**1. Introduction**

76 New Research on Knowledge Management Models and Methods

analyzing relevant design precedents and re-synthesized to derive new emergent solutions. These are represented in this chapter as seven precedent-based design recycling models. Knowledge can also be made more useful if transformed from one discipline into another. This is shown in this chapter as biomimetics-inspired design (BID) approach to architectural design. In all of these knowledge management methods including recycling, modeling and transformation; problem-solving can be made more externalized, informed and systematic. Furthermore, applying these methods may provide new sources not only for learning but

Alexander, C. (1977). *A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction.* Oxford University Press Benyus, J. (1997), *Biomimicry: Innovation inspired by Nature*. New York: William Morrow. Berkebile, B. and McLennan, J. (2004), The living building: biomimicry in architecture,

Eilouti, B (2007) Models for the Management of Precedent-Based Information in Engineering

Eilouti, B. and A. Al-Jokhadar. 2007. A Generative System for Mamluk Madrasa Form-

Eilouti, Buthayna H., Al-Sha'ar, Jamil, 2012, Shape Grammars of Traditional Damascene

Eilouti, B.H. (2009), Design knowledge recycling using precedent-based analysis and

Eilouti, B. H. (2010), Biomimetically Correct, International Journal of Architectural

Eilouti, B. H. (2011), Environmental Knowledge in Engineering Design Processing, *The 5th* 

Feuerstein, G. (2002), *Biomorphic Architecture - Human and Animal Forms in Architecture,* 

Kibert, C. J. (2006), Revisiting and reorienting ecological design. *Construction Ecology Symposium*. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA. Knowles, R. (2006), *Ritual House: Drawing on nature's rhythms for architecture and urban design.* 

Pedersen Zari, M. and Storey, J. B. (2007), An ecosystem based biomimetic theory for a

Reap, J., Baumeister, D. and Bras, B. Holism (2005), biomimicry and sustainable engineering. *ASME International Mechanical Engineering Conference and Exposition.* Orlando, FL, USA. Rosemond, A. D. and Anderson, C. B. (2003), Engineering Role Models: Do Non-Human

Todd, J. (2004), Restorer eco-machines for the culture of aquatic animals and the restoration

Wainwright, S. A. (1976), Biggs,W. D., Currey, J. D., Gosline,J. M., *Mechanical Design in* 

Species have the Answers? *Ecological Engineering,* 20, p. 379-387.

of polluted aquatic environments. *BioInspire* 19*.*

*Organisms*, New York, Wiley.

regenerative built environment. *Lisbon Sustainable Building Conference* 07. Lisbon,

synthesis models, *Design Studies*, Elsevier Vol 30, No.4, pp. 340-368

Research , *Archnet*, MIT Press, Vol 4, 2/3 USA, pp 429-442

Hansell, M. (2005), *Animal Architecture,* New York, Oxford University Press. Hastrich, C. (2006), The Biomimicry design spiral, *Biomimicry Newsletter*, 4.1, p. 5-6.

*KGCM 2011*, Orlando, Florida, USA, pp 370-375

Stuttgart, Edition Axel Menges.

Design, pp. 326-331, the *11th World Multi-Conference on Systemics, Cybernetics and* 

Making, *Nexus Network Journal* Vol 9, No.1, pp. 7-30, Birkhäuser, Basel, Switzerland

Houses, *International Journal of Architectural Heritage,* Vol 6 (4), Taylor & Francis, pp.

*International Conference on Knowledge Generation, Communication and Management:* 

integrating technology with nature. *BioInspire* 18*.*

also for innovation.

**10. References** 

*Informatics*, USA

1-21, UK

Island Press.

Portugal.

The valuable and visible things that were made centuries ago to make life meaningful for men in the earth never fell from the skies; they were first of all produced in human minds, and those that will be created in future shall also spring from the same source. The above adage suggests that the specific knowledge required to produce these things in olden days preceded their physical existence. Nevertheless, from time immemorial, knowledge has played the second fiddle to other factors of production like land, capital and labour within organizations. This is a bit absurd, especially when we consider the fact that there is no single product or service that organizations can offer to markets without being first of all produced in the minds of people in the form of a specified knowledge needed for it to see the light of day.

