomes in the way 360‐degree feedback has been traditionally used; i.e. identifying training needs assessment, job analysis, performance appraisal, or managerial and leadership development. Second, use it for performance appraisal – given the method's capacity to identify issues at a very finite level: e.g. are you building effective relationships with customers? Third, identify knowledge gaps, at a strategic level, for recruitment and development targets. Finally, in terms of financial decisions investors might be able to compare knowledge scores by organization.

Traditionally, researchers and practitioners have used other‐ratings as a tool for identifying training and development needs. In this paper, other‐ratings have been introduced as a method for validating self‐rating in the measurement of knowledge. The objective was to address one of the weaknesses in existing methods – subjectivity. The solution to this problem was to use three data points – self‐reporting, 360‐degree peer review, and personality ratings – to validate the measurement of individuals’ human capital. This triangulation method aims to introduce objectivity to survey methods, making it a value measurement rather than value assessment.

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the usefulness of Q Methodology for business research, as an alternative technique for accounting researchers.

Q Methodology is an innovative technique that provides quantitative structure to individuals' opinions via factor analysis. The authors present the results of a case study where Q Methodology was used to examine attitudes towards an on‐line wiki, a Technology Encyclopaedia (TE), amongst 35 engineers and technical employees at a manufacturing company. Management wanted to understand whether employees were willing to embrace social conversational technology as a way of sharing knowledge. The aim of the case study is to demonstrate how Q Methodology works in a practical setting. The authors also examine a published journal article to assess how Q Methodology might be used to enhance accounting research.

The results show that Q Methodology may provide advantages in data gathering (less respondent burden), data analysis (deeper insight into respondent sub‐conscious), and results (better respondent “ownership” of organisational problems and solutions). However, it also has weaknesses in terms of managerial application.

A limitation is that the discussion is based on a single case study.

When working with an industry partner, researchers may need to consider a more positivist approach and be prepared to explain context behind the statements.

Q Methodology appears to offer most value as a data gathering technique. It may also be used to capture respondents' subconscious views on a topic. While the limited time involved will be attractive to practitioners, there is also the potential benefit of increasing respondents' awareness and understanding of the topic under investigation (i.e. action research), enhancing change management and other sensitive organizational issues.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the relationship between human capital (HC) and value creation and employee reward. HC is an important component of intellectual capital (IC). There is growing interest in how IC can be used to create organizational value. This paper addresses the need for critical analysis of IC practices in action. Based on data gathered from three annual surveys at Australia’s second largest public sector organization, the paper introduces psychological contract (PC) as new HC factors, and develops a method to measure HC in terms of value creation (work activity) and employee reward (pay). The findings have practical implications for managers in using the paper’s HC measurement to achieve strategic alignment (SA) of the workforce.

The research was based on data gathered from three annual surveys (2009-2011) of staff at Australia’s second largest public sector organization. A total of 248 questionnaires were completed. Three independent variables conceptualized HC: first, employee capability (HC1); second, employee satisfaction (HC2); and third, employee commitment (HC3). Two dependent variables were tested: work activity and pay. The data collected in this study was analyzed through the use of bivariate correlation and linear regression using SPSS software.

The paper’s major finding is that HC1 (employee capability) and HC2 (employee satisfaction), had a direct positive relationship with the importance of work activity. The paper’s second finding was that only HC1 has a direct positive relationship with the pay. However, HC3 (employee commitment) had a direct negative relationship with the importance of work activity. Further, HC2 and HC3 had no relationship with pay. The research project organization (RPO) achieved SA with employees’ capability and motivation; as well as employee capability and pay. However, inequities emerge in terms of employee commitment and value creation (work activity) and in the PC factors and pay.

While the research findings are limited by them being based on a single RPO, this is offset to some degree by the longitudinal nature of the study and the size of the RPO. It also presents opportunities for further research, particularly in terms of further testing of the new conceptualization of HC in other organizations and industry settings, and investigation of the failed hypotheses: PC and pay; and employee commitment and work activity.

While strong PC employees are being asked to do important work, they are not always being paid at the rate of colleagues doing similar work. This will create perceptions of distributive justice, which will make those with strong PC unhappy, thereby decreasing their PC, disrupting the SA of the value creation, and lead to employee turnover. Managers can address this problem by using the HC method outlined in this paper to introduce methods such as merit increases and variable pay. While this is problematic for public sector organizations often constrained by having to fit salary awards, innovative organizations are increasingly considering more flexible pay systems.

The paper introduces a new conceptualization of HC, and two proxies for organizational performance: pay and work activity. The paper addresses calls for IC in practice research to make the field more relevant for practitioners. The HC model introduced will allow managers to act on IC measurement by linking HC value with adequate pay, increasing motivation, commitment, and productivity, leading to increased innovation and reduced employee turnover.