A typology of knowledge management: strategic groups and role behavior in organizations

Eliezer Geisler

Eliezer Geisler is Professor and Associate Dean for Research at the Stuart Graduate School of Business, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, Illinois, USA.

Abstract Purpose The purpose of this paper is to develop a typology of people and organizations who transact in knowledge. Design/methodology/approach Based on structural interviews with 37 managers in three large manufacturing companies a model is proposed which describes the processing of knowledge in organizations. Findings Four stages are identied: generation, transfer, implementation, and absorption. Similarly, three types of transactors in knowledge are also identied: generators, transformers, and users. The ndings from the interviews are the different motives that animate the different transactors in knowledge, and the distinct behavioral roles that these transactors assume in their organizations. Originality/value This paper contributes to the literature by proposing a new way of classifying the roles of people and organizations in their transaction in knowledge. Keywords Knowledge management, Strategic groups, Organizational structures Paper type Research paper

Introduction
The nascent eld of knowledge management (KM) has largely focused on three major streams: the nature of knowledge; the organizational and managerial aspects of its implementation; and the ways and means of creating and utilizing knowledge management systems (KMS). The stream of the nature of knowledge has received attention in view of the distinction between explicit and implicit knowledge (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Day, 2005). A good portion of the research in knowledge management has concentrated on the ways in which organizations can extract and use implicit knowledge. The organizational and managerial implementation and applications of knowledge in organizations have also received attention from researchers (Jashapara, 2005; Gupta et al., 2005). A few models have been proposed depicting the ow of knowledge in organizational settings. Holsapple and Jones (2004, 2005) have advanced a knowledge chain model which portrays primary and secondary activities of knowledge. The primary activities include knowledge acquisition, selection, generation, assimilation, and emission. Secondary activities include knowledge measurement, control, coordination, and leadership. In this model, the combined effort in the two categories of activities benets the organization by increasing its competitiveness in the environment. The third stream focused on the creation, implementation, and utilization of knowledge management systems (Rubenstein and Geisler, 2003). Viewed primarily as an organizational topic of adoption and adaptation, this stream of research also included the examination of the value accrued from the adoption and utilization of KMS (Muthusamy and Palanisamy, 2004).

PAGE 84

JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

VOL. 11 NO. 1 2007, pp. 84-96, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1367-3270

DOI 10.1108/13673270710728259

In much of this prevailing literature there is a tendency to consider the organizational agents who transact in knowledge as xtures of the organizations processes. The distinction made between explicit and tacit knowledge, originally proposed by Polanyi (1966) has had the effect of concentrating much of the research effort into methods and cultural barriers to attain and extract tacit knowledge. Organizational actors are thus largely perceived as standard human subjects whose cognition one wishes to target regardless of their role in the knowledge process in the organization. The motivation to partake in such a knowledge process has also been lightly studied, particularly as part of the research into barriers and facilitators to the effectiveness and performance of KM systems. A more detailed model is thus needed to congure who are the actors transacting in knowledge in the organization: what are the factors that motivate them, and how would such typology impinge upon our understanding of the process of knowledge and the outcomes and benets that may be derived from it. This paper proposes a model of knowledge transaction and processes in which a simplied three-stages framework links the generation of knowledge with its users. The model is then shown to consist of three types of actors in the processing of knowledge. The nal section of the paper discusses the variables that motivate the actors in the processing of knowledge to produce, diffuse, and use knowledge in organizations.