Therefore one wonders that it is only a few years ago that knowledge as an asset was brought into the mainstream of organizational theory. It is now very clear that the primary business of organizations is to sell knowledge based products and that competitiveness hinges on the effective management of all organizational knowledge assets (Grover and Davenport, 2001; Hillman and Keim, 2001; Alavi and Leidner, 2001; Anand, et. al., 2002; Quinn, 2005).

Given the above truism, how can knowledge assets be effectively managed in organizations? This question is very pertinent since the knowledge management literature is rife with the idea that these assets can exist in various forms (Falconer, 2011; Lytras and Ordonez de Pablos, 2009; Schiuma, 2009; Alavi and Leider; 2001; Becerra-Fernandez and Sabherwal, 2001; Akbar, 2003). Hence they all need to synergistically interact and depend on each other for the promotion of organizational effectiveness. However, in order to achieve synergy in the management of knowledge assets, it is important to know the specific roles that each knowledge asset will be playing within organizations. This can only be achieved by extensively differentiating them according to the purpose that they are meant to serve in organizations.

Previously, the process of differentiating knowledge assets has been mainly based on the forms by which they exist (i.e. tacit and explicit knowledge), their sources (i.e. knowledge generated within organizations and externally generated knowledge) and where they are stored (e.g. knowledge in human mind, organizational structure, culture and process, etc.). However, differentiation of knowledge assets in terms of what forms they exist, their

A Stakeholder Model for Managing Knowledge Assets in Organizations 79

knowledge assets (Bontis, 1996; Ordonez de Pablos, 2001; Tsan and Chang, 2005; Falconer, 2011). However, much more detailed research involving the purpose of the different types of knowledge assets is needed to understand their nexus with each other as they create

Further more, while many past studies have attempted to provide key indicators that can track down the performance of knowledge assets; aspersions are now been cast on these studies because they have woefully failed to accurately discern the purpose of all the knowledge assets. Without defining the purpose of each of them, it will be impossible to derive the key indicators that can assess their performance. Since this article is geared towards differentiating them according to their purpose, we can be more certain that this purpose driven differentiation would significantly help to derive the key indicators required

In order to achieve the objective of this article, it shall be divided into six sections. The first section will present the previous taxonomy for knowledge assets. Since knowledge assets are strategic resources (Lytras and Ordonez de Pablos, 2009; Tongo, 2010; Schiuma, 2009); the second section shall attempt to link the management of knowledge assets to business strategy. This shall be followed by a discussion on the rationale for proposing the stakeholder model for managing organizational knowledge assets in the third section. A detailed analysis of the model shall ensue in section four. The fifth section would cover the theoretical and practical managerial implications of the model and then the sixth section

Organizational knowledge assets, otherwise known as intellectual capital in the knowledge management literature have been construed as any information, belief or skill that the organization can apply to its various activities (Anand, et. al., 2002). According to this view, it can exist in multiple forms. It may refer to the specific scientific knowledge possessed by an organization's research department, or information about an oversee market, or skills that enable managers to make effective decisions in rapidly changing environments (Anand, et. al., 2002). However, irrespective of the various forms in which organizational knowledge exists, it has been broadly differentiated into two types. These are tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge (Polanyi, 1962, Nonaka, 1994; De Long and Fahey, 2000; Markus, 2001;

The tacit dimension of knowledge comprises both cognitive and technical elements (Nonaka, 1994). The cognitive element refers to an individual's mental models consisting of mental maps, beliefs, paradigms, and viewpoints. The technical component consists of concrete know how, crafts and skills that apply to a specific organizational context (Alavi and Leidner, 2001). According to De Long and Fahey (2000), tacit knowledge is what we know but cannot explain. Consider, for example, a quality control engineer who through years of experience can identify the quality of a newly manufactured engine by its sound and vibrations on testing the engine. Such tacit knowledge cannot be transferred through a written document, and yet it is very important in the organization

Explicit knowledge, on the other hand, is articulated, codified, and communicated in symbolic form and/or natural language (Alavi and Leidner, 2001). Explicit knowledge can easily be communicated and shared among individuals. For instance, information about

for their performance. This shall be treated in the latter part of this article.

