İşletmelerde Örtülü Bilginin Somutlaştırılması ile Olası Stratejik Risk Sendromlarına İlişkin Çözüm Önerileri

Bu makale örtülü bilginin kavramsal bir analiziyle birlikte örtülü bilginin genel özellikleri ve kaynakları üzerinde durmaktadır. Makalenin amacı ise yenilik ve rekabet avantajı yaratmada örtülü bilginin somutlastırılmasının önemini vurgulamak ve aynı zamanda örtülü bilginin somutlastırılması sürecinde ortaya çıkabilecek olası stratejik risk sendromlarına iliskin çözüm önerileri getirebilmektir. Bu bağlamda makale dört temel bölümden olusmaktadır. Birinci bölümde örtülü bilgi kavramı ve bu kavramla iliskili genel özellikler ele alınmaktadır. Đkinci bölüme gelindiğinde ise bu bölümde isletmeleri örtülü bilginin somutlastırılmasına yönelten nedenlerin irdeleme konusu yapıldığı görülmektedir. Makalenin üçüncü bölümü örtülü bilginin somutlastırılma sürecindeki islemler üzerinde yoğunlasmaktadır. Somutlastırma sürecindeki islemler bu bölümde üç baslık altında toplanmaktadır. Bunlar çekirdek islemler, gelistirici islemler ve dönüstürücü islemlerdir. Makalenin dördüncü ve son bölümünde ise örtülü bilginin somutlastırılması sürecinde karsılasılabilecek olası stratejik risk sendromları irdelenmektedir. Bu bölümde olası stratejik risk sendromlarına iliskin çözüm önerileri ortaya konmaya çalısılırken özellikle isgören bağlılığı, prosedürel adalet, prosedürel bilgilendirme ile örgüt içi iletisimin sözü edilen sendromları asmadaki kilit rolleri ve önemi üzerinde durulmaktadır.

Struggles for Transforming Tacit Knowledge Into an Explicit/Common Value Form in Firms and Solution Proposals for Strategic Risk Sendroms Probably Appeared in Transformation Process

This paper reports on a conceptual analysis of tacit knowledge with its general characteristics and foundations. The objective of this paper is to emphasize the critical role of transforming tacit knowledge into a common organizational value in innovation and creating competitive advantage and demonstrate outstanding solutions for strategic risk sendroms appeared during this transformation process. For that purpose, this study includes four main parts. In the first part, tacit knowledge and its characteristics are examined. In the second part, the causes that encourage the firms to transform tacit knowlede into an explicit form are being analyzed. The third part focuses on transforming process including three main functions. These functions are core, developing and maturing functions. In the last part, strategic risk sendroms probably being faced in transforming process are examined. Employee commitment, procedural justice, procedural knowledge and communication are defined as critical tools to overcome strategic risk sendroms appeared in transformation process.