Methodology
The model proposed in this paper was derived from interviews conducted with 37 managers in three large companies. Two companies are very large global rms in the medical technology market, and the third is a global multi-product, multi-divisional company. The study was conducted in the construction products division of this corporation. This study was aimed at the organizational needs and barriers to the installation of knowledge management systems. The managers from the President to functional vice-presidents and heads of divisions had been actively involved with the establishment of knowledge management systems in their respective organizations. Managers were asked to dene and explain the role they play in knowledge management in the rm, the factors that drive them or inhibit their effort in this regard, and the link of this effort to perceived or actual benets from knowledge in their organizations. This study was extended beyond the usual arguments in favor of knowledge and its obvious benets (Stewart, 1997). The focus of these inputs to the generation of the model of knowledge processing was therefore the individual actors. Similar models have focused on the approaches to knowledge management (Earl, 2001) and activities that animate the knowledge management systems (Holsapple and Jones, 2004). This study is based on qualitative research, where a model is derived from selected interviews with corporate managers in the three companies in the research sample. Qualitative research is an important and acceptable method when the emphasis of the research is not on testing hypotheses but on the development of a conceptual framework and the identication of critical factors and other key variables (Estabrooks et al., 2005; Geisler, 2000; Michell, 2004). This approach has been used, for example, to study the implementation of knowledge management (Nicolas, 2004), and in various topics of healthcare management (Sandelowski, 2004). Since the seminal work by Campbell and Stanley (1963), it has long been recognized that qualitative research generates ndings that may be applicable beyond the selective group thus studied to other and similar groups and situations. Although these ndings cannot be generalized to the extent possible with quantitative research (based on a random sample and statistical analysis), the validity and reliability of qualitative studies is strong enough to engender an emerging model, framework, or theory (Campbell and Stanley, 1963; Kirk and Miller, 1985).

VOL. 11 NO. 1 2007 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 85

A model of knowledge processes in organizations

The model that emerges from interviews with managers who were actively involved with knowledge management in their organizations has four modes or stages of knowledge processing: generation, transfer, implementation, and absorption. Table I shows these modes. The mode of generation of knowledge is the effort on the part of actors to assemble knowledge from all available sources, including tacit knowledge embedded in their personal and collective experience. Although developed uniquely from the empirical study described above, this mode is similar to stages or activities in other models (Holsapple and Jones, 2005; Kankanhali and Tan, 2004). In the generation of knowledge the actors translate the assembled array of tacit and explicit knowledge into a form suitable for transfer to others. This step includes verbalizing what they know, creating displays and visual formats, and establishing or following standards for codied content, so that the receivers of this knowledge downstream will be able to decode, understand, and use what they receive (Heinrichs and Lim, 2005; Xiogiannis et al., 2004). The mode of transfer of knowledge is a component of the process in which actors in the organization transfer, share, and diffuse the knowledge they possess. Transfer is undertaken by means of debriengs, audits, reports, statements, and the like. Recipients of such transfer may be other organizational members, databases, knowledge systems, archives, and a variety of external people and entities. This component of knowledge processes has been the subject of some interest by scholars, particularly with regard to the barriers that impede the transfer and sharing of knowledge by organizational members (Grant, 1996; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Polanyi, 1966; Rubenstein and Geisler, 2003). Transfer processes are only one component of an effective mechanism of sharing and diffusion of knowledge. When actors receive knowledge transferred to them, they still need to implement such knowledge in organizational procedures, policies, codes, activities, methods, and practices. The degree to which implementation is feasible and successful will determine the usefulness of the transfer effort. Current research has not yet established a gure of how much knowledge transferred within the organization is actually implemented in the processes, procedures, and workings of the organization. In the study that generated the model described in this paper, interviewed managers suggested that less than half of the knowledge they receive from all sources is actually implemented in their work. They also tend to distinguish between types of knowledge they receive, transfer, and implement. Interviewees identied ve types of knowledge: technical; administrative; experiential; inherent attitudes and beliefs; and strategic. The prevailing view Table I Modes of knowledge processing in organizations
Actors Individual members of the organization Groups, units, project teams Management/executives External users (community of science/practice; customers, vendors) Parent agency, oversight organization; regulators Other (e.g. unauthorized user, hackers) Generation Tacit knowledge Explicit knowledge from internal & external sources Selection & integration with existing pool of knowledge Translating knowledge to form suitable for transfer Transfer Processes Implementation Rules, procedures, & regulations Policy & strategic directions Code of ethical behavior Lessons for practice Cultural tenets Science & technology methods, directions, & practices Managerial practices & behavior Organizational principles Absorption Logic of organizational life & practice Structural architecture Processes of organizational & managerial practice (e.g. decision making, communications) Mission statement Collaborative directives Goals & purposes of organization plans

Debrieng Audits Periodic reports Mentoring Evaluations Experts & consultants Policy statements embedded in other systems Lectures, lessons, speeches Routines

PAGE 86 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 11 NO. 1 2007

is that technical and administrative knowledge is more easily transferred and implemented, whereas experience, attitudes, and strategic thinking are more difcult to articulate, hence to transfer and implement (Rubenstein and Geisler, 2003). Absorption is the nal component of the processing of knowledge. It is more than a nuance of implementation. Knowledge is absorbed in the realities of organizational workings so that it becomes an integral part of the cultural foundations and the shared direction of the organization. Managers who participated in our study had indicated that although some knowledge implemented may also be absorbed, it is difcult to isolate the precise nature and elements of knowledge that reach this point of absorption. Nevertheless, they agree that this component of knowledge processing is vital to the organization.