**2. Previous taxonomy for organizational knowledge assets** 

value for organizations.

concludes the article.

Anand et. al., 2002).

(Anand, et. al., 2002).

sources and where they are stored in organizations would not appreciably promote their effective management; as these do not inform us about the usefulness of these assets. Rather, knowing the purpose for accumulating each of them should be the pre-requisite for managing them successfully in organizations. Like any other organizational asset or resource, the purpose of all knowledge assets must be well articulated by managers before they can be properly coordinated to promote organizational effectiveness.

Nevertheless, contemporary knowledge management theorists have not yet unanimously defined the purpose of the different forms of organizational knowledge assets. According to Grover and Davenport (2001), knowledge managers often take a highly inconclusive approach to the management of knowledge assets. In practice, what they actually manage under the banner of knowledge management is a mix of knowledge information, and unrefined data- in short, whatever any knowledge manager finds useful and easy to store in an electronic repository (Grover and Davenport, 2001). Indeed, this uncoordinated approach to the management of knowledge assets would not yield any meaningful results. Nonetheless, it suggests that modern knowledge managers do not really know the purpose of all the different organizational knowledge assets at their disposal.

Presently, there are three main types of organizational knowledge assets (i.e. structural knowledge, human knowledge and relational knowledge) that the current knowledge management literature recognizes; and only the purpose of one of them has been well defined by the literature (De Long and Fahey, 2000). That asset is termed relational knowledge or relational capital. Its purpose is to build better relations with primary stakeholders like employees, customers, suppliers, shareholders and communities (Hillman and keim, 2001). The purpose of the other knowledge assets ( i.e. structural knowledge and human knowledge) has not yet been articulated in relation to the goals of any modern organization.

Since most modern organizations thrive to satisfice the interests of their stakeholders in order to survive (March and Simon, 1958; Cyert and March, 1963; Simon, 1982; Freeman, 1984; Hillman and Keim, 2001; Schneider, 2002) and only relational knowledge or capital has been known to pursue this objective; it therefore means that if other knowledge assets are tailored towards other disparate objectives, they would lack the capacity of being synchronized with relational knowledge or capital for the benefit of stakeholders.

In other words, the objective of relational knowledge and those of other knowledge assets (i.e. structural knowledge and human knowledge) could be diametrically opposed to each other. Thus, while relational knowledge seeks to satisfice stakeholders' interests; the objectives of other knowledge assets may counteract the mission of relational knowledge. Consequently, the long term wealth generating capacity of the different organizational knowledge assets would not be effectively synchronized to meet stakeholders' interests. This will be very counter productive for any organization.

Therefore I assert in this article that despite the variability of these assets, their ultimate purpose is to satisfice stakeholders' interests. As a matter of fact, the accumulation of any knowledge asset by organizations is worthless unless it is meant to meet the needs of some stakeholders.

Based on this view of organizational knowledge assets, the objective of this article is to differentiate them according to their ultimate purpose, which is satisficing stakeholders' interests; as well as provide mechanisms for their integration so that they could be effectively managed.

