**7. Conclusion**

With the emergence of the knowledge driven economy, knowledge assets have become the most important factor of production in 21st century organizations. This therefore suggests that knowledge assets should drive the long term competitiveness of these organizations. However, without satisficing the pluralized interests of stakeholders, it would be impossible for knowledge assets to achieve this objective.

This present article has identified six different processes (i.e. codification, de-codification, personification, impersonification, humanization, and de-humanization) by which different knowledge assets (i.e. structural knowledge, human knowledge and relational knowledge) can be synchronized or integrated with a business strategy that seeks the satisficing of organizational stakeholders´ interests.

It is worth noting that for the very first time in the history of knowledge management, the interrelationships and interdependencies between the different knowledge assets; and the ways by which they create value for organizations was well delineated by the stakeholder model that was developed in this study.

Further more, with the use of extant material in the field of knowledge management, it was impossible to define the functionality of all the different knowledge assets. However, this problem has been largely ameliorated through the purpose driven differentiation typology adopted for the naming of these knowledge assets. Based on this typology, any facet of these assets could be specifically targeted by knowledge assets´ managers for performance improvement.

Most importantly, this purpose driven differentiation of knowledge assets is superior to extant categorization of knowledge assets because it affords us the opportunity of properly discerning the key indicators required for tracking down the performance of these knowledge assets; as well as providing the leeway for their effective management to the betterment of organizational stakeholders for long term organizational competitiveness.

 It is suggested here that empirical studies should be undertaken to test the various propositions posed in this study; as this would help validate the veracity of the six aforementioned processes that integrate the different types of knowledge assets. Finally, one philosophical stance of this article hinges on employees´ knowledge specialization; but it may be possible for an employee to possess some tacit knowledge in two or more areas of specialized knowledge. Such situations in which some employees may be jack of all trades will be the subject of another article.

#### **8. References**

94 New Research on Knowledge Management Models and Methods

knowledge must be regularly monitored to ensure the flourishing of these four processes in

The other two processes (i.e. de-humanization and impersonification) which enable the addition of stocks of explicit knowledge to differentiated forms of relational knowledge and structural knowledge without the rigorous functioning of the human mind can be kept alive in organizations by exploring and exploiting various impersonal sources of information that

Finally, the discontinuous functioning of all the six knowledge based processes also depends on the nexus between structural knowledge that has been shared amongst all organizational employees and the sustenance of the network of relationship that the organization has with its stakeholders. As already stated in an earlier section of this article, organizational structural knowledge would always influence business strategy and this should not adversely affect the network of relationship between organizations and their stakeholders. Consequently, structural knowledge and relational knowledge must mutually reinforce each other in order for these integrative processes to concurrently and discontinuously produce the different forms of knowledge assets needed for long term

With the emergence of the knowledge driven economy, knowledge assets have become the most important factor of production in 21st century organizations. This therefore suggests that knowledge assets should drive the long term competitiveness of these organizations. However, without satisficing the pluralized interests of stakeholders, it would be impossible

This present article has identified six different processes (i.e. codification, de-codification, personification, impersonification, humanization, and de-humanization) by which different knowledge assets (i.e. structural knowledge, human knowledge and relational knowledge) can be synchronized or integrated with a business strategy that seeks the satisficing of

It is worth noting that for the very first time in the history of knowledge management, the interrelationships and interdependencies between the different knowledge assets; and the ways by which they create value for organizations was well delineated by the stakeholder

Further more, with the use of extant material in the field of knowledge management, it was impossible to define the functionality of all the different knowledge assets. However, this problem has been largely ameliorated through the purpose driven differentiation typology adopted for the naming of these knowledge assets. Based on this typology, any facet of these assets could be specifically targeted by knowledge assets´ managers for performance

Most importantly, this purpose driven differentiation of knowledge assets is superior to extant categorization of knowledge assets because it affords us the opportunity of properly discerning the key indicators required for tracking down the performance of these knowledge assets; as well as providing the leeway for their effective management to the betterment of organizational stakeholders for long term organizational competitiveness. It is suggested here that empirical studies should be undertaken to test the various propositions posed in this study; as this would help validate the veracity of the six

expose organizational members to the interests of their stakeholders.

organizations.

organizational competitiveness.

for knowledge assets to achieve this objective.

organizational stakeholders´ interests.

model that was developed in this study.

**7. Conclusion** 

improvement.