Typology of actors in knowledge processing

Any effort designed to understand why people in organizations produce, disseminate, and use knowledge must rst address the issue of actual and perceived benets and impacts derived from knowledge. Organizational members are impacted by knowledge and may benet from it in several ways. In the study reported here, managers had identied ve categories of impacts/benets. These are shown in Table II. In addition to benets accrued to them in the form of improvements in what they do and how they perform, organizational members may also gain personal and psychological benets from processing knowledge. Table III shows examples of such benets as contributions to satisfying intellectual curiosity and thirst for knowledge, mastery of the environment, and personal growth. But, as Table I shows, there are different processes of knowledge (from generation to implementation and absorptions by users). There are also different benets and impacts from knowledge, as shown in Tables II and III. Organizational members are therefore involved in all modes of processing knowledge, and are recipients of a variety of potential benets. Table II Illustrative impacts and benets (perceived and actual) which may accrue to users and beneciaries of knowledge in organizations
Category of impacts/benets I. Individual/human resources benets Illustrative impacts/benets Improved level of education & literacy (technical & general) Improved individual competence Improved level of motivation & satisfaction Improved sense of empowerment Improved communications, relationships, & use of KMS Improved efciency of operations Reduced level of resistance to change Improved exchange of S&T knowledge Harmonized & improved standards Improved decision-making processes Added unit & organizational credibility Increased productivity & time & cost savings Improved growth & market share Reduced barriers to innovation & trade Improved rates of ideas generated Improved competitiveness Improved capacity to meet changing national needs Improvements in regulatory compliance and in safety, reliability, and quality of products and services Improvements in health, transport, energy, and other social goods Higher rate of dissemination of knowledge Overall value-added to all users/beneciaries

II. Project/work group & organizational benets (processes & proceeds)

III. Economic benets

IV. Social benets

V. System benets

VOL. 11 NO. 1 2007 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 87

Table III Illustrative benets from knowledge accrued to organizational mentors

Benets Intellectual curiosity Quenching thirst for knowledge Mastery of physical environment Mastery of organizational environment Mastery of economic and social environment Reduction of uncertainty Personal growth, satisfaction, higher-level goals Description Seeking answers to constant barrage of questions and unknowns Seeking to quench the thirst for knowledge ingrained in the human psyche Dealing with the physical elements and search for a measure of control (from building roads to confronting natural disasters) Dealing with organizational needs, demands, and pressures: competitiveness, behavioral issues, conicts, and internal and external forces Dealing with market forces; competition and cooperation; social groups and social pressures Search for security (Maslows lower-level needs), stability and feasibility in view of the uncertainties of the future Pursuit of Maslows higher-level needs; search for feelings of personal achievement, growth, happiness, satisfaction, and fulllment

There emerge three distinct types or roles of knowledge processing that organizational members play. As actors transacting in knowledge, they will have a unique role at any given time, as: generators, transformers, and users of knowledge. Actors acting in the capacity of generators of knowledge are collecting, assembling, and storing quanta of knowledge. Actors playing the role of transformers prepare the knowledge they possess, share it, diffuse it, and transfer it to other people and organizations. A third type of processor is the users. There are organizational members who implement, absorb, adopt, adapt, and otherwise use and exploit the knowledge they receive through the mechanisms of transfer and diffusion. Table IV shows the types of processors and the factors that motivate them. Multiplicity of roles Organizational members who transact in knowledge play the different roles intermittently. They may generate, transform, and use knowledge in a manner where the clear distinction among the various roles is not as obvious or clearly delineated. This may lead to role ambiguities and role conicts (Kelloway and Barling, 1990). Role ambiguities arise when actors play a certain role where the parameters, rules, and norms of behavior within the role are not clearly established, well communicated to the actor, or unequivocally understood by the actors. In the case of generators of knowledge when their role is ambiguous, there are questions and uncertainties regarding the acquisition, selection, assembling, codication, and storing items of knowledge. Issues seem abundant on methods of collection and assembly, sources to be procured, budgets to be expended, and relevancy of the effort to generate knowledge (Sawyer, 1992). In the case of transformers of knowledge, a variety of issues emerge because of the ambiguities of the role. Actors often wonder how this role is translated into their position and Table IV Typology of actors transacting in knowledge
Type Generators Transformers Users Description People, units, and organizations who procure, collect, acquire, assemble, prepare, and store knowledge from all sources People, units, and organizations who transfer, share, transmit, and exchange knowledge to and from sources internal and external to the organizations People, units, and organizations who implement, utilize, adopt, adapt, absorb, and exploit the outcomes, benets, and impact of knowledge

