Knowledge Based View: Why this sudden interest in Organizational Knowledge and Knowledge Management?

Alavi and Leidner (2001) argue that recent interest in organizational knowledge and KM is caused by (a) shift to information age with rapid advancement in IT and (b) shift in organizational theory and praxis to consider knowledge as the primary source of economic growth manifested in new thinking and practice in the organization (e.g. benchmarking, knowledge audits, best practice transfer, and employee development "The emergent patterns of literature and research as well as practice in the field imply the central role of knowledge as the essence of the firm" (Alavi & Leidner 2001).

Extending the resource-based theory (RBV) of the firm (Penrose 1959; Barney 1991; Conner 1991; Wernerfelt 1984, cited in Alavi & Leidner 2001), a knowledge-based view (KBV) of the firm has recently emerged in the strategic management literature (Wilson 1991; Nonaka & Takeuchi 1995; Spender 1996; Cole 1998, cited in Alavi & Leidner 2001)

It is important to note however that general tendency in literature that say KMS should focus on capturing, codifying and transferring existing knowledge miss the essence of knowledge management. As Alavi and Leidner (2001) even put it: "it is less the knowledge existing at any given time per se, than the firm’s ability to effectively apply the existing knowledge and create new knowledge, that forms the basis for achieving competitive advantage from knowledge-based assets". This is also similar to what Penrose's (1959, cited in Alavi & Leidner 2001) same argument about resources in general in RBV: "it is not so much the tangible resources (e.g., capital and facilities) per se that creates the firm’s competitive advantage, but the services rendered by those resources".

Instead, therefore KMS should focus on creating settings that enable and encourage the application of existing knowledge to create competitive advantage. The implication for KMSD is that early stages of developing KMS should focus on business issues in the organization that create this competitive advantage.

The argument of a paradigm shift is not what really matters, nor is it what has really caused this sudden(sic) interest in organizational knowledge and KM and flux of KM theory. What really matters is the danger associated with an inherent belief that everything should come with a paradigm shift