A Stakeholder Model for Managing Knowledge Assets in Organizations 97

Markus, M. (2001). "Toward a Theory of Knowledge Reuse: Types of Knowledge Reuse

Menon, T. and Pfeffer, J. (2003). "Valuing Internal vs External Knowledge: Explaining the Preference for Outsiders", *Management Science,* Vol. 49, No. 4: 497-513. Nasi, J. (1982). "Towards a Deeper Comprehension of the Social Responsibility of Firms:

Research", *Turku School of Economics and Business Administration, Series A.* 

Neilsen, C., Roslender, R., and Bukh, P. (2009). " Intellectual Capital Reporting: Can a

Nonaka, I. (1994). "A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation", *Organization* 

Ordonez de Pablos, P. (2001). "Relevant Experiences on Measuring and Reporting

Ordonez de Pablos, P. (2004). "Knowledge Flow Transfers in Multinational Corporations:

Ordonez de Pablos, P. (2005). "Intellectual Capital Accounts: What Pioneering Firms from

Petty, R. and Guthrie, J. (2000). "Intellectual Capital Literature Review", *Journal of Intellectual* 

Polanyi, M. (1962). "Personal Knowledge", in *Meaning,* M. Polanyi and H. Prosch (eds.)

Quinn, B. (2005). "The Intelligent Enterprise of a New Paradigm", *Academy of Management* 

Rumelt, R. (1984). "Towards a Strategic Theory of the Firm", In R.B. Lamb (ed.), *Competitive* 

Rumelt, R. (1987). "Theory, Strategy, and Entrepreneurship", in D. Teece (ed.), *The* 

Saenz, J. and Gomez, J. (2008). "Intangible Disclosure, Market Performance and Business

Schneider, M. (2002). "A Stakeholder Model of Organizational Leadership", *Organization* 

Schuima, G. (2009). "Strategies for Assessing Organizational Knowledge Assets" in Lytras,

*Managing Intellectual Capital,* New York: Information Science Reference. Shafritz, J. and Ott, S. (1996). *Classics of Organization Theory,* New York: Harcourt Brace

Reputation- the case of Spain", *International Journal of Learning and Intellectual* 

M. and Ordonez de Pablos, P. (eds.) (2009). *Knowledge Ecology in Global Business:* 

Nasi, J. (1995). (ed.) *Understanding Stakeholder Thinking,* Helsinki: LSR-Publications.

*Capital,* New York: Information Science Reference.

*Knowledge Management,* London: Butterworth-Heinemann

Penrose, E. (1959). *The Theory of the Growth of the Firm,* Wiley: New York.

(1975), Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp22-45.

*Strategic Management,* Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, N.J.

*Competitive Challenge,* Ballinger: Cambridge, MA. pp.556-570.

Vol. 18, No 1: 57-93.

*Science,* Vol. 5, No 1: 14-37.

*Management,* Vol 8, No 4: 105-116.

*executive,* Vol. 19, No. 4: 109-120.

*Capital,* Vol. 5, No. 1: 83-99.

College Publishers.

*Science,* Vol. 13, No. 2: 209-220.

Vol 1. No 3: 249-268.

*Capital,* Vol. 1: 155-176.

Situations and Factors in Reuse Success", *Journal of Management Information Systems,*

Some Philosophical, Conceptual and Methodological Frameworks for Scientific

Strategy Perspective Solve Accounting Problems?" in Lytras, M. and Ordonez de Pablos, P. (eds.) (2009). *Knowledge Ecology in Global Business: Managing Intellectual* 

Intellectual Capital in European Pioneering Firms", in N. Bontis and C. Chong (eds.), *Organizational Intelligence: The Cutting Edge of Intellectual Capital and* 

Knowledge Properties and Implications for Management" *Journal of Knowledge* 

Asia and Europe are doing Now." *International Journal of Knowledge and Learning,*

Falconer, J.(2011). "Rewinding History: Paradoxes, Evanescence, and Hubris in Learning/Knowledge Exploration, *International Journal of Learning and Intellectual Capital,* Vol. 8, No. 1: 18-29.

Freeman, R. (1984). *Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach,* Marshfield (MA): Pitman.


Falconer, J.(2011). "Rewinding History: Paradoxes, Evanescence, and Hubris in

Freeman, R. (1984). *Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach,* Marshfield (MA): Pitman. Freeman, R. (2002). "A Shareholder Theory of the Modern Corporation" in P. Hartman (ed),

Grant, R. (1996). "Toward a Knowledge Based Theory of the Firm", *Strategic Management* 

Grover, V. and Davenport, T. (2001). "General Perspectives on Knowledge Management:

Grover, V. and Davenport, T. (2001). "General Perspectives on Knowledge Management:

Hansen, M.; Nohria, N.; and Tierney, T. (1999). "What's your Strategy for Managing

Hillman, A. and Keim, G. (2001). "Shareholder Value, Stakeholder Management, and Social

Ho, C. (2007). "Identifying Stakeholders' Position through Value Creation System", *The* 

Houghton, J. and Sheetan, P. (2000). "A Primer on the Knowledge Economy", *Centre for* 

Hsu, H. (2009). "Managing the Information Technology: Knowledge Transfer in Virtual

