FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W223489723> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W223489723 startingPage "236" @default.
• W223489723 abstract "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This paper reports on empirical results concerning one of the first frameworks for examining the similarities and differences of knowledge management (KM) and competitive intelligence (CI). The data lend credence to the theory behind the framework, which balances the risks of not reaching knowledge development potential with the risks of making knowledge vulnerable to competitive intelligence, while adding new insights. There are clearly differences in industries and firms in terms of the importance of knowledge, how it should be developed, and how it should be protected. By better understanding those differences, we can all benefit by better managing organizational knowledge. Keywords: Knowledge Management, Intellectual Capital, Competitive Intelligence, Tacitness, Complexity, Specificity Acknowledgement: The authors wish to express their appreciation for the support of the Society of Competitive Intelligence Professionals (SCIP) for its assistance in providing key data for this study. BACKGROUND Knowledge management (KM) and the closely related field of intellectual capital grew out practice during the past couple of decades as managers began to look at how to better identify and manage intangible assets. As market capitalizations increased without any relation to traditional physical assets, an awareness grew that intangible assets were the key, especially those assets related to what people within the organization knew. As a result, Drucker's (1991) knowledge workers and the knowledge economy gained increasing attention from both scholars and practitioners. And in the ongoing search for competitive advantage, some scholars thought unique knowledge in the heads of workers would eventually become the critical resource conferring sustainable marketplace advantages. This concept comes directly out of the strategy literature, specifically the resource-based theory of the firm (Dierickx & Cool, 1989; Nelson & Winter, 1982). If a firm can discern the core competencies that give it unique, sustainable advantages in the market, it can develop an ongoing competitive advantage (Prahalad & Hamel, 1990). Knowledge assets can be a critical source, perhaps the only source of renewable competitive advantage as firms are differentiated by little else than the experience and know-how of their managers and employees at all levels and in all disciplines (Zack, 1999; Stewart, 1997; Grant, 1996; Quinn, 1992). As the field developed, academics and practitioners determined that organizations that could better identify and manage these soft knowledge assets would be the ones gaining competitive advantage (Marr & Schiuma, 2001). Indeed, the resident knowledge of the organization was important, but learning, sharing, and other approaches could add to and leverage the assets. One result was that something of a consensus developed that more development and more sharing of knowledge was always better. Knowledge should be fully identified, developed, and shared to be exploited to its fullest. This philosophy flies in the face of the recent and equally important trend seen in competitive intelligence (CI) functions in firms. A few KM scholars have recognized that valuable, proprietary knowledge assets need to be protected (liebeskind, 1996; Zander & Kogut, 1995), but the field generally has an implicit assumption that more gathering, more developing, and more sharing is better. But putting more knowledge into more hands makes it more vulnerable to capture by a competitor's CI operations. The fact that most of this knowledge is now stored and transmitted digitally also increases the CI risks, as does its transfer across organizational boundaries into the hands of collaborators who might not be as careful in protecting it. The risks are increasing while CI activity is growing (ASIS, 1999), and firms are recognizing that effective CI (essentially, better competitive capital, a form of knowledge asset) can be a route to competitive advantage, too (Bernhardt, 2002; Cappel & Boone, 1995). …" @default.
• W223489723 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W223489723 creator A5066501316 @default.
• W223489723 creator A5079452125 @default.
• W223489723 date "2007-01-01" @default.
• W223489723 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W223489723 title "Strategic Protection Factors: Insights into Balancing Knowledge Development and Protection" @default.
• W223489723 hasPublicationYear "2007" @default.
• W223489723 type Work @default.
• W223489723 sameAs 223489723 @default.
• W223489723 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W223489723 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W223489723 hasAuthorship W223489723A5066501316 @default.
• W223489723 hasAuthorship W223489723A5079452125 @default.
• W223489723 hasConcept C103423482 @default.
• W223489723 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W223489723 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W223489723 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W223489723 hasConcept C162696548 @default.
• W223489723 hasConcept C162853370 @default.
• W223489723 hasConcept C166052673 @default.
• W223489723 hasConcept C169735623 @default.
• W223489723 hasConcept C187572123 @default.
• W223489723 hasConcept C191628500 @default.
• W223489723 hasConcept C2777880217 @default.
• W223489723 hasConcept C2779561248 @default.
• W223489723 hasConcept C2780838347 @default.
• W223489723 hasConcept C38652104 @default.
• W223489723 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W223489723 hasConcept C56739046 @default.
• W223489723 hasConcept C58546491 @default.
• W223489723 hasConceptScore W223489723C103423482 @default.
• W223489723 hasConceptScore W223489723C111472728 @default.
• W223489723 hasConceptScore W223489723C138885662 @default.
• W223489723 hasConceptScore W223489723C144133560 @default.
• W223489723 hasConceptScore W223489723C162696548 @default.
• W223489723 hasConceptScore W223489723C162853370 @default.
• W223489723 hasConceptScore W223489723C166052673 @default.
• W223489723 hasConceptScore W223489723C169735623 @default.
• W223489723 hasConceptScore W223489723C187572123 @default.
• W223489723 hasConceptScore W223489723C191628500 @default.
• W223489723 hasConceptScore W223489723C2777880217 @default.
• W223489723 hasConceptScore W223489723C2779561248 @default.
• W223489723 hasConceptScore W223489723C2780838347 @default.
• W223489723 hasConceptScore W223489723C38652104 @default.
• W223489723 hasConceptScore W223489723C41008148 @default.
• W223489723 hasConceptScore W223489723C56739046 @default.
• W223489723 hasConceptScore W223489723C58546491 @default.
• W223489723 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W223489723 hasLocation W2234897231 @default.
• W223489723 hasOpenAccess W223489723 @default.
• W223489723 hasPrimaryLocation W2234897231 @default.
• W223489723 hasRelatedWork W101327368 @default.
• W223489723 hasRelatedWork W1518045029 @default.
• W223489723 hasRelatedWork W1945113413 @default.
• W223489723 hasRelatedWork W2018836221 @default.
• W223489723 hasRelatedWork W2044115508 @default.
• W223489723 hasRelatedWork W2086206337 @default.
• W223489723 hasRelatedWork W2102293861 @default.
• W223489723 hasRelatedWork W2137563994 @default.
• W223489723 hasRelatedWork W2259065723 @default.
• W223489723 hasRelatedWork W233779602 @default.
• W223489723 hasRelatedWork W2343569691 @default.
• W223489723 hasRelatedWork W2901502131 @default.
• W223489723 hasRelatedWork W296245251 @default.
• W223489723 hasRelatedWork W2964512414 @default.
• W223489723 hasRelatedWork W2970273183 @default.
• W223489723 hasRelatedWork W3157405511 @default.
• W223489723 hasRelatedWork W3163251629 @default.
• W223489723 hasRelatedWork W942449814 @default.
• W223489723 hasRelatedWork W2181977521 @default.
• W223489723 hasRelatedWork W2465253345 @default.
• W223489723 hasVolume "5" @default.
• W223489723 isParatext "false" @default.
• W223489723 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W223489723 magId "223489723" @default.
• W223489723 workType "article" @default.