Major Concepts Leading to the Primary Essence of an Organization - Term Paper Example

Strategy as Practice Introduction: When an organization is talked about, it is considered to be a part of the larger community that consists of other organizations, consultants and other business related institutions involved in making strategic plans and decisions and hence significantly require strategic practices. Strategy as practice is a concept that necessitates providing greater attention to the strategic decisions within an organization. The general theories associated with societies are tried to be applied to the processes and strategic planning in an organization focusing on achievement of goals (Seidl, 2011, p.197). In this regard, four major concepts are essential that lead to the primary essence of an organization. These include knowledge management, intellectual capital, communities of practice and power, and soft systems thinking. Knowledge management is a complex idea involved and necessary within organizations and involves individuals, philosophies and politics within an organization. Problems associated with this concept are dealt by the soft systems management (Fennessy & Burstein, 2000, pp.180-185). In other words, these concepts are interrelated to each other in some way or the other. The present study focuses on an understanding of these four concepts individually with respect to their meanings, their importance, their characteristics, and their roles within an organization. 1) Knowledge: Introduction: Knowledge management (KM) within an organization is an integral part of the responsibilities of knowledge workers within an organization and involves systems and technologies, people and learning organizations, processes, methods and techniques, managing assets of knowledge, and a holistic initiative across the entire organization. It is about considering one as a part of the organization and sharing the knowledge gained with others around (Definition of Knowledge Management, 2009). What is it? It is the knowledge of human beings that eventually creates an enterprise or an organization. Relevant knowledge is necessary for any product that an organization intends to develop. The knowledge and its sharing are essential for organizing, developing, and exploiting the organizational body to the extent needed for the achievement of the goals (Rastogi, 2002, p.229). The latest definition provided by Horwitch and Armacost in 2002 states that “KM is the creation, extraction, transformation and storage of the correct knowledge and information in order to design better policy, modify action and deliver results” (Kanagasabapathy, Radhakrishnan & Balasubramanian, n.d.). KM consultants believe that knowledge is the most essential component in an organization that needs to be considered in strategic management and hence can enable an organization to gain competitive advantage over others. An organization getting prepared for knowledge management programme would reflect on its varying or familiarizing itself to the culture of the organization intending to assist, sustain, and promote the involvement, exploitation, and establishment of knowledge (Kanagasabapathy, Radhakrishnan & Balasubramanian, n.d.). Importance of KM: In the present times, rapid changes are occurring in the information technology and the use of internet that makes it necessary for organizations to build such models enabling them to adapt to these changes. It is here that the knowledge management proves to be necessary. Knowledge cannot be simply measured or reviewed; hence organizations need to deal with knowledge in effect such that complete benefit of the skills and know-how can be experienced inbuilt in their organizations and structures accompanied by the implicit knowledge that fit in with the employees of an organization (Kanagasabapathy, Radhakrishnan & Balasubramanian, n.d.). Knowledge sharing and management hence is important to improve the organizational strength by increasing the inner skills of the members. Organizational Knowledge Creation: TACIT & EXPLICIT Ikujiro Nonaka had discussed about the two types of knowledge. These include the Tacit type of knowledge and the Explicit type of knowledge. Tacit knowledge is subjective in nature and based on experiences that cannot be expressed in the form of words, sentences, numbers or formulas, primarily because it is specific to different perspective. Cognitive skills like beliefs, images, instinct and psychological models along with skills of technology are included in this form of knowledge. On the other hand, explicit knowledge is objective in nature and based on rational knowledge. Hence explicit knowledge may expressed in the form of words, sentences, numbers or formulas as it is free of any particular contexts. This form of knowledge includes hypothetical approaches, problem solving methods, manuals and databases (Nonaka, 1997). However there are barriers to the conversions of such knowledge or in the application of knowledge management within organizations as well. The different barriers include Lack of top management commitment, Lack of technological infrastructure, Lack of methodology, Lack of organizational structure, Lack of organizational culture, Lack of motivation and rewards, Staff retirement, Lack of ownership of problem, and Staff