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.

Knowledge management research and practice:visions and directions

This editorial paper outlines key directions for knowledge management research and practice. The editorial team presents the results from a small survey of academics and practitioners about the present and future of knowledge management, and the editors include their own informed views on how this journal can help promote scholarly inquiry in the field.

Brief reflections

Purpose – The purpose of this editorial is to explicitly recognise the first issue of EJM completely made up of submissions received under the new editorial team of Lee and Greenley, operating since January 2008. The authors also seek to make some broader points about academic review, and journal ranking. Design/methodology/approach – The authors provide some conceptual thinking regarding journal review, and academic ranking of journals. Findings – The authors propose that it is potentially dangerous to restrict the perception of top quality work to only that published in a limited selection of journals, and that research needs to be judged on its own merits. Research limitations/implications – These thoughts are preliminary and intended to spark thinking and debate, not to represent editorial policy. Owing to space constraints, the coverage of many issues is necessarily brief. Practical Implications – Marketing researchers should find these thoughts at the very least stimulating, and may wish to investigate these issues further. Originality/value – The editorial should provide some interesting food for thought for marketing researchers.

Editorial

This special issue of the Journal of the Operational Research Society is dedicated to papers on the related subjects of knowledge management and intellectual capital. These subjects continue to generate considerable interest amongst both practitioners and academics. This issue demonstrates that operational researchers have many contributions to offer to the area, especially by bringing multi-disciplinary, integrated and holistic perspectives. The papers included are both theoretical as well as practical, and include a number of case studies showing how knowledge management has been implemented in practice that may assist other organisations in their search for a better means of managing what is now recognised as a core organisational activity. It has been accepted by a growing number of organisations that the precise handling of information and knowledge is a significant factor in facilitating their success but that there is a challenge in how to implement a strategy and processes for this handling. It is here, in the particular area of knowledge process handling that we can see the contributions of operational researchers most clearly as is illustrated in the papers included in this journal edition. The issue comprises nine papers, contributed by authors based in eight different countries on five continents. Lind and Seigerroth describe an approach that they call team-based reconstruction, intended to help articulate knowledge in a particular organisational. context. They illustrate the use of this approach with three case studies, two in manufacturing and one in public sector health care. Different ways of carrying out reconstruction are analysed, and the benefits of team-based reconstruction are established. Edwards and Kidd, and Connell, Powell and Klein both concentrate on knowledge transfer. Edwards and Kidd discuss the issues involved in transferring knowledge across frontières (borders) of various kinds, from those borders within organisations to those between countries. They present two examples, one in distribution and the other in manufacturing. They conclude that trust and culture both play an important part in facilitating such transfers, that IT should be kept in a supporting role in knowledge management projects, and that a staged approach to this IT support may be the most effective. Connell, Powell and Klein consider the oft-quoted distinction between explicit and tacit knowledge, and argue that such a distinction is sometimes unhelpful. They suggest that knowledge should rather be regarded as a holistic systemic property. The consequences of this for knowledge transfer are examined, with a particular emphasis on what this might mean for the practice of OR Their view of OR in the context of knowledge management very much echoes Lind and Seigerroth's focus on knowledge for human action. This is an interesting convergence of views given that, broadly speaking, one set of authors comes from within the OR community, and the other from outside it. Hafeez and Abdelmeguid present the nearest to a 'hard' OR contribution of the papers in this special issue. In their paper they construct and use system dynamics models to investigate alternative ways in which an organisation might close a knowledge gap or skills gap. The methods they use have the potential to be generalised to any other quantifiable aspects of intellectual capital. The contribution by Revilla, Sarkis and Modrego is also at the 'hard' end of the spectrum. They evaluate the performance of public–private research collaborations in Spain, using an approach based on data envelopment analysis. They found that larger organisations tended to perform relatively better than smaller ones, even though the approach used takes into account scale effects. Perhaps more interesting was that many factors that might have been thought relevant, such as the organisation's existing knowledge base or how widely applicable the results of the project would be, had no significant effect on the performance. It may be that how well the partnership between the collaborators works (not a factor it was possible to take into account in this study) is more important than most other factors. Mak and Ramaprasad introduce the concept of a knowledge supply network. This builds on existing ideas of supply chain management, but also integrates the design chain and the marketing chain, to address all the intellectual property connected with the network as a whole. The authors regard the knowledge supply network as the natural focus for considering knowledge management issues. They propose seven criteria for evaluating knowledge supply network architecture, and illustrate their argument with an example from the electronics industry—integrated circuit design and fabrication. In the paper by Hasan and Crawford, their interest lies in the holistic approach to knowledge management. They demonstrate their argument—that there is no simple IT solution for organisational knowledge management efforts—through two case study investigations. These case studies, in Australian universities, are investigated through cultural historical activity theory, which focuses the study on the activities that are carried out by people in support of their interpretations of their role, the opportunities available and the organisation's purpose. Human activities, it is argued, are mediated by the available tools, including IT and IS and in this particular context, KMS. It is this argument that places the available technology into the knowledge activity process and permits the future design of KMS to be improved through the lessons learnt by studying these knowledge activity systems in practice. Wijnhoven concentrates on knowledge management at the operational level of the organisation. He is concerned with studying the transformation of certain inputs to outputs—the operations function—and the consequent realisation of organisational goals via the management of these operations. He argues that the inputs and outputs of this process in the context of knowledge management are different types of knowledge and names the operation method the knowledge logistics. The method of transformation he calls learning. This theoretical paper discusses the operational management of four types of knowledge objects—explicit understanding; information; skills; and norms and values; and shows how through the proposed framework learning can transfer these objects to clients in a logistical process without a major transformation in content. Millie Kwan continues this theme with a paper about process-oriented knowledge management. In her case study she discusses an implementation of knowledge management where the knowledge is centred around an organisational process and the mission, rationale and objectives of the process define the scope of the project. In her case they are concerned with the effective use of real estate (property and buildings) within a Fortune 100 company. In order to manage the knowledge about this property and the process by which the best 'deal' for internal customers and the overall company was reached, a KMS was devised. She argues that process knowledge is a source of core competence and thus needs to be strategically managed. Finally, you may also wish to read a related paper originally submitted for this Special Issue, 'Customer knowledge management' by Garcia-Murillo and Annabi, which was published in the August 2002 issue of the Journal of the Operational Research Society, 53(8), 875–884.