PAGE 88 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 11 NO. 1 2007

activities in the organization (Holsapple and Jones, 2005). They also wonder how their role as transformers will impact their position of power in the organization, and their function as change agents by virtue of the transfer and sharing of knowledge that are inherent in their role as transformers (Perry, 2005). Users of knowledge may also be confronted with problems associated with the ambiguity of their role in the organization. Illustrative issues that tend to emerge are the extent to which knowledge can and should be utilized, and what are the benets and value accrued from knowledge when compared with the economics of its generation and transformation. Another issue is the function of the Knowledge Management System (KMS) as an instrument for use, implementation, and absorption of knowledge. Role conict The various roles played by actors as they transact in knowledge in their organization may also conjure situations in which such roles will be in conict (Srilatha and Harigopal, 1985). Actors may nd themselves in role conict when there is a joint appearance of more than one role. Generators of knowledge may also be simultaneously engaged in the transformation or use of other quanta of knowledge, or serially may transform or use the knowledge they had generated. Issues that emerge in each role may be amplied and exacerbated due to the conicting roles played by the actors. For example, actors may generate knowledge in order to improve their individual skills, to master their surroundings, and to attain personal growth. They are also, however, asked or required to transform such knowledge, to share and transfer it to others so that there are benets accrued to work groups and to the organization with which these actors are associated (Rubenstein and Geisler, 2003). Similarly, transformers who are also users may nd themselves in situations of role conict. When actors expend their effort to transform knowledge they may discover that some of the knowledge they had transferred cannot be fully used in their work-group or organization. Issues of intellectual property, condentiality, and the economics of the transformation effort may combine to limit the degree to which actors can or should transform knowledge if they are also planning to effectively utilize and exploit such knowledge. Another set of factors which may impinge upon this conict includes organizational dimensions. Interdependence among units may become a driving force in compelling people and work groups to cooperate and to exchange, transfer, and share knowledge. This organizational reality may impinge upon their abilities to use knowledge or to generate new knowledge. In one case narrated by respondents in the study reported here, a conict arose between managers in the roles of transformers and users. In this example, a manager in possession of knowledge about quality issues in a research and development project was reluctant to transfer and share such knowledge in what he considered to be prematurely. The manager wanted to use this knowledge to impose certain modications to the project, so as to obtain substantial improvements. He felt that premature disclosure of such knowledge might lead to drastic and unintended consequences, perhaps even termination of the project by senior management. The manager wondered: How soon should he share and transfer the knowledge or if he should at all? He could only guess the reaction of management once they became users of this knowledge, which he will transfer and share. Could he be certain that other entities, such as competitors, would not be on the receiving end of the effort to share and transfer this knowledge before he had the opportunity to make the corrections? The conict was not only ethical, but rstly it was organizational. This conict robbed me of several nights of sleep and much of my peace of mind recounted the manager. The ambiguities and conicts in the roles as transactors in knowledge also have implications upon the behavior of actors in their organizations. They may curtail their activities and conne them to one role at a time. In the example above, the manager decided to forego his role as transformer and to focus on his role as user of the said knowledge. Actors may also

VOL. 11 NO. 1 2007 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 89

be reluctant to assume a certain role if they perceive potential ambiguities or conicts within and between roles. The net effect may be impediments to the ow of knowledge in organizations and, to an extent, also explain the barriers to the generation, transformation, and use of knowledge. What motivates generators, transformers, and users? A key distinction among the three types of actors who transact in knowledge is the difference in the factors that motivate or drive these actors. Figure 1 shows examples of these factors. Figure 1 Generators, transformers, and users of knowledge and examples of factors that drive/motive them

PAGE 90 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 11 NO. 1 2007

 The model that emerges from interviews with managers who were actively involved with knowledge management in their organizations has four modes or stages of knowledge processing: generation, transfer, implementation and absorption.

