The background and development of the new production philosophy are presented. The conceptual basis of the traditional and the new production philosophies, as applied in manufacturing, are examined. The traditional conceptual basis of construction is criticized, and an initial new interpretation of construction is given based on the new philosophy. Finally, the challenges of implementing the new production philosophy in construction are considered.

Most extant knowledge management systems are constrained by their overly rational, static and acontextual view of knowledge. Effectiveness of such systems is constrained by the rapid and discontinuous change that characterizes new organizational environments. The prevailing knowledge management paradigm limits itself by its emphasis on convergence and consensus-oriented processing of information. Strategy experts have underscored that the focus of organizational knowledge management should shift from `prediction of future' [that cannot be computed] to `anticipation of surprise.' Such systems may be enabled by leveraging the divergent interpretations of information based upon the meaning-making capability of human beings. By underscoring the need for synergy between innovation and creativity of humans and the advanced capabilities of new information technologies, this article advances current thinking about knowledge management.

Knowledge management (KM) or knowledge sharing in organizations is based on an understanding of knowledge creation and knowledge transfer. In implementation, KM is an effort to benefit from the knowledge that resides in an organization by using it to achieve the organization’s mission. The transfer of tacit or implicit knowledge to explicit and accessible formats, the goal of many KM projects, is challenging, controversial, and endowed with ongoing management issues. This article argues that effective knowledge management in many disciplinary contexts must be based on understanding the dynamic nature of knowledge itself. The article critiques some current thinking in the KM literature and concludeswithaviewtowardsknowledgemanagement programsbuiltaroundknowledgeasadynamicprocess.

Abstract not found

Information technology both facilitates and exacerbates the need for organizations to manage growing information and knowledge bases. Soon, the only successful enterprises may be the ones who have successfully evolved into learning organizations. The philosophical bases underlying traditional decision support systems (DSS) are ill equipped to handle this explosion of information, today’s rapidly changing business environment, or support a learning organization. A comprehensive knowledge management system (KMS) based on the philosophies of inquiring systems (IS) allows organizational learning to occur by providing both decision support and management of existing and created knowledge. By combining the DSS paradigm with IS, an organization will be capable of designing a comprehensive KMS that will fully support learning within the organization. Development of such a system will allow executives to rely more fully on the support system, freeing up valuable time to establish goals and guide the organization to its ultimate success.

creativity, and organizational memory are constructs that have been researched in MS. While each construct has received individual attention, we have found relatively little research linking them. Hence, we developed a theoretical model to illuminate the relationships between organizational memory, worker empowerment, and creativi@ The model was developed based on the literature in each respective area and interview-based studies concerning “empowered ” systems development project teams and organizational memory. Analysis of the interview data revealed that empowered workers generate creative solutions to problems. However, creative solutions can on!v be usedfor future projects tf they are somehow recorded into organizational memory. Organizations that empowered their workforce and embraced creativiq reported increased P customer satisfaction, waste reduction, and some qua&v gains. In contrast, those that did not empower reported little or no change.

Two forces that dramatically affect the sustainability of firms ’ competitive advantage in the new competitive landscape have been identified as globalization and information and communication technologies (ICTs), such as the Internet and intranets (e.g., Castells, 2000; Porter, 2001). Organizations often rely on acquired knowledge from past experiences to make higher quality decisions on business strategies for better future performance. In this context, Knowledge Management (KM) and Organizational Memory (OM) become a central issue to the effectiveness of strategic decision-making and organizational performance. This paper examines the relationship between the (re)use of knowledge/organizational memory (OM) and the effectiveness of strategic decision-making in devising corporate strategies. As part of an exploratory case study approach, a number of interviews are being conducted among top executives at a multi-national firm. As a framework, the components of the modified version of McLean’s IS Success Model by Jennex & Olfman (2002) are being used to examine for the 1.

In improving demand chain performance, is it better for parties in the chain to first focus on lead time reduction, or first focus on improved information flow? Whereas supply and demand chain management theory suggests that lead time reduction is a necessary antecedent to successful information flow improvement, demand chain parties are often observed in practice to begin with information flow improvement in spite of long lead times. Parties are also observed to express uncertainty concerning how short lead times need to be if information flow improvement efforts are to have a high probability of success. In this paper, we propose a framework for prioritizing lead time reduction in a demand chain improvement project, using a typology of demand chains to set specific improvement goals concerning both lead time and information flow.

The debate over whether a dominant paradigm is appropriate for the rapidly evolving organizational learning (OL) research has resulted in significant discord among researchers in the field. This critical issue paper compares and contrasts the strengths and weaknesses of three widely used research paradigms in OL research: positivism, interpretivism, and critical science. It argues that in many cases, the taxonomy of positivistic research should be employed as the central methodological framework in investigating organizational learning and subsequent performance issues while valuing contributions made by the other two approaches to OL research. The Longman dictionary (1995) defines research as “the studious study of a subject, that is intended to discover new facts or test new ideas; the activity of finding information about something that one is interested in or needs to know about ” (p. 1205). As the definition implies, in the strenuous journey to knowledge, researchers and scholars employ various research paradigms to guide them through the course of knowledge seeking. From the research perspective of organizational learning (OL), the three primary research paradigms of positivism, interpretivism, and critical science, have been widely discussed and used within the field. Problem Statement and Research Questions Learning is defined in a broad sense as the acquisition of new skills and knowledge that results in changed behavior (Snyder & Cummings, 1998). In today’s continuously changing and turbulent business environment, organizations are becoming increasingly interested in ways of gaining and sustaining competitive advantage. When confronted with performance problems that may arise in organizations, researchers and practitioners rely on learning solutions as a way of addressing these issues; professionals perceive that learning is a prerequisite to performance improvement and

This paper has not undergone formal review or approval of the faculty of the ILR School. It is intended to make results of Center research available to others interested in preliminary form to encourage discussion and suggestions. Most (if not all) of the CAHRS Working Papers are available for reading at the Catherwood Library. For information on what’s available link to the Cornell Library Catalog: