From Knowledge Management

to Ecosystems of Innovation:
A Scoping Review
eva gatarik
Masaryk University, Czech Republic
[email protected]

lenka janošová
Masaryk University, Czech Republic
[email protected]

michal jirásek
Masaryk University, Czech Republic
[email protected]

viktor kulhavý
Masaryk University, Czech Republic
[email protected]

martin št ěrba
Masaryk University, Czech Republic
[email protected]

The ways in which organizations construct, process and justify knowl-

edge differ, with persisting effects upon their relative performance. The
field of knowledge management has expanded into different, although
intertwined, strands of research, demonstrating the power of knowl-
edge in the success of organizational performance. However, a meta-
theory consolidating these approaches, as well as explaining and allow-
ing for predictions of organizational performance with respect to the
modes of dealing with knowledge within an organization, still seems to
be lacking. This scoping review investigates the regularities by which
ecosystems of innovation construct, process and justify their knowledge.
The aim is to screen the landscape of research in support of the value
of the idea that combining knowledge management with research into
commons can lead to the construction of a meta-theory, allowing effec-
tive approaches to the original task of knowledge management, i.e. sup-
porting the success of organizational performance in the long term.
Key words: knowledge management, organizational epistemology,
commons, ecosystems of innovation, scoping review

Introduction
Much of human development has centred on attempts to cope with
the future, either by acquiring knowledge about the world to adapt or

management 10 (1): 79–102 79

 Eva Gatarik et al.

adjust oneself to the environment, or by changing the environment

to bring it into line with one’s interests and possibilities. Where does
knowledge management lie between these extremes? It appears to
fit somewhere between them or, to take up a suggestion by Hess and
Ostrom (2007) with respect to the management of commons, some-
where between decentralized and centralized forms of organization.
However, this indicates that the plainly cognitive approach to knowl-
edge management so currently prevalent must be reconsidered ei-
ther, as Senge et al. (2008) suggests, through investigation of the in-
terplay between individuals and organizations via an ecological path
or, as Hess and Ostrom (2007) maintain, via the study of knowledge
as a commons.
Investigations into knowledge as a primary source of sustain-
able economic success in business organizations are now common-
place, together with analyses of the obvious drive towards knowledge
that provides competitive advantage (Vogel 2012). The first of these
that may be classified as scientific date to the 1990s (Nonaka and
Takeuchi 1995; Davenport and Prusak 1998; Wiig 1997), but they are
not without parallels and predecessors. These may be found in ap-
proaches addressing the management of commons, as per Ostrom
(1990; 2010), i.e. approaches attempting to bridge the gap between
market and state. The bulk of research results suggest that these
approaches may support creativity, innovation and flexibility (Hess
and Ostrom 2007) as the original targets of knowledge management.
This contribution seeks answers to the following research ques-
tions:
• What can we learn from contemporary knowledge management
literature about ways of constructing, processing and justifying
knowledge within organizations? How, and why, do these influ-
ence organizational performance in the long run?
• How do organizations sustainably managing commons construct
process and justify their knowledge? What is it about the de-
sign of these organizations that supports knowledge sharing and
knowledge creation?
• In what ways may the concept of ecosystems of innovation be
used? How does it address the problems of knowledge sharing
and knowledge creation?

Method
A scoping review approach (Jesson, Matheson, and Lacey 2011) ap-
pears best-suited the purposes of this inquiry, in this case: (1) to

80 management · volume 10
 From Knowledge Management to Ecosystems of Innovation

carry out a time-efficient but comprehensive review of a highly di-

verse body of literature; (2) to determine lacunae in research and
thus areas for future work; and (3) to establish potential areas for
further deep investigation by means of systematic literature review.
The work started with a sample of keywords derived from pre-
vious studies. The starting set was considered incomplete from the
outset (Arksey and O’Malley 2005), not subject to completion un-
til the very end. Members of the research team conducted their
own literature search in a domain defined by keywords. All were
involved in source selection at mid-process. Inclusion criteria cov-
ered research question fit, author credibility, new perspective added
and keyword match. The study prioritized theoretical concepts over
empirical findings, although practical implications were far from ig-
nored.
A variety of literature sources were examined, including research
studies in peer-reviewed journals from electronic databases (ebsco,
jstor, wos) and professional monographs as well as ‘grey’ informa-
tion such as project reports, web pages, blogs, presentations, and
professional network forums. The time frame encompassed mainly
the years 1990 to 2014, primary language English. In total 88 ref-
erences, 33 monographs, 34 research articles and 21 other sources
were examined.