Generators tend to be motivated by more immediate benets. They hope for outcomes that will satisfy such proximal factors as personal growth and their own competitive position. Generators of knowledge are less inclined to look beyond these immediate outcomes and are less willing to foresee longer-term impacts of the knowledge they procure and assemble. Transformers are motivated by the factors that contribute to the organization. They are driven by their function in the larger organization and the benets that the transfer and exchange of knowledge will provide the work-ow and work entities. This set of motivators is very different from the individual and proximal factors that drive generators of knowledge. In both cases there should be some form of verication of benets or, at the very least, a strong belief on the part of the actors that their transaction in knowledge will indeed produce the outcomes and benets they envision or are promised (Perry, 2005; Rubenstein and Geisler, 2003). The lack of these reassuring factors (actual or perceived) may gravely hinder the expenditure of effort by actors to transact in knowledge in their organizations. Reassurance is based on personal experience of organizational members who transact in knowledge, and organizational culture, policies, and procedures aimed at the encouragement of knowledge generation, transformation, and use (Grant, 1996; Heinrichs and Lim, 2005). Users of knowledge seem to be driven by both individual and organizational factors. A possible area of future research might examine the differences between these two categories of motivators. In the study reported here, individual benets are less coveted by users than organizational and corporate gains. Actors in the organization implement, use, adopt, and absorb knowledge more often because of actual or perceived benets that would accrue to their work-group or the larger organization. Individual gains are secondary in importance. The reasons for this phenomenon are not immediately clear in the study. Plausible explanations include the individual gains already received in their role as generators of knowledge, and the derivative benets the individual users would gain when the organization prots from the knowledge they implement, adopt, and absorb (Xirogiannis et al., 2004).

Strategic groups
The types of organizational actors who transact in knowledge can be considered strategic groups, in a mode similar to the Miles and Snow (1978) typology of defenders, prospectors, analyzers, and reactors. In this manner, generators, transformers, and users are distinct categories of approaches to the strategic adaptation to environmental changes (Zahra and Pearce, 1990). When organizational members transact in knowledge in one of the types described in this paper, they engender a strategic approach to address organizational problems of performance and competitive behavior (Holsapple and Jones, 2004). The generation, transformation, and use of knowledge can be considered means to strategic behavior (Connant et al., 1990). Over time the distinct transactions in knowledge become stable behaviors in the life of the organization. Rules, norms, procedures, and perceived relationships to performance and competitiveness become an integral part of the organizations culture and its strategic approach to solving problems. Knowledge is a crucial component of strategic management,

VOL. 11 NO. 1 2007 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 91

hence the need for the organization to support unfettered ow among its members and structural units and work groups. Central to accomplishing the ow of knowledge is the organizations ability to motivate its members to participate in knowledge transactions. The different types of transactions are driven by different incentives. Thus, the organization must tailor its offering of incentives to the specic type of knowledge transaction (Harrigan, 1985). Multiple roles and motivators The complexity of the multiple roles played by organizational members makes it much more difcult to tailor incentives. Ambiguities and conicts in the roles of generators, transformers, and users create situations in which short- and long-term incentives may weaken each others power of persuasion (Nicolas, 2004; Stewart, 1997). Moreover, transformers and users may be conceptually driven by longer-term motivators, yet exhibit behavior that tends to prefer proximal incentives, as if they were generators. This seemingly confused state of affairs is the result of multiple roles played simultaneously. When actors in the organization are driven by a given factor, they nd it difcult to relate this factor to the specic role they may be playing at the time the incentive is activated. In the case of research methodology, respondents have an easier mode of expressing their afnity for organizational incentives when these are primarily short term and providers of individual benets. Long-term and organizational impacts are harder to articulate and to identify with, when different roles are in a dynamic mix. Extending the typology to organizational behavior A similar manifestation of the typology of knowledge transactions is the different behaviors of organizations. In the same vein as individuals, organizations may play a strategic role of generators, transformers, and users of knowledge. In the case of generators of knowledge, organizations focus on collecting and hoarding knowledge, whether they decide to transfer and share or to keep accumulating and storing. In this respect, research and development (R&D) organizations may behave as generators of knowledge, collecting it from within (their own research) and from outside sources. The literature in R&D management has examined the insufciencies in the R&D/Marketing interface (Moenaert and Souder, 1996). Within technology organizations, R&D units are respositories of knowledge, but may also be inefcient transferers of such knowledge (Rowley, 2003). When assuming the role of transformers, organizations behave as gatekeepers (Klobas and McGill, 1995). They transact in knowledge by focusing on its transfer to others. As industry and the economic environment become increasingly more knowledge intensive, gatekeeping is a strategic behavior with business implications and a growing economic value (Lippert and Forman, 2005). Harada (2003) has proposed a distinction between R&D organizations in which gatekeepers gather and transfer information. He suggested that gatekeepers have an additional function of transforming knowledge. Harada argued that this function often requires distinctive skills that impede information gathering activities. There is therefore a role of transformer which is different from that of the generator of knowledge.