PDF

___

BARNEY, J. B. (1986), “Organizational Culture: Can It Be a Source of Sustained Competitive Advantage?”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 11, No : 3, pp. 656-665.
BLOODGOOD, J. M. and SALISBURY, D. (2001), “Understanding The Influence of Organizational Change Strategies On Information Technology and Knowledge Management Strategies”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 31, pp. 55-69.
BOIRAL, O. (2002), “Tacit Knowledge and Environmental Management”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 35, pp. 291-317.
CHOI, B. and LEE, H. (2002), “An Emrprical Investigation of KM Styles and Their Effect On Corporate performance”, Information & Management, Vol. 20, pp. 142.
CONNER, K. R. (1991), “A Historical Comparison of Resorce-Based Theory and Five Schools of Thought Within Industrial Organization Economics: Do We Have a New Theory of The Firm”, Journal of Management, Vol. 17, No : 1, pp. 121-154.
DAWSON, P. (1997), “In At The Deep End: Conducting Processual Research On Organisational Change”, Scandinavian Journal Management, Vol. 13, No : 4, pp. 389-405.
FOLGER, R. G. and KONOVSKY, M. A. (1989), ‘Effects of Procedural and Distributive Justice on Reaction to Pay Raise Decisions’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 32, pp. 115-130.
GRANT, R. M. (1991), “The Resource-Based Theory of Competitive Advantage: Implications for Strategy Formulation”, California Management Review, Spring, pp. 114-135.
GREENBERG, J. (1990). “Organizational Justice: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow”, Journal of Management, Vol. 16, pp. 399-432.
HALL, R. and ANDRIANI, P. (2003), “Managing Knowledge Associated with Innovation”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 56, pp. 145-152.
İZGÖREN, A. S. (2000), İs Yasamında Yüz Kanguru: Sistem Liderliği, Academyplus Ya., Ankara.
JOHANNESSEN, J. A., OLSEN, B. and OLAISEN, J. (1999), “Aspects of Innovation Theory Based on Knowledge Management”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 19, pp. 121-139.
JOHANNESSEN, J. A., OLSEN, B. and OLAISEN, J. (2001), “Mismanagement of Tacit Knowledge: the Importance of Tacit Knowledge, The Danger of Information Technology and What to Do About It”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 21, pp. 3-20.
KINICKI, A. J., CARSON, P. C. and BOHLANDER, G. W. (1992), “Relationship Between an Organization’s Actual Human Resource Efforts and Employee Attitudes”, Group & Organization Management, Vol. 17, pp. 135.
KOÇEL, T. (1999), İsletme Yöneticiliği, Beta Ya., İstanbul.
KOSKINEN, K. U. (2000), “Tacit Knowledge as a Promoter of Project Success”, European Journal of Purchasing And Supply Management, Vol. 6, pp. 41-47.
KOSKINEN, K. U. and VANHARANTA, H. (2002), “The Role of Tacit Knowledge In Innovation Process of Small Technology Companies”, Int, J. Production Economics, Vol. 80, pp. 57-64.
LUBIT, R. (2001), “Tacit Knowledge and Knowledge Management: The Keys to Sustainable Competitive Advantage”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 29, No : 4, pp. 164-178.
MALONE, D. (2002), “Knowledge Management: A Model for Organizational Learning”, International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Vol. 3, pp. 111-123.
MARTIN, C. L. and BENNETT, N. (1996), “The Role of Justice Judgments in Explaining The Relationship Between Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment”, Group & Organization Management, Vol. 21, No : 1, pp. 84.
MASCITELLI, R. (2000), “From Experience: Harnessing Tacit Knowledge to Achieve Breakthrough Innovation”, J. Prod. Innovation Management, Vol. 17, pp. 179-193.
MCFARLIN, D.B., and SWEENEY, P. D. (1992), “Distributive and Procedural Justice as Predictors of Satisfaction With Personal and Organizational Outcomes”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 35, pp. 626-637.
NIEHOFF, B. P. and MOORMAN, R. H. (1993), “Justice as a Mediator of The Relationships Between Methods of Monitoring and Organizational Citizenship Behavior”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 36, pp. 527-556.
NONAKA, I., TOYAMA, R. and KONNO, N. (2000), “SECI, Ba and Leadership: A Unified Model of Dynamic Knowledge Creation”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 33, pp. 5-34.
PUTTI, J. M. and ARYEE, S., (1990), “Communication in Organizations”, Group & Organization Management, Vol. 15, No : 1, pp. 44.
RANDALL, D. M. and O’DRISCOLL, M. P. (1997), “Affective Versus Calculative Commitment”, Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 137, No : 5, pp. 606.
ROPO, A. and PARVAINEN, J. (2001), “Leadership And Bodily Knowledge in Expert Organizations: Epistemological Rethinking”, Scandinavian Journal of Management, Vol. 17, pp. 1-18.
SALTER, A. and GANN, D. (2003), “Sources of Ideas for Innovation in Engineering Design”, Research Policy, Vol. 1591, pp. 1-16.
SCHAPPE, S. P. (1996), “Bridging The Gap Between Procedural Knowledge And Positive Employee Attitudes”, Group & Organization Management, Vol. 21, No : 3, pp. 28.
SCHULZ, M. and JOBE, L. (2001), “Codification and Tacitness as Knowledge Management Studies: An Emprical Exploration”, Journal of High Technology Management Research, Vol. 12, pp. 139-165.
THOMAS, P. (1996), Getting Competitive, McGraw Hill, New York.