**5. Differentiating and integrating knowledge assets by stakeholder model**

The rationale for the differentiation of organizational knowledge assets stems from Simon's (1991) principle of bounded rationality. This principle recognizes that the human brain has limited capacity to acquire, store and process knowledge. The result is that efficiency in knowledge production requires that individuals specialize in particular areas of knowledge (Grant, 1996). This therefore implies that experts are almost invariably specialists, while jacks-of-all trades are masters of none (Grant, 1996).

Implied in the principle of bounded rationality is the fundamental assumption that there are gains from specialization in knowledge acquisition and storage, and that production requires the input of a wide range of differentiated knowledge. Without benefits from specialization in knowledge there is no need for organizations comprising multiple individuals (Grant, 1996).

Therefore based on the principle of bounded rationality, it is assumed that individuals that make up organizations can be differentiated in terms of some specific, unique and bounded knowledge that they possess for meeting the needs of the relevant stakeholders of their organizations. However, because this knowledge may be tacit and not easily transferred to other organizational members, it therefore falls within the realm of *human knowledge*, as previously conceptualized in section two of this article. Albeit, this *human knowledge* that is resident within the individual is potentially useful for satisficing the needs of a particular stakeholder. Since stake holders are many, it becomes expedient to differentiate *human knowledge* according to the number of primary stakeholders often associated with organizations.

X-raying the vast literature on corporate social responsibility provides the identification of eight primary stakeholders. These are employees, shareholders, creditors, customers, competitors, suppliers, communities and government. What this implies is that a specific tacit *human knowledge* is always targeted towards meeting the needs one of these

(Petty and Guthrie, 2000). In this knowledge economy, information and knowledge are seen as the principal drivers of value creation and competitive advantage, generating the increasingly critical intangible assets of contemporary organizations. Therefore making the

It is now commonly believed that building better relations with primary stakeholders like employees, customers, suppliers, and communities (Freeman, 1984), could lead to increased shareholders' wealth through the accumulation of knowledge assets that can be sources of competitive advantage (Hillman and Kiem, 2001; Saenz and Gomez, 2008). These knowledge assets in turn lead to a positive relationship between stakeholder management and shareholder value, wherein effective stakeholder management leads to improved

Going by these findings, how can synchronization of the different knowledge assets (i.e. structural knowledge, human knowledge and relational knowledge) towards the satisficing of stakeholders' interests for organizational value creation be achieved? In this article, it is believed that this could be achieved by the development of a business strategy that links the long term wealth generating capacity of highly differentiated and integrated forms of these knowledge assets to the ultimate goal of meeting the diverse interests of stakeholders. This is depicted in the next section. This section shall differentiate and integrate the various facets of the stakeholder model. There after some light will be shed on the theoretical and practical

**5. Differentiating and integrating knowledge assets by stakeholder model** 

The rationale for the differentiation of organizational knowledge assets stems from Simon's (1991) principle of bounded rationality. This principle recognizes that the human brain has limited capacity to acquire, store and process knowledge. The result is that efficiency in knowledge production requires that individuals specialize in particular areas of knowledge (Grant, 1996). This therefore implies that experts are almost invariably specialists, while

Implied in the principle of bounded rationality is the fundamental assumption that there are gains from specialization in knowledge acquisition and storage, and that production requires the input of a wide range of differentiated knowledge. Without benefits from specialization in knowledge there is no need for organizations comprising multiple individuals (Grant, 1996). Therefore based on the principle of bounded rationality, it is assumed that individuals that make up organizations can be differentiated in terms of some specific, unique and bounded knowledge that they possess for meeting the needs of the relevant stakeholders of their organizations. However, because this knowledge may be tacit and not easily transferred to other organizational members, it therefore falls within the realm of *human knowledge*, as previously conceptualized in section two of this article. Albeit, this *human knowledge* that is resident within the individual is potentially useful for satisficing the needs of a particular stakeholder. Since stake holders are many, it becomes expedient to differentiate *human knowledge* according to the number of primary stakeholders often associated with