The Problem of Knowledge Sharing and Knowledge

Creation in Organized Contexts
Organizations differ in their knowledge bases and these differences
have persisting and significant effects on their relative performance.
Why? How do organizations know what they know? How can their
knowledge sharing and knowledge creation be managed?

the power of knowledge in organizational performance

While manual work, according to Mládková (2005), is characterized
by the direct assignment of tasks from a designated superior and
brings immediate, visible and measurable results (cf. Ford produc-
tion), knowledge work is characterized by low visibility, an indirect
link with the result, requirements for individual decisions and the
ever-present possibility of misguided calculation through measure-
ment of performance in terms of input.
Much of the world may now be termed an information society in
which, according to Vymětal, Diačiková, and Váchová (2005), the
quality of life and economic development depend increasingly on
information and knowledge and how they are employed. Raw ma-

number 1 · spring 2015 81

 Eva Gatarik et al.

terials and economic resources, traditional grist to the mill of global

competitiveness, now take second place to knowledge and informa-
tion. Directly associated with this trend is the need for changes from
strictly hierarchical structures to more flexible ones.
Nag and Gioia (2012), Drucker (1993), and Reich (1991) identify
knowledge within an organization as its main strategic resource, the
basis for the long-term sustainability of competitive advantage, not
only for individual companies but also for states and nations. Knowl-
edge unique to a given company accumulates, and continues to do so
over the course of its development, in the context of its interaction
with the surroundings and historical background from which its –
largely tacit – form is implied. The competition is unable legitimately
to copy such intrinsic knowledge, as might be possible for knowledge
that is more explicit. Petříková (2010) further adds that if we consider
company knowledge as a key competitive advantage and seek to use
it as such through knowledge management, such knowledge man-
agement must be integrated into all managerial activities across all
levels, redirecting interest away from structural capital towards the
intellectual.
Barták (2008) notes that markets remaining uninfluenced by the
competitive struggle are becoming increasingly rare. It is therefore
essential to act proactively, to take advantage of new opportunities
before others in order to maintain market position. The main pre-
requisite for the effective use of new waves of innovation is improve-
ment of innovative company strategy through recognition of the cre-
ative ideas of employees. However, creativity does not necessarily
equal innovation; the latter is the result of transforming ideas into
new products of high added value.

how do organizations know what they know?

Thanks to the high expectations put on knowledge management, the
need for a more developed definition of the concept of emergent
knowledge is becoming quite pressing. According to Veber (2009),
knowledge is a dynamic, involving interaction between experience,
skills, social relations, values, and thought processes. Částoral (2010)
connects knowledge with information transformed into usable form,
either through human agents or by technical means (information
held in information systems). This concept parallels the division of
knowledge into tacit and explicit, mentioned, for example, by Colli-
son (2005).
Mládková (2005) draws attention to access to knowledge from the
ecological and the technical perspective, which corresponds to the

