Editorial

On behalf of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan and the editorial team, I am pleased to welcome readers to this, the first issue of Knowledge Management Research & Practice (KMRP). The aim of KMRP is to provide an outlet for rigorous, high-quality, peer-reviewed articles on all aspects of managing knowledge, organisational learning, intellectual capital and knowledge economics. The Editorial Board intends that there be a particular emphasis on cross-disciplinary approaches, and on the mixing of 'hard' (e.g. technological) and 'soft' (e.g. cultural or motivational) issues. This issue features four regular papers and an editorial paper; in addition, there are two book reviews. KMRP is intended as a truly international journal. The papers in this issue feature authors based in five different countries on three continents; eight different countries and four continents if the editorial paper is included. The first of the regular papers is 'The Knowledge-Creating Theory Revisited: Knowledge Creation as Synthesizing Process', by Ikujiro Nonaka and Ryoko Toyama. There can be few readers who are unaware of the work on knowledge creation by Nonaka and his co-workers such as Takeuchi, and this paper seeks to revisit and extend some of the earlier ideas. The second paper is 'Knowledge Sharing in a Multi-Cultural Setting: A Case Study' by Dianne Ford and Yolande Chan. They present a case study that explores the extent to which knowledge sharing is dependent on national culture. The third paper is 'R&D Collaboration: The Role of bain Knowledge-creating Networks' by Malin Brännback. She also draws upon Nonaka and Takeuchi's work on knowledge creation, using the case of knowledge-creating networks in biopharmaceutical R&D involving both universities and industry as an example. The fourth regular paper is 'The Critical Role of Leadership in Nurturing a Knowledge Supporting Culture' by Vincent Ribière and Alea Saa Sitar. They examine the role of leaders in knowledge management generally, and especially in knowledge organisations, from the viewpoint of 'leading through a knowledge lens'. In addition, this issue includes an 'editorial paper', 'Knowledge Management Research & Practice: Visions and Directions' by the editorial team of John Edwards, Meliha Handzic, Sven Carlsson, and Mark Nissen. This paper presents a small survey of academics and practitioners, outlines key directions for knowledge management research and practice, and gives the editorial team's views on how KMRP can help promote scholarly inquiry in the field. We trust that you will both enjoy reading this first issue and be stimulated by it, and cordially invite you to contribute your own paper(s) to future issues of KMRP.

Increasing the use of simulation in business

The nature of Discrete-Event Simulation (DES) and the use of DES in organisations is changing. Two important developments are the use of Visual Interactive Modelling systems and the use of DES in Business Process Management (BPM) projects. Survey research is presented that shows that despite these developments usage of DES remains relatively low due to a lack of knowledge of the benefits of the technique. This paper considers two factors that could lead to a greater achievement and appreciation of the full benefit of DES and thus lead to greater usage. Firstly in relation to using DES to investigate social systems, both in the process of undertaking a simulation project and in the interpretation of the findings a 'soft' approach may generate more knowledge from the DES intervention and thus increase its benefit to businesses. Secondly in order to assess the full range of outcomes of DES the technique could be considered from the perspective of an information processing tool within the organisation. This will allow outcomes to be considered under the three modes of organisational information use of sense making, knowledge creating and decision making which relate to the theoretical areas of knowledge management, organisational learning and decision making respectively. The association of DES with these popular techniques could further increase its usage in business.

Communities of implementation

The concept of communities of practice (CoPs) has rapidly gained ground in fields such as knowledge management and organisational learning since it was first identified by Lave and Wenger (1991) and Brown and Duguid (1991). In this article, we consider a related concept that we have entitled “communities of implementation.” Communities of implementation (CoIs) are similar to communities of practice in that they offer an opportunity for a collection of individuals to support each other and share knowledge in a dynamic environment and on a topic in which they share interest. In addition, and to differentiate them from CoPs, a community of implementation extends the responsibilities of a CoP by having as its focus the implementation of a programme of change. This may well extend to designing the change programme. Thus, whereas a main purpose of a CoP is to satisfy “a real need to know what each other knows” (Skyrme, 1999) in an informal way, we argue that a main purpose of a community of implementation is to “pool individual knowledge (including contacts and ways of getting things done) to stimulate collective enthusiasm in order to take more informed purposeful action for which the members are responsible.” Individual and collective responsibility and accountability for successfully implementing the actions/change programme is a key feature of a community of implementation. Without these pressures the members might lower the priority of implementation, allowing competing priorities to dominate their attention and resources. Without responsibility and accountability, the result is likely to be (at best) an organisation which has not begun a change programme, or (at worst) an organisation which is stuck halfway through another failing initiative. To achieve these additional objectives beyond those of a CoP, the CoI needs to provide heightened support to its members. In fact often the members will collectively strategise the development and implementation of the change programme they are leading in the organisation. Other concepts similar to CoPs have appeared in the literature, for example “communities of knowing” (Boland & Tenkasi, 1995), but none have a specific focus on implementation. Perhaps the closest example of a CoI, as suggested by our definition, is reported by Karsten, Lyytinen, Hurskainen, and Koskelainen (2001) who describe a CoP in a paper machinery manufacturer which seems to have the necessary focus on implementation. The theoretical aspects of this article will explore the relationship between CoPs and CoIs, and the needs for different arrangements for a CoI. The practical aspect of this article will consist of a report on a case study of a CoI that was successful in its implementation of a programme of change that aimed to improve its organisation’s knowledge management activities. Over two years the CoI implemented a suite of complementary actions across the organisation. These actions transformed the organisation and moved it towards achieving its ‘core values’ and overall objectives. The article will explore: the activities that formed and gelled the community, the role of the community in the implementation of actions, and experiences from key members of this community on its success and potential improvements.