X-raying the vast literature on corporate social responsibility provides the identification of eight primary stakeholders. These are employees, shareholders, creditors, customers, competitors, suppliers, communities and government. What this implies is that a specific tacit *human knowledge* is always targeted towards meeting the needs one of these

management of knowledge assets very imperative (Cuganesan, 2005).

financial performance (Hillman and Kiem, 2001; Saenz and Gomez, 2008).

managerial implications of the model.

organizations.

jacks-of-all trades are masters of none (Grant, 1996).

stakeholders at a given period of time. Therefore it will be useful to develop new concepts about *human knowledge* that effectively capture all organizational stakeholders. Towards this end, five new concepts pertaining to the different facets of *human knowledge* are presented. These are: (i) Human Knowledge about Product Market **(HKPM)** (ii) Human knowledge about Labour Market **(HKLM)** (iii) Human Knowledge about Financial Market **(HKFM)** (iv) Human knowledge about Technological Process **(HKTP)** (v) Human knowledge about External Environment **(HKEE).**

HKPM is tacit knowledge located within the minds of employees about the behaviour of customers in relation to products or services that the organization offers both its actual and potential markets. It also entails employees possessing some form of tacit knowledge about the behavioural orientation of customers towards competing products or services. Consequently, HKPM is basically directed to two organizational stakeholders. These are customers and competitors. However, its ultimate goal is to utilize the entire HKPM to satisfice the interests of customers.

HKLM corresponds to tacit knowledge domiciled within employees' minds about the nature of both internal and external labour markets in terms of the various skills, values, and competences required for organizational performance. HKLM directs attention to the sources of rare talents required to drive organizational value; as well as the utilization and development of such talents.

HKFM pertains to tacit knowledge resident within human minds about the most viable sources and applications of the firm's financial resources for increasing shareholders' wealth. It also has to do with knowledge about the impact of exigencies occurring within the financial markets on shareholders' wealth and credit worthiness of the organization. Hence HKFM focuses on satisficing the needs of shareholders and creditors.

HKTP addresses tacit knowledge about the various inputs, machines, equipment, etc., that is associated with the firm's process of production; as well as other alternatives to this production process. Suppliers of raw materials, valuable inventions and machines are the main stakeholders that HKTP is concerned with.

HKEE borders on tacit knowledge about the host communities, business laws, as well as the political climate and social values of the country in which business is conducted. HKEE focuses on two primary stakeholders. These are government and host communities.

In terms of quantity of human knowledge available to organizations, two key indicators can easily be identified. These are: organizational tenure of employees and number of employees focusing on all the differentiated forms of human knowledge. It is believed that the longer the employees remain in their organizations, the deeper would be the level of their organizational learning; which ultimately impacts positively on the ability of employees to generate new human knowledge. Also, the greater the numerical strength of employees that specialize in an area of human knowledge, the more likelihood of generating higher levels of human knowledge in this specialized area.

With regards to the quality of human knowledge available to the organization per time, two key indicators were identified. These are: number of trainings employees have undergone and the number of times employees in the five differentiated areas of human knowledge have been rewarded for generating a novel idea within a specific period of time.

The performance of the five types of human knowledge depends on both the quality and quantity of tacit knowledge that is resident in human minds about all organizational stakeholders at a specified period in time within organizations. Therefore, in order to identify the key indicators required for the measurement of their performance, these two parameters must be taken into account.

A Stakeholder Model for Managing Knowledge Assets in Organizations 89

But recall that the differentiated forms of human knowledge all exist in their tacit states. However, it is possible that over time, the different brands of human knowledge will be transformed into explicit knowledge. Through *codification* of human knowledge explicit knowledge is produced (Nonaka, 1994; Hansen, et. al., 1999; Lytras and Ordonez; 2009; Grover and Davenport, 2001; Becerra-Fernandez and Sabherwal, 2001). Once this is achieved, they cease to be called human knowledge. Rather they have been metamorphosed