Role ambiguities arise when actors play a certain role where the parameters, rules and norms of behavior within the role are not clearly established, well communicated or unequivocally understood.

PAGE 92 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 11 NO. 1 2007

 Transformers who are also users may nd themselves in situations of role conict.

Organizations engaging in transformation behavior tend to compete in their environment by leveraging knowledge as a product or service, and the effort of transfer and exchange of knowledge as a business transaction. In those organizations where many processes have been outsourced, the transformation of knowledge gains added importance in the business portfolio of the organization. The role of users is a type of behavior of organizations in which the focus is on the structure and efciencies of knowledge utilization. This is the case of organizations whose strategic competencies depend to a large extent on the implementation, absorption and use of knowledge from external sources (Klobas and McGill, 1995). These organizations improve their competitiveness by striving for efciencies in the use of knowledge. They are more concerned than generators or transformers in the successful implementation of knowledge management systems (KMS). They are also engaged in assuring that there are effective structural and process linkages between their KMS and other functions and units (Sabherwal and Becerra-Fernandez, 2005).

Conclusions
This paper proposed a typology of people and organizations who transact in knowledge. The paper identied three distinct types of behavior: generators, transformers, and users. These types have unique factors that motivate and drive the organizational actors who transact in knowledge. The typology contributes to the analysis of the management of knowledge in organizations in the following ways. First, the typology helps to distinguish between the roles that people and organizations play in managing knowledge, and the complexities associated with these roles and their behavioral manifestations. Second, the typology provides an analytical framework in which organizational strategies and policies regarding knowledge management can be better studied and explained. Thus, policies on incentives to the generation, transfer, and use of knowledge can be now examined through the prism of types of transaction in knowledge and the roles played by organizational actors. Finally, the typology offers a conceptual framework in which organizations may tailor their policies and procedures regarding KMS and the links between knowledge transactions and organizational performance. The limitations of this study and its ndings are threefold. First, contextual variables such as size of the organization may contribute to difculties in distinguishing among the various transactors in knowledge. In smaller-sized organizations, members may interchangeably engage in the generation, transfer, and use of knowledge. The distinct roles that make the typology may thus be masked by the multitasks assumed by members of small and emerging organizations. A second limitation would be in view of the effect of the structure of the organization. For example, in a structure by functions (referred to as departmentation by function or unitary form of organization) the units or individual members will transact mostly in knowledge limited to their functional area. Conversely, in a structure by product, customer, or region, the members will transact in a much more varied spectrum of knowledge as generators, transformers, and users. Third, the model may be limited by the degree to which the roles of transactors in knowledge impact the utility of knowledge transactions and the performance of members and the organization in which such knowledge is transacted. Although the latter limitation is true for any typology, in this case it is important to identify the nature of the utility of the typology of knowledge transactions. One reason for this need is the link between the types of

VOL. 11 NO. 1 2007 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 93

transactions and the management of knowledge systems. Another reason is the link between the typology and strategies, policies, and procedures regarding knowledge management and knowledge systems. Further research would empirically examine the linkages between the types identied in this paper and value created from knowledge transactions. Another research topic would be the study of organizations as distinct types of knowledge transactors. For example, future research may study universities in their roles as generators and transformers of knowledge, and the benets and value they provide to society. Similarly, business organizations may be studied in their roles as generators, transformers, or users of knowledge and the relationship between the effectiveness of the role with their competitive position and commercial success.