defection. Hence in order to apply the above types of knowledge and their conversions, these barriers are necessary to be removed in the first place (Singh & Kant, 2008, pp.141-144). Knowledge Creation: Four Modes by Nonaka: Nonaka had discussed about four different modes of knowledge creation. These include Socialization, Externalization, Internalization, and Combination. Socialization occurs when tacit knowledge within an individual gets transferred to tacit knowledge in another individual. This might occur by walking around or direct conversation between the two persons or with people outside to the organization including customers, suppliers, and so on, where different experiences may get shared. Externalization is the process of formation of the tacit knowledge through the use of words, metaphors or analogies. This might occur through direct interactions where people share their thoughts and beliefs and exchange their ideas (Nonaka, 1997). The process of transfer of explicit knowledge from one individual to another is referred by Nonaka as combination. In this context, information technology is of significant use and such knowledge may be transferred through the use of documents, email, databases, and meetings. Internalization involves conversion of the explicit knowledge into tacit knowledge within an individual. This is possible through different experimental methods through the use of simulated techniques (Nonaka, 1997). According to Nonaka, a company is formed of individuals having the different forms of knowledge. Sharing this knowledge reflects creation and sharing of ideals (Nonaka, 2000, pp.97-98). Management and Environment: In the present times, almost all organizations have realized the significance of KM and applying them in their management and organizational environment. Knowledge can now be obtained in its unique, supreme condition as objective, open, communal and recognized secluded from individual affairs and subjectivities (Ward, 2007, pp.16-17). Positive deviance is one of the approaches that have proved to be highly realistic in preparing and reframing the difficulty and in learning from current traditions contained by possessions that are already obtainable (Lewis, 2010, p.283). Context, Relationships and Uncertainty: In implementing the processes of KM, organizations are encountered with several difficulties as well. Causes and developing solutions have been presented by different scholars that are necessary for a clear picture and understanding. Such causes are often human, structural, or technological related, to which both IT and non-IT solutions are considered (Ou & Davison, n.d.). Organizational culture also creates barriers in organizational strategies that in the recent times are tried to be overcome through knowledge sharing (McDermott & O’Dell, 2001, p.79). Conclusion: From the above section of the study, it can be concluded that in an environment of uncertainty, the KM is significantly important as also obtained by different studies. However, there are still barriers that need to be overcome in order to make a successful application of the KM process within organizations. 2) Intellectual Capital (IC): Introduction: The study of intellectual capital of IC has been ongoing ever since the 1990s. It is also considered as the study of intangible assets. Various definitions have been tried to be obtained to explain the meaning of IC. Non-accounting researchers have defined “intellectual capital” as the “difference between the firm’s market value and its book value of entity” (Choong, 2008, p.612). Goodwill is also considered as intangible assets that are described by the difference between the market value of an entity and the book value of the recognizable assets of the entity. Intangible assets are considered as assets the increase the value of the resources to formation of valued added products (Choong, 2008, pp.612-613). What is it? IC has been defined by some authors as the result of the “collaborative effort among the firm’s human and social capital, and knowledge management” (Choong, 2008, p.615). Intellectual capital has also been classified into employee competence, internal structure and external structure (Choong, 2008, p.617). In actuality, intellectual capital results from either formal education or informal on-the-job training. Hence it is not observable in the conventional human capital classification. Human capital has been classified into six different categories that include formal schooling, on-the-job training, job search, information retrieval, migration, and improvement in health. Human capital theory is significantly obtained both hypothetically and empirically, and it is generally believed that it can be customized to comprise a hard stage for development of a theoretical appraisal method of an individuals' prospective (Nerdrum & Erikson, 2001, pp.131-133). Importance of IC: It has been obtained that in the present times, the individuals and processes adding to the values of the products and policies are considered under the intellectual capital more and less under the physical and financial capital. Adoption of a prescribed structure to assist intellectual capital reporting is a technique for organizations to unambiguously recognize, inspect and administer intangible resources of value creation and correspond to these both internally and externally to an organizational structure (Petty et al, n.d., p.2). The importance of IC lies in the fact that among the intangible assets, intellectual property draws an immense interest. “Intellectual capital is not a tangible asset, but it creates the enterprise value. So, the management of intellectual capital is a very important problem for managers” (Yamada, n.d., p.1). IC converts knowledge into a firm’s value. IC Categories: In business, knowledge is noticeable in the form of intellectual capital, the categories of which include human capital, structural capital, intellectual assets and intellectual property. A three part definition of IC is considered that includes components of human, relation, and structure. The human components are involved with the competence of employees, know-how, knowledge related to work, innovativeness and education. The structural components include cultural factors, spirit of the organization, copyrights, trademarks, patents, internal databases, and management processes. The components of brand include brand, reputation, strategic alliances, customers, licensing, agreements, and channels of distribution. The relational capital includes the external factors associated with the income generation of organizations. The structural components on the other hand enable an organization to exploit the IC (Seetharaman, Low & Saravanan, 2004, pp.523-524). Idea Measurement: The existing financial reporting systems have proved to have several limitations owing to which the stakeholders of an organization have increased their interests in models supporting the measurements of IC (Seetharaman, Low & Saravanan, 2004, p.532). According to a rational management perspective of IC, rational management consists of a strategy that is pre-determined, enable to solve problems, and goal-oriented considering an organization to be a closed environment. The non-rational perspective symbolizes an ecological model of judgment as it considers mutual dependency and interdependency. Metalectic thinking gives importance to both rational and non-rational thinking and measures the factors accordingly. It sees the IC as a “process of choice-makers exploring possibilities, identifying necessities and exploiting opportunities when possibilities meet necessities” (Chaharbaghi & Cripps, 2006, pp.31-39). Measurement: Significant professional and academic interests are involved in the understanding and measurement of IC. The Balanced Scorecard observes the performances of business units from the financial, customer, internal business process, and, learning and growth perspectives, identifying the core activities leading to value addition. Intangible Assets Monitor (IAM) provides reports on qualitative and other information associated with a firm’s intellectual capital, presenting a whole and practical account of the performance of a company and its outlook for business potential. The Skandia Value Scheme is another measurement tool that provides with a theoretical idea of how Skandia observes the association between intellectual capital and financial capital intending to determine the market value of the business (Petty et al, n.d., p.4). Limitation: The current status reveals that applications for initial guidelines and accounting standards for intellectual capital are at a premature stage. Companies in general misjudge the significance of intellectual capital assets and prefer not to disclose them while capital markets are more in search for such information (Brennan & Connell, 2000, pp.236-238). The concept of social capital that might have been in place since several years, have only recently obtained its importance, bringing in front the bonds, linkages among the organizational members (What is Social Capital, n.d., pp.102-103). To add to these limitations, another major issue is that intellectual property is often misinterpreted as including only intellectual assets while it includes intellectual liabilities as well. Hence, only identification of intellectual assets leads to an incomplete understanding of the concept (Caddy, 2000, pp.141-142). Organizational memory presenting different models assist in understanding as to how the theory of IC can be associated with the practical aspects. However, here too limitations arise since IC can be measured through such different practices that the OM model is not capable to explain (Wexler, 2002, p.408). Conclusion: From the above section of the study on IC, it can be concluded that like the knowledge management, the intellectual capital also proves to be of highly significant as far as the organizational strategy practice is concerned. However, all organizations in general have not yet been able to consider its practice and there is a lack in understanding of the concept that needs to be removed in order to successfully incorporate the measure within organizations. 