THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN KNOWLEDGE ASSETS AND ORGANIZATIONAL STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT

Abstract

Knowledge assets represent the fount of an organization’s competences and capabilities that are deemed essential for its growth, competitive advantage and human development. The aim of this research is to define, within the context of Turkish firms in the both the manufacturing and services industries, what constitutes a knowledge asset, and to identify any perceived links and influence between knowledge assets and strategic management. To achieve this, a survey based on the questionnaire developed by Paul James (2005) was conducted. The research revealed important insights regarding the perception and mindset of Turkish managers. The most important knowledge assets were determined as experienced people, ability to learn, know-how, information technology, human skills, social relations and networks, on-line journals and databases, intellectual property rights, registered designs, web content, copyrights, organizational procedures. However, regression analysis found that only experienced people, learning ability, know-how, information technology and human skills as knowledge assets have significant relationship and effect on organizational strategy development.

Keywords

• Knowledge assets, knowledge management, organizational strategy development

Kaynakça

1. Carlucci, D. and G. Schiuma (2006), “Knowledge Asset Value Spiral: Linking Knowledge Assets to Company’s Performance, Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 35-46.
2. Davenport, T.H. and L. Prusak (2000), Working Knowledge: How organisations Manage what they know, Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
3. Drucker, P.F. (1993), Post Capitalist Society, New York: Harper Business.
4. Grant, R.M. (1991), “The Resource-Based Theory of Competitive Advantage: Implications for
5. Strategy Formation”, California Management Review, Vol. 33, No. 3, pp. 114-135. James, P. (2005), Knowledge Asset Management: The Strategıc Management and Knowledge
6. Management Nexus, DBA thesis, Southern Cross University. Keskin, H. (2005), “Relationships Between Explicit and Tacit Oriented KM Strategy, and Firm
7. Performance”, Journal of American Academy of Business, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 169-175. Li,S. and M. Tsai (2009), “A Dynamic Taxonomy for Managing Knowledge Assets”, Technovation, Vol. 29, pp. 284-298.
8. Nonaka, I. (1991), “The Knowledge-Creating Company”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 69, No. , pp. 96-108.

9. Nonaka, I. (1994), “A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation”, Organization Science, Vol.5, No. 1, pp. 14-37.
10. Nonaka, I., R. Toyama and N. Konno (2000), “SECI, ba, and Leadership: A Unified Model of
11. Dynamic Knowledge Creation”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 33, pp. 5-34. Polanyi, M. (1966), The Tacit Dimension, New York: Doubleday.
12. Smith, K. G., C. J. Collins and K.D. Clark (2005), “Existing Knowledge, Knowledge Creation,
13. Capability, and the Rate of New Product Introduction in High-Technology Firms”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 48, No. 2, pp. 346–357. Spender, J.C. (1996), “Making Knowledge the Basis of a Dynamic Theory of the Firm”, Strategic
14. Management Journal, Vol. 17, Winter Special Issue, pp. 45-62. Stephens, D. (2001), “Knowledge Management in The APS: A Stock-Take and a Prospectus:
15. Canberra Evaluation Forum, p. 23, 15 March 2001, Canberra.
16. Walczak, S. (2005), “Organizational Knowledge Management Structure”, The Learning
17. Organization, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 330-339. Wiig, K.M. (1997), “Knowledge Management: An introduction and perspective”, The Journal of
18. Knowledge Management, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 6-14.