Joia, L. and Sanz, P. (2009). "The Conundrum of Valuing a Company's Intellectual Capital:

Kaplan, R. and Norton, D. (1992). "The Balanced Scorecard- measures that drive

Kaplan, R. and Norton, D. (1993). "Putting the Balanced Scorecard to Work", *Harvard* 

Kaplan, R. and Norton, D. (1996). "Using the Balanced Scorecard as a Strategic Management

Lytras, M. and Ordonez de Pablos, P. (2009). "The Building of the Intellectual Capital

Malhotra, Y. (2000). "Knowledge Assets in the Global Economy: Assessment of National Intellectual Capital", *Journal of Global Information Management,* Vol 8, No. 3: 5-15.

Statement in Multinationals: Challenges for the Future" in Lytras, M. and Ordonez de Pablos, P. (eds.) (2009). *Knowledge Ecology in Global Business: Managing Intellectual* 

performance" *Harvard Business Review,* January- February: 72-79.

System", *Harvard Business Review,* January-February, 76.

*Capital,* New York: Information Science Reference.

March, J. and Simon, H. (1958). *Organizations,* New York: Wiley.

Knowledge?", *Harvard Business Review,* March-April Issue: 106-116.

*Business Review, Cambridge,* Vol 7. No 1: 254-262.

York: Information Science Reference.

*Business Review,* September-October: 134-147.

*Strategic Economic Studies,* Victoria University, Australia.

Fostering a Research Agenda", *Journal of Management Information Systems,* Vol. 18.

Fostering a Research Agenda", *Journal of Management Information Systems,* Vol. 18,

Issues: What's the Bottom Line?", *Strategic Management Journal,* Vol. 22, No. 2: 125-

Teams", in Lytras, M. and Ordonez de Pablos, P. (eds.) (2009). *Knowledge Ecology in Global Business: Managing Intellectual Capital,* New York: Information Science

The Role of Taken for Granted Indicators", in Lytras, M. and Ordonez de Pablos, P. (eds.) (2009). *Knowledge Ecology in Global Business: Managing Intellectual Capital,* New

*Perspectives in Business ethics,* London: Mc Graw Hill, 171-181pp. Friedman, M. (2002). *Capitalism and Freedom,* Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

*Capital,* Vol. 8, No. 1: 18-29.

*Journal,* Vol. 17: 109-122.

No. 1: 5-21.

No. 1: 5-21.

139.

Reference.

Learning/Knowledge Exploration, *International Journal of Learning and Intellectual* 


**5** 

*Lebanon* 

**Performance Innovation Through Applied** 

Organizations experience the competitive advantage of innovation as they face a globalizing knowledge economy. In that regard, knowledge management has evolved as one of the most important sources of competitive advantage (Drucker 1988; Senge 1990; Davenport and Prusak, 1998; Srikantajah and Koening, 2000; Tang, 2011). Many of the older companies remain on the forefront of their markets, and sustain their superiority over supposedly aggressive and nimble start-ups through their ability to manage knowledge and innovation in a steady and paced manner (Brand, 1998; McAdam, 2000; Swanborg, 2010). As concepts of the learning organization evolved over the last decades, knowledge management became synonymous to competitive advantage. Since knowledge is the catalyst to the development of core competences, it is a main driver of innovation in the organization. This is particularly important in the current globalization wave that is pressuring companies to go beyond traditional self-renewal techniques such as the acquisition of external technologies or the purchase of modern assets. Organizations are pushed to create an internal, self-propelling process for product innovation that would keep it steps ahead of competition (Ahuja, 2011;

As the idea of knowledge management made it into corporate practice, processes were put in place to make the idea operational. The field then grew to include a typology of knowledge; namely two major types – codified knowledge and tacit knowledge (Handy, 1989; Millar, 1998; Chalhoub 1997; Senge, 1990). While codified knowledge lends itself to being embedded in repetitive processes within daily operations, tacit knowledge requires various types of direct interaction in between parties for knowledge to be exchanged and ideas to evolve (Wetlaufer, 1999; Adva 2011). Codified knowledge requires what is called extraction processes and mechanisms so that companies could use it in the form of intranets, electronic or traditional media, and signs and symbols that could be interpreted by anyone acting independently or with minimal interaction (Chalhoub, 2010; Hansen et al. 1999). Although codification techniques have proven to be helpful especially in cases of turnover,

**1. Introduction** 

Yang 2007).

**2. A typology of knowledge: Management choices** 

**Knowledge Management: Thought** 

**Leadership in Organizations** 

*Engineering and Management Consulting* 

Michel Soto Chalhoub *Chairman, ISIS Group* 

Simon, H. (1982). *Models of Bounded Rationality,* Vols. 1 and 2, MIT Press.