Such metamorphosis yields the following conversions: HKPM is converted to Structural Knowledge about Product Market **(SKPM)**. HKLM is converted to Structural Knowledge about Labour Market **(SKLM)**. HKFM is converted to Structural Knowledge about Financial Market **(SKFM)**. HKTP is converted to Structural Knowledge about Technological Process **(SKTP)**. HKEE is converted to Structural Knowledge about External Environment **(SKEE)**. The codification process harnesses the differentiated forms of human knowledge to produce structural knowledge that is visible or shared amongst organizational members and aims at meeting the needs of stakeholders within the five areas of specialized knowledge. The codification process entails converting invisible human knowledge into visible structured knowledge that creates value for one or more stakeholders of organizations. Six of such visible end results that ensue the codification process are as follows: alteration of documents relating to policies, practices, rules, values, etc; the launching of new products and services; withdrawal of a product or service from the market; expansion of business activities through the establishment of new subsidiaries; invention of new business processes and the

All of these visible end results which constitute the structural knowledge of organizations are propelled by specialized human knowledge in one or more of the five areas that encapsulate the interests of organizational stakeholders. These visible end results are the key indicators required for measuring the performance of structural knowledge.; and they periodically influence the direction of business strategy. It is for this reason that it would be impossible to extricate business strategy from structural knowledge; as changes in the formation of structural knowledge may often result to alterations in business strategy (De

Nonetheless, both the formation and sharing of structural knowledge by organizational members leads to the production of more human knowledge. Unlike the direct conversion of the differentiated forms of human knowledge into their structural knowledge derivatives, already shared structural knowledge may not just produce its exact replica in the form of human knowledge. Instead through the process of *de-codification,* additional human knowledge could be produced from structural knowledge within the domain of a particular

For example, an organization may have an employment policy that forbids the employment of contract staff. This policy was informed by the experiences of those who have some HKLM. These persons have found out that past employees who have left the organization expropriate valued knowledge to competing firms. However, a new organizational specialist in HKTP, who has become conversant with the antecedents of this employment policy, may also become sensitive to the fact that inventors who are presently in the pay roll

From the above example, we can see that while HKLM led to generation of SKLM that forbids the employment of contract staff. However, this SKLM produced a new HKLM, which will need to be converted into its specific SKLM in order for the organization to guide

of the organization divulge valued ideas to outsiders for some personal gains.

into their *structural knowledge* correlates.

creation of new markets.

long and Fahey, 2000).

stakeholder.

Fig. 1.

Hence four key indicators (organizational tenure, number of employees per time, number of employees' training per time, and number of times employees have been rewarded for generating a novel idea per time), would measure the performance of all the differentiated forms of human knowledge.

Hence four key indicators (organizational tenure, number of employees per time, number of employees' training per time, and number of times employees have been rewarded for generating a novel idea per time), would measure the performance of all the differentiated

Fig. 1.

forms of human knowledge.

But recall that the differentiated forms of human knowledge all exist in their tacit states. However, it is possible that over time, the different brands of human knowledge will be transformed into explicit knowledge. Through *codification* of human knowledge explicit knowledge is produced (Nonaka, 1994; Hansen, et. al., 1999; Lytras and Ordonez; 2009; Grover and Davenport, 2001; Becerra-Fernandez and Sabherwal, 2001). Once this is achieved, they cease to be called human knowledge. Rather they have been metamorphosed into their *structural knowledge* correlates.

Such metamorphosis yields the following conversions: HKPM is converted to Structural Knowledge about Product Market **(SKPM)**. HKLM is converted to Structural Knowledge about Labour Market **(SKLM)**. HKFM is converted to Structural Knowledge about Financial Market **(SKFM)**. HKTP is converted to Structural Knowledge about Technological Process **(SKTP)**. HKEE is converted to Structural Knowledge about External Environment **(SKEE)**.

The codification process harnesses the differentiated forms of human knowledge to produce structural knowledge that is visible or shared amongst organizational members and aims at meeting the needs of stakeholders within the five areas of specialized knowledge. The codification process entails converting invisible human knowledge into visible structured knowledge that creates value for one or more stakeholders of organizations. Six of such visible end results that ensue the codification process are as follows: alteration of documents relating to policies, practices, rules, values, etc; the launching of new products and services; withdrawal of a product or service from the market; expansion of business activities through the establishment of new subsidiaries; invention of new business processes and the creation of new markets.