3) Communities of Practice & Power (CoP): Introduction: Communities of practices have been in use in the business sectors for more than 20 years (Li et al, 2009). CoPs are formed by groups of people who are involved in a process of collective learning in a mutual field of human undertaking. They share their experiences, stories, tools, ways of addressing recurring problems, intending to bring solutions to organizational problems making optimal use of the organizational resources (Wenger, 2006). What is it? In the present times, the concept of CoP has become very popular in organizational studies as well as in education. CoPs focus on communal distinctiveness, courses of contribution and the pressures to individuals arising from their multi-membership of different communities (Cox, 2005, pp.527-528). The domain of interest identifies the group involved in the community of practice. In the process the individuals the individuals get involved in several activities that they perform together in the form of a community (Wenger, 2006). Importance of COPs: The involvement of members in communities of practice within organizations does not occur in a formal basis. Rather, membership and formation of such communities occur through participation. The importance of CoPs arises in the way they perform several functions within an organization. These include exchange and interpretation of data and information, retaining knowledge gained from the surroundings, supervising competencies keeping the position of an organization in a proper frame, and also provides homes for identifications. Moreover, an organization’s potential for learning is also structured by the CoPs. This is achieved “through the knowledge they develop at their core and through interactions at their boundaries” (Wenger, 1998). Characteristics of CoP: Domain, community and practice are the three essential characteristics of CoPs. Domain provides the CoP an identity as different members get involved in the form of a community and share a common interest for the welfare of an organization. The domain explains the type of information that needs to be shared among the members of the community. While mentioning about the community, it refers to the group of individuals interested in the same domain thereby sharing their knowledge and experiences assisting each other’s thoughts. Group discussions and meetings are parts of the process through which community members exchange their knowledge and views. Practice refers to the ways and measures through which the works of the communities may be achieved. Generally well defined sets of activities are considered for CoPs focusing on increasing knowledge sharing among the members (Rahul, 2012). Challenges of Managing within Organizations: Management of tacit knowledge within organizations can be associated with the use of community of practice. The most significant challenge lies with the inability of the organizations to manage time and resources for documenting the knowledge that they possess or gain. The CoPs enable an organization to overcome these challenges and hence manage tacit knowledge. Firstly, these groups develop the situations around their domain of concern. Secondly, unusual and unpredictable situations are more capably handled based on the interactions and sharing of these members. Thirdly, through such techniques greater amounts of expertise are obtained. Lastly, members of the community build up a perceptive knowledge of how to undertake different issues in their field of proficiency (Callahan, n.d., pp.3-4). The major challenges lie with the power dynamics, the concept of trust as well as the predispositions that need to be overcome while considering the CoPs in organizations. Without trust the members would not share their knowledge and experiences. Moreover meanings of the knowledge and experiences are often negotiated within the CoPs which is challenging as well (Roberts, 2006, pp.626-629). Meaning of Power: Lukes in his studies had discussed about a radical view of power where power is viewed as the obligation of internal constraints, and those associated with it obtain values that effect in their approval or their adjustment to command, by either coercive or non-coercive forms. Lukes maintained that power is dependent on values and may be one-dimensional, two-dimensional or three-dimensional. The one-dimensional view focuses on behaviour, decision-making, major issues, conflicts, and interests. The two-dimensional view focuses on decision-making and control, possible issues, conflicts, and interests. The three-dimensional view has its focus on the decision-making and control over political issues, issues, conflicts, subjective and real interests (Lukes, 2006, pp.87-90). Power Over and Power With: Power Over is the concept that focuses on an individual maintaining control over others. It may be efficient in its perspective. However, it might become problematic and dangerous as well since power exerted in this manner might be regardless of any skills or knowledge, or even the rightness of a purpose. Power With on the other hand uses a standard process taking sufficient time, effort and lateral thinking. This concept focuses on the fact that the ego is reduced and more concentration is paid on to the emotional aspects of an individual (Terez, 2010, pp.2-4). Power Over: Power over relations refers to a conventional model representing the dominant nature of individuals where decision making is characterized by direction, and self-interest (Berger, 2005, p.6). Hence in this type of power organizations, the relationship can be obtained to be one sided with dominance from one party to the other. This in turn can be expected to affect the level of motivation of the organizational members as well. Power With: Power with relations reflects a model of empowerment where conversation, enclosure, intervention, and shared power direct decision making within organizations. “An ongoing, gendered dialectic is seen to occur between power over and power with relations inside the dominant coalition” (Berger, 2005, p.6). It can thus be seen in this case that the relations are not one sided. Instead they include the participation and involvement of all members. This in other words might reflect on the positivity with which knowledge sharing might also take place. This also motivates the members significantly. Conclusion: It can be concluded from this section of the study that KM, IC and CoPs are eventually connected with each other and CoPs have proved to be efficient tools to involve different organizational members for direct knowledge exchange thereby adding value to the organizational commitments. 4) Soft Systems Thinking (SST): Introduction: In order to convert an organization into a learning institution there are five essential components needed to be considered. These include personal mastery, mental models, building shared vision, team learning, and systems thinking. These components are essentially linked to one another in a way one component contributes to the other in the process (Crookes, n.d., p.22). SSM (Soft Systems Methodology) was developed by researchers from Lancaster University during the 1970s, who had studied and observed that the hard systems methods were insufficient to deal with ill-structured, difficult, practical troubles encountered in different situations of the management (Sankaran, Tay & Orr, 2008, p.182). Importance and Development of SST: The concept of systems thinking had been tried to be applied in solving problems since the 1970s and the 1980s. However the major problem associated with the process was that the analysts were obtained to be incapable of recognizing and describing the objectives of the organizations and hence determine alternative measures. It was owing to such problems that the concept of systems theory found its importance in the practical applications. The Soft Systems Methodology was considered to be a system of learning and investigation (Pham, n.d., p.1). The traditional systems of strategic planning are found to be inefficient in the current times to deal with the rapid changes in the business environment calling for the need for newer methods, tools and models for production planning. SST has been obtained to have its importance in this regard providing sustainable production planning (Presley & Meade, 2002, p.102). In order to develop the SSM in organizations, models need to be determined according to the needs and objectives of the organization. Depending on the nature of the organization, the model may either be of a micro level or of a macro level. SSM is a means to aid alteration in such a manner that the observations of individuals occupied with the alteration can be confined and contradictory outlooks and views can be highlighted. The stages in its development include understanding the problem and the situation, attempting to construct the most effective picture of the situation, describing and specifying the nature of the selected system, producing conceptual models of the defined system, comparing conceptual model with actual situation, outlining possible changes that are desirable and feasible, and take action accordingly (Morcos & Henshaw, 2009). Hard and Soft Systems Thinking: The primary different between the HST and SST lies in the fact that while SST has its focus on an “an urge to bring about improvement in a social system in which there is felt to be an ill-defined problem situation”, on the other hand, the HST views to bring an “an urge to solve a relatively well defined problem which the analyst may, to a large extent, take as given, once a client requiring help is identified” (Reisman & Oral, 2005, p.167). The soft systems try to encourage an “open and unconstrained attitude towards change” focusing on the contribution of every organizational members (Pham, n.d., p.1). Depending on the class of the problem as might be able to be categorized, the hard and soft systems of thinking models can be actually associated. In many cases thus the SSM might prove to be too open ended thus not adding values to the organization. While on the other hand, the focus of an organization is in increasing value addition through the combined techniques of KM, IC, CoPs, and SST. SSM Toolkit: The SSM in the recent times has developed as a tool that intends to solve problems associated with soft elements like visible conflicts among the stakeholders of an organization. It is a qualitative technique applying systems thinking in the problem solving of non-systemic states of an organization. Thus it actually developed as a problem solving tool. “It is especially used for problems that have a high level of psychological, social, and cultural elements that lay stress on finding solutions through learning and appreciation of the problem” (Nayab, 2011). The process uses a methodology that involves seven steps. These are: (1) understanding the problem; (2) defining the problem; (3) root definition, usually through CATWOE analysis; (4) building conceptual models; (5) comparing models with real