References
Campbell, D.T. and Stanley, J.C. (1963), Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research, Rand McNally, Chicago, IL. Connant, J., Mokwa, M. and Varadarajan, D. (1990), Strategic types, distinctive marketing competencies, and organizational performance: a multiple measures-based study, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 365-83. Day, R. (2005), Clearing up implicit knowledge: implications for knowledge management, information science, psychology, and social epistemology, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 56 No. 6, pp. 630-6. Earl, M. (2001), Knowledge management strategies: toward a taxonomy, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 215-34. Estabrooks, C., Rutakumwa, W., OLeary, K., Profetto-McGrath, J., Milner, M., Levers, M. and Scott-Findlay, S. (2005), Sources of practical knowledge among nurses, Qualitative Health Research, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 460-72. Geisler, E. (2000), The Metrics of Science and Technology, Greenwood Publishing Group, Westport, CT. Grant, R.M. (1996), Toward a knowledge-based theory of the rm, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 17 No. 10, pp. 109-22. Gupta, S., Bhatanagar, V. and Wasan, S. (2005), Architecture for knowledge discovery and knowledge management, Knowledge and Information Systems, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 310-19. Harada, T. (2003), Three steps in knowledge communication: the emergence of knowledge transformers, Research Policy, Vol. 32 No. 10, pp. 1737-51. Harrigan, K. (1985), An application of clustering for strategic group analysis, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 55-73. Heinrichs, J. and Lim, J. (2005), Model for organizational knowledge creation and strategic use of information, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 56 No. 6, pp. 620-31. Holsapple, C. and Jones, K. (2004), Exploring primary activities of the knowledge chain, Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 155-74. Holsapple, C. and Jones, K. (2005), Exploring secondary activities of the knowledge chain, Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 3-31. Jashapara, A. (2005), The emerging discourse of knowledge management: a new dawn for information science research, Journal of Information Science, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 136-48. Kankanhalli, A. and Tan, B. (2004), A review of metrics for knowledge management systems and knowledge management initiatives, in Sprague, R.H. Jr (Ed.), Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on Systems Science, Big Island, HI, January, IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA. Kelloway, K. and Barling, J. (1990), Item content versus wording: disentangling role conict and role ambiguity, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 75 No. 6, pp. 738-45. Kirk, J. and Miller, M. (1985), Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

PAGE 94 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 11 NO. 1 2007

Klobas, J. and McGill, T. (1995), Identication of technological gatekeepers in the information technology profession, Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Vol. 46 No. 8, pp. 581-90. Lippert, S. and Forman, H. (2005), Utilization of information technology: examining cognitive and experiential factors of post-adoption behavior, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 363-81. Michell, J. (2004), The place of qualitative research in psychology, Qualitative Research in Psychology, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 307-19. Miles, R. and Snow, C. (1978), Organization Strategy, Structure, and Process, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Moenaert, R. and Souder, W. (1996), Context and antecedents of information utility at the R&D/marketing interface, Management Science, Vol. 42 No. 11, pp. 1592-610. Muthusamy, S. and Palanisamy, R. (2004), Leveraging cognition for competitive advantage: a knowledge-based strategy process, Journal of Information and Knowledge Management, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 259-72. Nicolas, R. (2004), Knowledge management impacts on decision making process, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 20-31. Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Perry, I. (2005), Knowledge as process, not data: the role of process-based systems in developing organizational knowledge and behavior, International Journal of Healthcare Technology Management, Vol. 6 Nos 4/5/6, pp. 420-30. Polanyi, M. (1966), The Tacit Dimension, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London. Rowley, J. (2003), Knowledge management: the new librarianship? From custodians of history to gatekeepers to the future, Library Management, Vol. 24 Nos 8/9, pp. 433-40. Rubenstein, A.H. and Geisler, E. (2003), Installing and Managing Workable Knowledge Management Systems, Praeger Publishers, Westport, CT. Sabherwal, R. and Becerra-Fernandez, I. (2005), Integrating specic knowledge: insights from the Kennedy Space Center, IEEE Transactions in Engineering Management, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 301-15. Sandelowski, M. (2004), Using qualitative research, Qualitative Health Research, Vol. 14 No. 10, pp. 366-74. Sawyer, J. (1992), Goal and process clarity: specication of multiple constructs of role ambiguity and a structural equation model of their antecedents and consequences, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 77 No. 2, pp. 130-42. Srilatha, P. and Harigopal, K. (1985), Role conict and role ambiguity: certain antecedents and consequences, ASCI Journal of Management, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 77-109. Stewart, T. (1997), Intellectual Capital: The New Wealth of Organizations, Doubleday Publishers, New York, NY. Xirogiannis, G., Glykas, M. and Staikouras, C. (2004), Fuzzy cognitive maps as a back end to knowledge-based systems in geographically dispersed nancial organizations, Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 137-54. Zahra, S. and Pearce, J. (1990), Research evidence on the Miles-Snow typology, Journal of Management, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 751-68.