All of these visible end results which constitute the structural knowledge of organizations are propelled by specialized human knowledge in one or more of the five areas that encapsulate the interests of organizational stakeholders. These visible end results are the key indicators required for measuring the performance of structural knowledge.; and they periodically influence the direction of business strategy. It is for this reason that it would be impossible to extricate business strategy from structural knowledge; as changes in the formation of structural knowledge may often result to alterations in business strategy (De long and Fahey, 2000).

Nonetheless, both the formation and sharing of structural knowledge by organizational members leads to the production of more human knowledge. Unlike the direct conversion of the differentiated forms of human knowledge into their structural knowledge derivatives, already shared structural knowledge may not just produce its exact replica in the form of human knowledge. Instead through the process of *de-codification,* additional human knowledge could be produced from structural knowledge within the domain of a particular stakeholder.

For example, an organization may have an employment policy that forbids the employment of contract staff. This policy was informed by the experiences of those who have some HKLM. These persons have found out that past employees who have left the organization expropriate valued knowledge to competing firms. However, a new organizational specialist in HKTP, who has become conversant with the antecedents of this employment policy, may also become sensitive to the fact that inventors who are presently in the pay roll of the organization divulge valued ideas to outsiders for some personal gains.

From the above example, we can see that while HKLM led to generation of SKLM that forbids the employment of contract staff. However, this SKLM produced a new HKLM, which will need to be converted into its specific SKLM in order for the organization to guide

A Stakeholder Model for Managing Knowledge Assets in Organizations 91

could change future direct interactions with the customers to produce another RKPM that views its customers as being satisfied. Hence there is a process by which human knowledge generates additional form of relational knowledge within the domain of a specific stakeholder. This process is called *humanization* and so it can be posited that this process can produce more tacit relational knowledge that is quite different from the one that initially

**H4:** The process of humanization would lead to the production of additional tacit relational knowledge that derives from human knowledge within the domain of a particular

The process of humanization does not only produce more tacit relational knowledge. For it is possible to produce more tacit relational knowledge without the agency of the human mind. Since apart from personal interactions with stakeholders, relational knowledge can also be obtained explicitly from external sources through the use of impersonal communication media such as electronic data interchanges, internet, news papers, information from radio and TV stations (Anand, et. al; 2002); it could be possible to produce more tacit relational knowledge from these impersonal external sources. However, via a different process that is termed *de-humanization*. For the purpose of this article, the word "dehumanization" does not hold any English literary meaning. Rather, it serves to differentiate between accumulation of more tacit relational knowledge as a result of the functioning of the human mind (i.e. via humanization process) and the direct derivation of this knowledge via impersonal external sources that has been codified into structural knowledge required to satisfice the interests of a particular stakeholder. As a result of the import of the dehumanization process to the production of more tacit relational knowledge,

**H5:** The process of de- humanization would produce additional tacit relational knowledge that derives from structural knowledge within the domain of a particular stakeholder. However, explicit relational knowledge within the domain of a particular stakeholder is directly converted into its structural knowledge correlate without the direct input of the human mind. The process of codifying explicit relational knowledge gained from impersonal external sources is termed *impersonification*. Thus, leading to the formulation of

**H6:** The process of impersonification directly converts explicit relational knowledge into

Like human and structural knowledge, the performance of relational knowledge can also be measured. Six key indicators can help us assess the performance of all differentiated forms of relational knowledge per time. These are: frequency of interactions per employee with stakeholders; duration of interactions per employee with stakeholders; number of years each employee has spent building relationship with stakeholders; number of employees who directly interact with stakeholders; number of times stakeholders in specific areas of relational knowledge are either satisfied or dissatisfied; number of times employees can gain access to information from external impersonal communication media about stakeholders in

The six key indicators highlighted above for performance measurement of relational knowledge would enable organizations understand how they fare in terms of satisficing the interests of their stakeholders in a bid to gain long term organizational competitiveness. It is worth noting that the above propositions about the interdependencies and interrelationships between the three types of knowledge assets (i.e. human knowledge,

structural knowledge within the domain of a particular stakeholder.

produced it. This leads to the fourth proposition of the study, which is as follows:

the fifth proposition of this study is posed below.

the sixth proposition, as shown below:

the specific areas of relational knowledge.

stakeholder.

against its inventors divulging important information to third parties. This observation leads to the first two propositions of this study which attempt to integrate human knowledge with structural knowledge, as shown below.