82 management · volume 10
 From Knowledge Management to Ecosystems of Innovation

enactivist (Varela, Thompson, and Rosch 1992) and the representa-

tional approach to organizational epistemology, i.e. studies of how or-
ganizations construct, process and justify their knowledge (Tsoukas
2005). A technical or representational view perceives knowledge
only in explicit terms, separating it strictly from people’s thinking
and tracking the methods or procedures through which innovative
solutions emerge. This approach is widely perceived as American
(e.g. Davenport and Prusak 1998). An ecological or enactivist ap-
proach tackles knowledge dynamically, as a process, constantly de-
veloping, integrating with the knowledge of the surroundings and
context, which allows the system to respond to changes. In prac-
tice, this means awareness of the organization as an ever-changing
system in constant interaction with its surroundings – for exam-
ple, competitors, customers, and employees. Efforts should be made
to create space for maximum interaction that can subsequently in-
crease transfer and sharing of knowledge, allowing exposure of that
which is obsolete and making space for the new (Barták 2008). The
enactivist approach is more typical of Japanese and European firms.
Zhu (2004) develops the idea of the perception of knowledge
through culture (cf. also Andriessen 2008). He differentiates be-
tween four main styles: the American, European, Japanese and Chi-
nese.
The American style adheres to the technical approach, building
databases (through it technologies) containing knowledge derived
from all the individuals in a company. The position of Chief Knowl-
edge Officer (cko) has been brought into being, a person tasked with
managing existing knowledge and selecting a few individuals to ex-
ecute knowledge management initiatives (Takeuchi 1998).
The Japanese style uses an ecological approach, in which empha-
sis is laid upon tacit knowledge considered as part of the human
character and experience. The knowledge network is created by ev-
eryone, not only the manager or cko; it arises out of interaction
between all levels – company-individual, group and organisational
(Takeuchi 2001).
The European style lies between. Knowledge is perceived not only
as a static and human mental skill, but also as a work in progress,
its final shape subject to historical, sociological and cultural envi-
ronments. Swan and Scarbrough (2001) attribute a suggestive, con-
troversial, and collective nature to knowledge; it is not enough to
establish a database, implement a supporting culture or order em-
ployees to act in a given way. Knowledge workers have to combine
their own knowledge and experience with superiors’ requirements,

number 1 · spring 2015 83

 Eva Gatarik et al.

at the same time as being limited by rules, company procedures and

available equipment.
The Chinese style owes much to the national religious and histor-
ical background. In the footsteps of Confucian thought, a framework
they term Wuli-Shili-Renli (wsr) has emerged. In rough translation,
Wuli is regularities in objective existence, Shili is ways of seeing and
doing and Renli encompasses the patterns underlying human rela-
tions (Gu and Zhu 2000).
A methodical approach to identification and description of the en-
actment of organizational knowledge in successful organizational
performance requires a holistic approach to knowledge, involving
enquiries into organizational practice and thinking (Toulmin 1990;
Tsoukas 2005). Among such approaches, the following concepts,
centring on flexible practice and innovative thinking, are worthy
of note.
Weick’s concept of sense-making (Weick 1969; 1995; Weick, Sut-
cliffe, and Obstfeld 2005) draws attention to the collective mind (We-
ick and Roberts 1993), which may be defined as the pattern of in-
terrelations of actions taking place in a social system. Members of
the system in a company are employees, their actions regulated by
their own decisions, the actions of their colleagues and system re-
action. With increasing harmony between these three components,
mistakes made in a decision-making process become more valued.
Compared with other authors (Hutchins 1991; Sandelands and Sta-
blein 1987), Weick favours the form of mind connection and mind
activity over connection strength or mind as entity.
Tsoukas (2009) introduces a dialogical approach. Dialogue enables
at least two speech partners to exchange a verbal message. If part-
ners respond to each other (double interacting), each partner thinks
while considering the restrictions of his/her utterance, and a produc-
tive dialogue ensues, using self-detachment (self-distanciation is the
term used by Tsoukas) to establish the distinctions through which
new knowledge can be created. Such self-detachment can lead to
creating new knowledge, through making new distinctions by the
processes of conceptual combination, conceptual expansion and con-
ceptual reframing. Conceptual combination uses already-known con-
cepts and combines them to create a new category or change our
current cognition. Conceptual expansion develops present concept
signification, at best by using conventional forms such as analogies.
Conceptual reframing, in which a new view of the concept arises out
of object reclassification, means that emphasis is shifted between
different classes.