world; (6) selecting desired and feasible interventions; and (7) taking appropriate action (Nayab, 2011). Figure 1: The SSM Toolkit Rich Picture (Soft Systems Methodology, 2009). A structured and systematic way is offered by the soft systems methodology to come close to difficult and disorganized problems concerning conflicts among the stakeholders. It is considered as a popular tool because of its basic knowledge in authenticity, and its captivating outstanding “cognizance of the ethical dimensions to decision making” (Nayab, 2011). It lets deliberation of all viewpoints and values, allowing for better decision-making. However, the success of this technique depends on the evaluation of the diverse views across the worlds that are often subjective in nature (Nayab, 2011). SSM Learning and Thinking: SSM intends to promote learning and approval of the problem situation in an organization between groups of stakeholders. It does not consider pre-determined problems. Many times organizations encounter difficulties in determining what problem actually prevails within the organizational KM, IC and CoPs. SSM tries to offer a method to deal with such situations. Real world activities and systems thinking about the real world are the two different modes of the SSM. While the first method involves meetings and interviews focusing on understanding of the problem; the second method “uses concepts of hierarchy, communication, control, and emergent properties to identify 'relevant systems' which may provide useful insights” (Soft Systems Methodology, n.d.). SSM uses “systems thinking” in the form of a cycle of research conducted on the needs and accomplishment goals, knowledge and manifestation to assist recognize the different insights existing in the mentality of the different individuals concerned in the circumstances. Hence it is mainly appropriate for difficult management systems (Maqsood, Finegan & Walker, n.d.). Conclusion: From the above study it can be concluded that the SSM models are focused on significant benefits associated with organizations. However, the concepts of the models might be too broad to be accepted and incorporated as parts of strategic planning unless proper understanding is achieved. Hence in order to determine the optimum results out of these models, initially the members need to have a clear conceptual perception before applying them to the organizational strategic planning. Conclusion to the Study: The study has been focused on the aspects of strategic planning within organizations. In the study the four major components have been discussed that include the knowledge management, intellectual capital, communities of practice, and soft systems of thinking. With the completion of the study and a detailed understanding of these topics, it can be concluded that these components are significantly associated with one another, primarily focusing on the development of the organizational members. Each of these factors is essential in order to improve the status of the organizational commitments and the performances of the members, particularly in the midst of increasing competitive business world. However, in spite of the benefits of these factors, there are still limitations and problems associated with them, that need to be taken significant concern before applying these methods and successfully achieve the individual organizational goals through strategic planning. References 1) Berger, B.K. (2005), Power Over, Power With, and Power to Relations: Critical Reflections on Public Relations, the Dominant Coalition, and Activism, Journal of Public Relations Research, Vol.17, No.1, pp.5-28, available at: http://www2.comm.niu.edu/faculty/rholt/eoc/461Bread04Berger.pdf (accessed on May 16, 2012) 2) Brennan, N. & B. Connell (2000), Intellectual capital: current issues and policy implications, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol.1, No.3, pp.206-240 3) Caddy, I. (2000), Intellectual capital: recognizing both assets and liabilities, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol.1, No.2, pp.129-146 4) Callahan, S. (n.d.), Want to Manage Tacit Knowledge?, anecdote, available at: http://www.anecdote.com.au/papers/Want_to_manage_tacit_knowledge.pdf (accessed on May 16, 2012) 5) Chaharbaghi, K. & S. Cripps (2006), Intellectual capital: direction, not blind faith, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol.7, No.1, pp.29-42 6) Choong, K.K. (2008), Intellectual capital: definitions, categorization and reporting models, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol.9, No.4, pp.609-638 7) Cox, A. (2005), What are communities of practice? A comparative review of four seminal works, Journal of Information Science, Vol.31, No.6, pp.527-540 8) Crookes, D. (n.d.), Systems Thinking in Learning Organizations, SPE, available at: http://www.spe.org/twa/print/archives/2007/2007v3n3/twa2007_v3n3_Soft_Skills.pdf (accessed on May 16, 2012) 9) Definition of Knowledge Management (2009), knowledge-management-online, available at: http://www.knowledge-management-online.com/Definition-of-Knowledge-Management.html (accessed on May 13, 2012) 10) Fennessy, G. & F. Burstein (2000), Using soft systems as a methodology for researching knowledge management problems, ceur-ws, available at: http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-72/026%20Fennessy%20SSM.pdf (accessed on May 13, 2012) 11) Kanagasabapathy, K.A., Radhakrishnan, R. & S. Balasubramanian (n.d.), Empirical Investigation of Critical Success factor and knowledge management structure for successful implementation of knowledge management system – a case study in Process industry 12) Lewis, J. (2010), Positive deviance 13) Li, L.C. et al (2009), Use of communities of practice in business and health care sectors: A systematic review, Implementation Science, Vol.4, No.27, available at: http://www.implementationscience.com/content/4/1/27 (accessed on May 16, 2012) 14) Lukes, S. (2006), Power: A Radical View, Crossroads, Vol.6, No.2, pp.87-95 15) Maqsood, T., Finegan, A.D. & D.H.T. Walker (n.d.), Five case studies applying Soft Systems Methodology to Knowledge Management, construction-innovation, available at: http://www.construction-innovation.info/images/pdfs/Research_library/ResearchLibraryA/Refereed_Conference_papers/Five_Case_Studies.pdf (accessed on May 16, 2012) 16) McDermott, R., & C. O’Dell (2001), Overcoming cultural barriers to sharing knowledge, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol.5, No.1, pp.76-85 17) Morcos, M. & M. Henshaw (2009), A Soft Systems Methodology for Transforming Organisations to Product-Service Systems (Application In Defence and Construction Industry), CSER, available at: http://cser.lboro.ac.uk/papers/S04-32.pdf (accessed on May 16, 2012) 18) Nayab, N. (2011), Soft Systems Methodology: An Overview, brighthub, available at: http://www.brighthub.com/office/project-management/articles/106338.aspx (accessed on May 16, 2012) 19) Nerdrum, L. & T. Erikson (2001), Intellectual capital: a human capital perspective, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol.2, No.2, pp.127-135 20) Nonaka, I. (1997), Organizational Knowledge Creation 21) Nonaka, I. (2000), The Knowledge Creating Company 22) Ou, C.X.J. & R.M. Davison (n.d.), Knowledge Management Problems, Causes, And Solutions: Junior Knowledge Workers’ Perspectives 23) Petty, R.M. et al (n.d.), Intellectual Capital and Valuation: Challenges in the Voluntary Disclosure of Value Drivers, Journal of Finance and Accountancy, pp.1-7 24) Pham, K. (n.d.), How effective is Soft Systems Methodology as an alternative to the dominant and so-called ‘hard’ approaches to Information Systems design and development? When is this approach most useful? Discuss with examples., angelfire, available at: http://www.angelfire.com/ab7/conmciha/5AKimPham.pdf (accessed on May 16, 2012) 25) Presley, A. & L. Meade (2002), The Role of Soft Systems Methodology in Planning for Sustainable Production, GMI, Vol.37 26) Rahul, R. (2012), Characteristics of Communities of Practice, projectguru, available at: http://www.projectguru.in/publications/characteristics-of-communities-of-practice/ (accessed on May 15, 2012) 27) Rastogi, P.N. (2002), Knowledge management and intellectual capital as a paradigm of value creation, Human Systems Management, Vol.21, pp.229-240 28) Reisman, A. & M. Oral (2005), Soft Systems Methodology: A Context Within a 50-Year Retrospective of OR/MS, Interfaces, Vol.35, No.2, pp.164-178 29) Roberts, J. (2006), Limits to Communities of Practice, Journal of Management Studies, Vol.43, No.3, pp.623-639 30) Sankaran, S., Tay, B.H. & M. Orr (2008), Managing organizational change by using soft systems thinking in action research projects, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol.2, No.2, pp.179-197 31) Seetharaman, A., Low, K.L.T. & A.S. Saravanan (2004), Comparative justification on intellectual capital, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol.5, No.4, pp.522-539 32) Seidl, D. (2011), General Strategy Concepts and the Ecology of Strategy Discourses: A Systemic- Discursive Perspective, Organization Studies, Vol.28, No.2, pp.197-218, available at: http://www.uk.sagepub.com/cleggstrategy/David%20Seidl.pdf (accessed on May 13, 2012) 33) Singh, M.D. & R. Kant (2008), Knowledge management barriers: An interpretive structural modelling approach, International Journal of Management Science and Engineering Management, Vol.3, No.2, pp.141-150 34) Soft Systems Methodology (2009), sqltoolkit, available at: http://www.sqltoolkit.co.uk/methodologies.htm (accessed on May 16, 2012) 35) Soft Systems Methodology (n.d.), IFM, available at: http://www.ifm.eng.cam.ac.uk/dstools/control/softsm.html (accessed on May 16, 2012) 36) Terez, T. (2010), Power Over v. Power With, betterworkplacenow, available at: http://www.betterworkplacenow.com/PowerWith-TomTerez.pdf (accessed on May 16, 2012) 37) Ward, M. (2007), How knowledge companies succeed, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol.11, No.6, pp.16-27 38) Wenger, E. (1998), Communities of Practice Learning as a Social System, co-i-l, available at: http://www.co-i-l.com/coil/knowledge-garden/cop/lss.shtml (accessed on May 15, 2012) 39) Wenger, E. (2006), Communities of Practice A Brief Introduction, ewenger, available at: http://www.ewenger.com/theory/ (accessed on May 15, 2012) 40) Wexler, M.N. (2002), Organizational memory and intellectual capital, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol.3, No.4, pp.393-414 41) What is Social Capital (n.d.), OECD Insights: Human Capital 42) Yamada, Y. (n.d.), The Intellectual Capital Reporting for the Enterprise Value Creation Read More