**H1:** The process of codification directly converts all differentiated forms of human knowledge into their structural knowledge derivatives.

**H2:** De-codification of all sorts of structural knowledge would only increase human knowledge within the domain of a particular stakeholder.

The formation and sharing of structural knowledge that is explicit amongst employees should presupposedly guide and regulate the way they relate with their organizational stakeholders. Especially those employees that are directly interacting with stakeholders that have been affected by the structural knowledge that has been newly formed and shared. These employees would need to fully understand the impact of the newly formed structural knowledge on their stakeholders, and periodically adapt behaviours that would enable them maintain their relationships with the affected stakeholders. It is at this point that relational or social knowledge is reconstructed.

Relational knowledge is actually the knowledge asset that directly comes in contact with the stakeholders. It is that knowledge that organizations can directly access using their employees and also through formal and informal ties with their various stakeholders (Anand, et. al., 2002). It is important to note that just as we have the five differentiated forms of human and structural knowledge; relational knowledge can also be differentiated in terms of the stakeholder interests that it seeks to address. Hence the differiented forms of relational knowledge are as follows: (i) Relational Knowledge about Product Market **(RKPM)** (ii) Relational Knowledge about Labour Market **(RKLM)** (iii) Relational Knowledge about Financial Market **(RKFM)** (iv) Relational Knowledge about Technological Process **(RKTP)** and (v) Relational Knowledge about External Environment **(RKEE)**.

However, because these differentiated forms of relational knowledge can either be in their tacit and explicit states (Anand, et. al; 2002), the processes by which they are integrated with human and structural knowledge are quite different. Tacit relational knowledge requires personal communication that allows for direct and intense interaction with a particular stakeholder. For instance, the tacit form of RKLM could only be acquired through intense personal interaction with members of both internal and external labour markets. When this effectively takes place, RKLM will be converted to HKLM, which in turn may be converted to SKLM via the codification process.

Nevertheless, the diffentiated forms of tacit relational knowledge are converted to their human knowledge correlates via the *personification* process (e.g. RKLM is converted to HKLM through the process of personification). This process involves the personification of tacit relational knowledge. Therefore, it can be assumed that as a specific form of tacit relational knowledge increases, its human knowledge correlate would also increase. This leads to the third proposition of this study, which is as follows:

**H3:** The process of personification directly converts all differentiated forms of tacit relational knowledge into their human knowledge correlates; and so as relational knowledge of a particular stakeholder increases, its human knowledge correlate also increases.

Human knowledge obtained from relational knowledge can influence future interactions with a specific stakeholder to produce additional relational knowledge needed for dealing with the concerned stakeholder. For instance, through RKPM, it is possible for an organization to perceive that its customers are dissatisfied with its products or services. Through the personification process this RKPM is converted to HKPM, which subsequently

against its inventors divulging important information to third parties. This observation leads to the first two propositions of this study which attempt to integrate human

**H1:** The process of codification directly converts all differentiated forms of human

**H2:** De-codification of all sorts of structural knowledge would only increase human

The formation and sharing of structural knowledge that is explicit amongst employees should presupposedly guide and regulate the way they relate with their organizational stakeholders. Especially those employees that are directly interacting with stakeholders that have been affected by the structural knowledge that has been newly formed and shared. These employees would need to fully understand the impact of the newly formed structural knowledge on their stakeholders, and periodically adapt behaviours that would enable them maintain their relationships with the affected stakeholders. It is at this point that