84 management · volume 10
 From Knowledge Management to Ecosystems of Innovation

Hess and Ostrom (2005) identify knowledge as a shared resource,

including factors from the fields of technology, politics, psychology,
economics, sociology and intellectual function to explore various
subjects, where human behaviour and decision-making are regu-
lated by rules and norms. They introduce what they term the In-
stitutional Analysis and Development framework (iad), which has the
advantage of its adaptability to dynamic states of affairs, in which in-
dividuals have to cope with novel restrictions, norms and technolo-
gies. Because, as Gibson, McKean, and Ostrom (2000) point out, it is
impossible to focus on just one part of system complexity, e.g. storing
knowledge, the users of the physical form of knowledge, the specific
conditions and relationships within the knowledge community and
the unwritten rules in use must be known. The iad framework spec-
ifies three groups of variables that influence required outputs. In
the context of knowledge commons, biophysical characteristics (fa-
cilities, artefacts, ideas), attributes of the community (Who are the
users/providers? Are values shared between participants?), and us-
ing rules as a first group of variables, must all be considered. The
second group of variables takes in the decision-makers, who make
use of the first group elements to set the rules or pinpoint directions
for action.
Table 1 (p. 86) summarizes the approaches discussed so far.

limits and implications for further research

Research related to knowledge management has expanded in recent
years (Vogel 2012), making room in the representational approach to
accommodate the enactivist (or process-oriented). Weick’s concept
of sense-making is perhaps the best-known enactivist approach in
this field.
However, although much is known of how particular knowledge
is created within an organization, significantly less is established of
how, and why, certain regularities of processing, constructing and
justification of knowledge within an organization affect organiza-
tional performance (Danneels 2010; Sandberg and Targama 2007;
Tsoukas and Vladimirou 2001).
Emerging lines of research have begun to address this shortcom-
ing by conceptualizing knowledge not as an entity but as a perfor-
mative realization. Such a reconceptualization has opened up sev-
eral new discussions and inquiry spaces about how e.g. expertise
(Collins and Evans 2007; Dreyfus 2005; Dreyfus and Dreyfus 1986),
competence (Fauré and Rouleau 2011; Rouleau and Balogun 2011;
Sandberg and Pinnington 2009) and dynamic capabilities (Danneels

number 1 · spring 2015 85

 Eva Gatarik et al.

table 1 Comparison of Selected Approaches to the Creation

of Organizational Knowledge
Item Approach
Enactivist Representational
Author Weick Ostrom Tsoukas Vymětal et al.
Aim of People who To create an To create new To collect and
approach act as if they adaptable en- knowledge by store all knowl-
are a group. vironment reframing ex- edge into a
for sharing isting experi- database and
and think- ence(s). find an auto-
ing up new matic algorithm
knowledge for the creation
within an en- new knowledge.
tire commu-
nity.
Form of Tacit Tacit/explicit Tacit/explicit Explicit
knowledge
Creators of People’s Community Individual Knowledge
knowledge minds worker
Process Connecting Creation Reframing Collecting
Year of 1993 2005 2009 2005
publication
Knowledge Knowledge Shared- Individual Information
definition is based on resource, in- ability to draw widened by pre-
connections cluding vari- distinctions, vious knowl-
of symbols ous factors. within a do- edge, skills, ex-
not on sepa- main of ac- periences, men-
rated symbols; tion, based on tal models.
uniqueness. an apprecia-
tion of context
or theory, or
both.

2010) are realized in the performance of individuals, groups, and or-

ganizations. These new discussions are also enhanced by a renewed
attention to skills (Attewell 1990; Ingold 2000; Sennett 2008) and
the modes of handling knowledge within organizations (Brown and
Duguid 1991; Gherardi 2006; Nicolini et al. 2003; Tsoukas 2005).
Much research remains to be done. Process perspective is likely to
be beneficial in several important ways. For example, it has the po-
tential to identify and describe activities through which knowledge
is enacted in organizational performance. However, also needed is
a theoretical (representational) explanation for, and justification of,
the reasons why these processes in social and individual experience,
as well as activities within an organization, are successful – espe-

86 management · volume 10
 From Knowledge Management to Ecosystems of Innovation

cially in the long run. Such a theoretical extension and explana-

tion would facilitate understanding and controlled reproducibility of
those events that are considered and accepted as examples of orga-
nizational success.