This is particularly important because recent studies have been placing more emphasis on the analysis of the interactions and interdependencies of the various types of organizational

sources and where they are stored in organizations would not appreciably promote their effective management; as these do not inform us about the usefulness of these assets. Rather, knowing the purpose for accumulating each of them should be the pre-requisite for managing them successfully in organizations. Like any other organizational asset or resource, the purpose of all knowledge assets must be well articulated by managers before

Nevertheless, contemporary knowledge management theorists have not yet unanimously defined the purpose of the different forms of organizational knowledge assets. According to Grover and Davenport (2001), knowledge managers often take a highly inconclusive approach to the management of knowledge assets. In practice, what they actually manage under the banner of knowledge management is a mix of knowledge information, and unrefined data- in short, whatever any knowledge manager finds useful and easy to store in an electronic repository (Grover and Davenport, 2001). Indeed, this uncoordinated approach to the management of knowledge assets would not yield any meaningful results. Nonetheless, it suggests that modern knowledge managers do not really know the purpose

Presently, there are three main types of organizational knowledge assets (i.e. structural knowledge, human knowledge and relational knowledge) that the current knowledge management literature recognizes; and only the purpose of one of them has been well defined by the literature (De Long and Fahey, 2000). That asset is termed relational knowledge or relational capital. Its purpose is to build better relations with primary stakeholders like employees, customers, suppliers, shareholders and communities (Hillman and keim, 2001). The purpose of the other knowledge assets ( i.e. structural knowledge and human knowledge)

Since most modern organizations thrive to satisfice the interests of their stakeholders in order to survive (March and Simon, 1958; Cyert and March, 1963; Simon, 1982; Freeman, 1984; Hillman and Keim, 2001; Schneider, 2002) and only relational knowledge or capital has been known to pursue this objective; it therefore means that if other knowledge assets are tailored towards other disparate objectives, they would lack the capacity of being

In other words, the objective of relational knowledge and those of other knowledge assets (i.e. structural knowledge and human knowledge) could be diametrically opposed to each other. Thus, while relational knowledge seeks to satisfice stakeholders' interests; the objectives of other knowledge assets may counteract the mission of relational knowledge. Consequently, the long term wealth generating capacity of the different organizational knowledge assets would not be effectively synchronized to meet stakeholders' interests.

Therefore I assert in this article that despite the variability of these assets, their ultimate purpose is to satisfice stakeholders' interests. As a matter of fact, the accumulation of any knowledge asset by organizations is worthless unless it is meant to meet the needs of some

Based on this view of organizational knowledge assets, the objective of this article is to differentiate them according to their ultimate purpose, which is satisficing stakeholders' interests; as well as provide mechanisms for their integration so that they could be

This is particularly important because recent studies have been placing more emphasis on the analysis of the interactions and interdependencies of the various types of organizational

they can be properly coordinated to promote organizational effectiveness.

of all the different organizational knowledge assets at their disposal.

has not yet been articulated in relation to the goals of any modern organization.

synchronized with relational knowledge or capital for the benefit of stakeholders.

This will be very counter productive for any organization.

stakeholders.

effectively managed.

knowledge assets (Bontis, 1996; Ordonez de Pablos, 2001; Tsan and Chang, 2005; Falconer, 2011). However, much more detailed research involving the purpose of the different types of knowledge assets is needed to understand their nexus with each other as they create value for organizations.

Further more, while many past studies have attempted to provide key indicators that can track down the performance of knowledge assets; aspersions are now been cast on these studies because they have woefully failed to accurately discern the purpose of all the knowledge assets. Without defining the purpose of each of them, it will be impossible to derive the key indicators that can assess their performance. Since this article is geared towards differentiating them according to their purpose, we can be more certain that this purpose driven differentiation would significantly help to derive the key indicators required for their performance. This shall be treated in the latter part of this article.

In order to achieve the objective of this article, it shall be divided into six sections. The first section will present the previous taxonomy for knowledge assets. Since knowledge assets are strategic resources (Lytras and Ordonez de Pablos, 2009; Tongo, 2010; Schiuma, 2009); the second section shall attempt to link the management of knowledge assets to business strategy. This shall be followed by a discussion on the rationale for proposing the stakeholder model for managing organizational knowledge assets in the third section. A detailed analysis of the model shall ensue in section four. The fifth section would cover the theoretical and practical managerial implications of the model and then the sixth section concludes the article.