Relational knowledge is actually the knowledge asset that directly comes in contact with the stakeholders. It is that knowledge that organizations can directly access using their employees and also through formal and informal ties with their various stakeholders (Anand, et. al., 2002). It is important to note that just as we have the five differentiated forms of human and structural knowledge; relational knowledge can also be differentiated in terms of the stakeholder interests that it seeks to address. Hence the differiented forms of relational knowledge are as follows: (i) Relational Knowledge about Product Market **(RKPM)** (ii) Relational Knowledge about Labour Market **(RKLM)** (iii) Relational Knowledge about Financial Market **(RKFM)** (iv) Relational Knowledge about Technological Process

However, because these differentiated forms of relational knowledge can either be in their tacit and explicit states (Anand, et. al; 2002), the processes by which they are integrated with human and structural knowledge are quite different. Tacit relational knowledge requires personal communication that allows for direct and intense interaction with a particular stakeholder. For instance, the tacit form of RKLM could only be acquired through intense personal interaction with members of both internal and external labour markets. When this effectively takes place, RKLM will be converted to HKLM, which in turn may be converted

Nevertheless, the diffentiated forms of tacit relational knowledge are converted to their human knowledge correlates via the *personification* process (e.g. RKLM is converted to HKLM through the process of personification). This process involves the personification of tacit relational knowledge. Therefore, it can be assumed that as a specific form of tacit relational knowledge increases, its human knowledge correlate would also increase. This

**H3:** The process of personification directly converts all differentiated forms of tacit relational knowledge into their human knowledge correlates; and so as relational knowledge of a

Human knowledge obtained from relational knowledge can influence future interactions with a specific stakeholder to produce additional relational knowledge needed for dealing with the concerned stakeholder. For instance, through RKPM, it is possible for an organization to perceive that its customers are dissatisfied with its products or services. Through the personification process this RKPM is converted to HKPM, which subsequently

particular stakeholder increases, its human knowledge correlate also increases.

**(RKTP)** and (v) Relational Knowledge about External Environment **(RKEE)**.

leads to the third proposition of this study, which is as follows:

knowledge with structural knowledge, as shown below.

knowledge into their structural knowledge derivatives.

relational or social knowledge is reconstructed.

to SKLM via the codification process.

knowledge within the domain of a particular stakeholder.

could change future direct interactions with the customers to produce another RKPM that views its customers as being satisfied. Hence there is a process by which human knowledge generates additional form of relational knowledge within the domain of a specific stakeholder. This process is called *humanization* and so it can be posited that this process can produce more tacit relational knowledge that is quite different from the one that initially produced it. This leads to the fourth proposition of the study, which is as follows:

**H4:** The process of humanization would lead to the production of additional tacit relational knowledge that derives from human knowledge within the domain of a particular stakeholder.

The process of humanization does not only produce more tacit relational knowledge. For it is possible to produce more tacit relational knowledge without the agency of the human mind. Since apart from personal interactions with stakeholders, relational knowledge can also be obtained explicitly from external sources through the use of impersonal communication media such as electronic data interchanges, internet, news papers, information from radio and TV stations (Anand, et. al; 2002); it could be possible to produce more tacit relational knowledge from these impersonal external sources. However, via a different process that is termed *de-humanization*. For the purpose of this article, the word "dehumanization" does not hold any English literary meaning. Rather, it serves to differentiate between accumulation of more tacit relational knowledge as a result of the functioning of the human mind (i.e. via humanization process) and the direct derivation of this knowledge via impersonal external sources that has been codified into structural knowledge required to satisfice the interests of a particular stakeholder. As a result of the import of the dehumanization process to the production of more tacit relational knowledge, the fifth proposition of this study is posed below.

**H5:** The process of de- humanization would produce additional tacit relational knowledge that derives from structural knowledge within the domain of a particular stakeholder.

However, explicit relational knowledge within the domain of a particular stakeholder is directly converted into its structural knowledge correlate without the direct input of the human mind. The process of codifying explicit relational knowledge gained from impersonal external sources is termed *impersonification*. Thus, leading to the formulation of the sixth proposition, as shown below:

**H6:** The process of impersonification directly converts explicit relational knowledge into structural knowledge within the domain of a particular stakeholder.