Editorial:knowledge flows, learning and development in an international context

In the editorial of this special issue we argue that knowledge flows, learning and development are becoming increasingly important in all organisations operating in an international context. The possession of capabilities relating to acquisition, configuration and transfer of relevant knowledge effectively within and across different organisational units, teams, and countries is integrally related to superior organisational performance. In mastering such capabilities, internationalised organisations need to grapple with the inherent challenges relating to contextual variation and different work modes between subsidiaries, partners or team members. The papers in this special issue cast light on crucial aspects of knowledge flows, learning and development in internationalised organisations. Their contribution varies from the provision of frameworks to systematise investigation of these issues, to empirical evidence about effective mechanisms, as well as enabling and constraining forces, in facilitating knowledge transfer, learning and human capital development. © 2012 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

Editorial:welcome to the LRN2004 annual conference special issue of the International journal of logistics: research and applications

It is a great pleasure to be Guest Editor for this issue – I hope that the papers which are included will be stimulating and support you in your ongoing research activities. A number of guiding principles were adopted in selecting the papers for inclusion in this issue. Firstly, the papers cover a wide range of logistics and supply chain management (SCM) topics. This is a reflection of the evolution of the field in recent years. In terms of the “buy-make-store-move-sell” model of SCM all the main constituent areas are addressed. Secondly, it is important that the conference issue of this Journal reflects the emphasis and content of the conference itself. I have tried to achieve this in terms of the papers included. One interesting point to note is that outsourcing is a theme which is a major issue in a number of papers. This reflects the increasing importance of this issue to organisations of all kinds and sizes. Economic globalisation and the trend towards vertical disintegration of supply chain architectures have sharpened the focus on outsourcing as a key element of supply chain strategy. The need to move beyond the notion that sourcing of certain activities can be some kind of panacea in evident from the relevant contributions. Thirdly, the LRN Annual Conference has become a more international event in recent years...the number of delegates and papers presented from outside the UK has continued to grow. The papers collected in this issue reflect this internationalization. Two papers are worthy of particular comment from an LRN perspective. The contribution by Jaafar and Rafiq has been developed from the submission which won the best paper prize at the LRN 2004 event. The paper by Pettit and Beresford is based on research which was supported by LRN seed corn funding. It was developed form the final report on this work submitted to CITL (UK) via the LRN. The seed corn funding is an important mechanism whereby the LRN supports research in innovative aspects of logistics in UK universities. In many ways, the LRN2004 event in Dublin seems like a long time ago. From my point of view it was one of the most professionally rewarding activities in which I have been involved in my career. It was a time to meet old friends and new and to keep abreast of the multitude of interesting projects being undertaken in over 20 countries. There are too many people to thank for the smooth running of the event. However, my colleague John Mee does warrant a special mention. His logistical skills were seriously put to the test in the weeks and months leading up to September 9th. 2004. I want to acknowledge his particular contribution to the success of the event. Since then we have had the 2005 event at the University of Plymouth. This was again a great opportunity to network with colleagues and many congratulations are due to John Dinwoodie and his team. We now look forward to LRN 2006 in Newcastle...form my part I hope and trust that this issue provides some useful perspectives and insights into the range of topics addressed.

Editorial

Full text: Welcome to issue 1 of 2012 and a belated Happy New Year to all CLAE readers and BCLA members. The hardest job I had for this issue was to decide which papers to include and which papers to hang on to and save for issue 2 of 2012. At the end of December when I was choosing the content for this issue there were additional 5 papers that could have been included. The final choice came down to various factors; such as first come first served – i.e. which papers had been ready and waiting the longest; secondly which papers had been submitted the earliest; are there similar papers so that it may be beneficial to publish them alongside this paper; and also was the content something which needed to be out there quicker than other papers as it was a current hot topic? But it should be noted that once papers are proofed and deemed ready by authors they are published in the epub version and put online for others to see in their final version. An epub version is given a DOI number (digital object identifier) so that it can be cited by other authors. Apart from being on line the only other difference is that an epub version is essentially waiting to be assigned to a particular issue. So those papers that are being held off for issue 2 of this year are actually already available for you to read (and cite) on line. In this issue there is a paper related to the cost of different contact lens replacement schedules – this may be a topic that is debated more in the future since as a society we are thinking more ‘green’ and all trying to help by reducing our carbon footprint, whether that be by recycling or using less in the first place. A timely review paper on the management of allergic eye disease may help us to better manage those patients we see in the spring with pollen allergies. We have two papers looking at different aspects in keratoconus patients, another looking at a modified fluoret strip and its application in measuring tear break up time and a review paper on corneal erosions. Another interesting paper comes from Professor Harminder Dua and his team. Professor Dua is the UK Royal College of Ophthalmologists’ president and has been interested in corneal anatomy and physiology for much of his research career. Finally, an unusual case of an ocular injury related to a snake bite. Overall I would say there is enough to sink your ‘fangs’ into! Finally, it gives me great pleasure in announcing the newest person to join our Editorial Board, Dr Florence Malet. Dr Malet is an Ophthalmologist and since September 2000 she has been at the Bordeaux Hospital in France developing the Contact Lens Unit of in the Ophthalmology University Department. She is ex-president of the French Contact Lens Society and president of the European Contact Lens Society of Ophthalmologists.