Further reading
Armour, P. (2000), The ve orders of ignorance, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 43 No. 10, pp. 17-20. Brandon, D. and Hollingshead, A. (2004), Transactive memory systems in organizations: matching tasks, expertise, and people, Organization Science, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 633-45. Colonia-Willner, R. (1999), Investing in practical intelligence: ageing and cognitive efciency among executives, International Journal of Behavioral Development, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 591-614.

VOL. 11 NO. 1 2007 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 95

Gambrill, E. (2000), Honest brokering of knowledge and ignorance, Journal of Social Work Education, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 387-97. Gray, D. (2003), Wanted: chief ignorance ofcer, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 81 No. 11, pp. 22-9. Harvey, M., Novicevic, M.M., Buckley, M.R. and Ferris, G.R. (2001), A historic perspective on organizational ignorance, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 449-68. Hazlett, S., McAdam, R. and Gallagher, S. (2005), Theory building in knowledge management: in search of paradigms, Journal of Management Inquiry, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 31-43. Hines, P., Rich, N. and Hittmeyer, M. (1998), Competing against ignorance: advantage through knowledge, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 18-33. May, T. (1998), Strategic ignorance: the new competitive high ground, Information Management & Computer Security, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 127-9. Nerkar, A. and Paruchuri, S. (2005), Evolution of R&D capabilities: the role of knowledge networks within the rm, Management Science, Vol. 51 No. 5, pp. 771-85. Raghu, T. (1991), Perceptions of role stress by boundary role persons: an empirical investigation, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 490-515. Rogers, W., Fisk, A. and Hertzog, C. (1994), Do ability-performance relationships differentiate age and practice effects in visual search?, Journal of Experimental Psychology, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 710-38. Ungar, S. (2003), Misplaced metaphor: a critical analysis of the knowledge society, The Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 331-47. Wenger, J. and Carlson, R. (1996), Cognitive sequence knowledge: what is learned?, Journal of Experimental Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 599-619. Wildemuth, B., de Bliek, R. and Friedman, C. (1995), Medical students personal knowledge searching prociency, and database use in problem solving, Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Vol. 46 No. 8, pp. 590-8.

About the author

Eliezer Geisler is Professor and Associate Dean for Research at the Stuart Graduate School of Business, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, Illinois, USA. He holds a doctorate from Northwestern University. Dr Geisler is the author of nearly 100 papers in the areas of technology and innovation management, the evaluation of R&D, science and technology, and the management of healthcare and medical technology. He is the author of eight books, including The Metrics of Science and Technology (2000), Creating Value with Science and Technology (2001), Technology, Healthcare and Management in the Hospital of the Future (2003), and Installing and Managing Workable Knowledge Management Systems (with Rubenstein, 2003). He consulted for major corporations and for many US federal departments, such as Defense, Agriculture, Commerce, EPA, Energy, and NASA. His forthcoming books are Knowledge Management: Concepts and Cases (with Wickramasinghe (2006) and The Structure and Progress of Knowledge (2006). Dr Geisler is the co-founder of the annual conferences on the Hospital of the Future, and the Health Care Technology and Management Association, a joint venture of several universities in ten countries. He co-founded the systematic research of the management of medical technology, and serves on various editorial boards of major journals. In addition to the management of medical technology, his current research interests include knowledge management in general and in complex systems, such as healthcare, in particular. He can be contacted at: geisler@stuart.iit.edu

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

PAGE 96 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 11 NO. 1 2007