Like human and structural knowledge, the performance of relational knowledge can also be measured. Six key indicators can help us assess the performance of all differentiated forms of relational knowledge per time. These are: frequency of interactions per employee with stakeholders; duration of interactions per employee with stakeholders; number of years each employee has spent building relationship with stakeholders; number of employees who directly interact with stakeholders; number of times stakeholders in specific areas of relational knowledge are either satisfied or dissatisfied; number of times employees can gain access to information from external impersonal communication media about stakeholders in the specific areas of relational knowledge.

The six key indicators highlighted above for performance measurement of relational knowledge would enable organizations understand how they fare in terms of satisficing the interests of their stakeholders in a bid to gain long term organizational competitiveness.

It is worth noting that the above propositions about the interdependencies and interrelationships between the three types of knowledge assets (i.e. human knowledge,

A Stakeholder Model for Managing Knowledge Assets in Organizations 93

specialists, and that knowledge managers cannot effectively coordinate knowledge assets if

The spread of the team based approach to conducting business is occasioned by the notion that the critical knowhow is located among knowledge specialists. Hence the displacement of scientific management by various forms of participative, employee-empowering management approaches partly reflects the motivational benefits of these systems, but is also the result of the greater efficiency of these systems in harnessing and integrating the

Also, in order to effectively harness human knowledge, the locus of decision making in organizations must be considered (Grant, 1996). According to Grant, the quality of organizational decisions depends on their being based upon the relevant human knowledge. If the human knowledge relevant to a particular decision can be concentrated at a single point in the organization, then centralized decision making is feasible. However, must of the time the human knowledge required to make decisions may be widely dispersed in organizations, and so it would be needful to deploy decentralized decision making to fully

The arguments brought forward by Grant lead to the submission that team based organizations that decentralize decision making to those who have relevant human knowledge would be favourably disposed to catalyzing the processes of codification, decodification, personification, and humanization required for the formation of structural and

However, while variables that pertain to organizational structure and decision making as delineated above by Grant(1996), may be very important for the harnessing and accessing of human knowledge; contemporary research in knowledge management has ignored the import of personal factors in the expression of human knowledge. Organizations can design their structures in ways that facilitate the production of structural and relational knowledge from human knowledge; however, if individuals lack motivation, job satisfaction and commitment towards their organizations, they may resist the utilization of their tacit human knowledge. This challenge leads the discussion to the concept of knowledge markets. Grover and Davenport (2001), aver that organizations should be seen as knowledge markets in which knowledge is exchanged for other things of value- money, respect, promotions, or other knowledge. The concept recognizes the interest that individuals have in holding onto the knowledge they possess (Grover and Davenport, 2001). Yet there is paucity of research on the behavior of various knowledge markets. For instance, the capacity of organizations to unleash tacit human knowledge about product market, labour market, financial market, technological process and external environment, may vary depending on the behavior of

Therefore for organizations to constantly experience the dynamics of the knowledge based processes (i.e. codification, de-codification, personification, and humanization) that must depend on the functioning of the human mind, both organizational and personal variables that could influence the production of structural and relational knowledge from human knowledge must be given considerable attention by knowledge assets´ managers. But in addition to these, the four key indicators (i.e. organizational tenure of employees, number of employees focusing on all differentiated areas of human knowledge, number of trainings employees have undergone per time, number of employees in all differentiated areas of human knowledge that have been rewarded for generating a novel idea within a specific period of time), required for tracking down the performance of all brands of human

they cannot harness the requisite specialist knowledge (Grant, 1996).

relevant human knowledge (Grant, 1996).

access and harness such knowledge(Grant, 1996).

specialists in the five different knowledge markets.

relational knowledge that could improve stakeholders´ welfare.

structural knowledge and relational knowledge) that are geared towards meeting the diverse interests of stakeholders have both theoretical and practical implications for managing organizations. This is treated in the next section of the article.