Sharing and Creation of Knowledge as a Commons:

The Missing Link to Organizational Performance?
commons
The term commons is intrinsic to much that follows and it is there-
fore to relevant to expand briefly upon its origins, use and analysis.
The word finds its roots in meanings that centre upon that which
is shared – held in common – rather than owned. For hundreds of
years (even thousands if one accepts certain translations from an-
cient Rome), commons has referred to shared, non-owned land and
goods, or to a stratum of society or community that possesses nothing
or very little. Hence, in the English language, short commons means a
lack of communally supplied food; a common is (or rather was) land
available for community use with no particular owner; the House
of Commons is Britain’s third estate, the lower level of parliament
intended to represent those people not enabled. In modern socio-
economic terms, commons is expanded to include the natural en-
vironment, the air, the habitable land, and the waters of the earth.
For the digital world, Fuster Morell (2010, 5) defines the digital com-
mons as ‘information and knowledge resources that are collectively
owned or shared between or among a community and that tend to be
non-exclusive, that is be [freely, generally] available to third parties.’
Some of the terminology and assumptions commonly associated
with commons have picked up a certain bias from the political his-
tory of the British Isles. A revolution took place in British agricultural
production from the mid-seventeenth to the nineteenth centuries.
Although domestic production increased enormously, such success
came at the expense of the loss of common land, as old manorial
holdings fell into complete private ownership, robbing communi-
ties of their shared allotments of ground. This gave wide currency
to the tragedy of the commons, a term made famous by an epony-
mous article by Garrett Hardin (1968), but first used by the British
economist William F. Lloyd in 1833. It posited various disadvantages
of commonly-held land, largely arising out of irresponsible and self-
interested over-use. However, on Continental Europe, especially in
Germany, Austria and Switzerland, such pessimism was far from jus-
tified in small-scale agriculture. A couple of centuries later, the dis-

number 1 · spring 2015 87

 Eva Gatarik et al.

interested observer may well consider many of the British objections

to commons as pseudo-scientific justification for simple commercial
greed, although some of the points made remain worthy of consid-
eration. There can be no doubt that, as Hardin pointed out, in the
absence of appropriate managerial leadership of the creation and
consumption of commons, focusing on their development or at least
maintenance or non-overuse, disaster may result.

Managing the commons

Problems of commons may be addressed by measures that prevent
waste and overuse of such resources. The Austrian school of eco-
nomics, represented mainly by Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von
Mises, offers a solution that is here referred to as the privatization of
resources. This is the transfer of ownership into private hands on the
basis that a private owner has an interest in the long-term conserva-
tion of the resource. Furthermore, it is possible to take advantage of
state regulation, which, in the form of quotas or other restrictions,
specifies maximum consumption so that the source is preserved.
There is a need to take care of commons in the long term and use
their collective stewardship (that no one has the right of ownership;
there are only administrators) (O’Riordan 2014). Elinor Ostrom, the
first woman to be awarded the Nobel Prize for Economics, proposes
that the intervention of state power or privatization is not necessary,
assuming that people can manage the goods together and that their
solutions may work well over time. Ostrom’s work emphasises that
direct communication between the entities that have an influence on
the goods is the most important factor, and further claims that peo-
ple can cooperate in their negotiations, which leads to optimization
of administration. She also proposed eight widely accepted princi-
ples for the management of the commons that should help with their
use (Ostrom 1990; Ostrom 2010).

from knowledge management to managing knowledge

as a commons?
Commons may be, under certain circumstances, accessible and avail-
able to all. This may be both their blessing and their curse, and
is the reason proper management of them is essential. When, for
example, information commons and protected intellectual property
(copyright, industrial design, patents, utility models, etc.) are placed
into contrast, it becomes clear that information commons will be (in
this case through price) available for subsequent research or more
favourable use.

88 management · volume 10
 From Knowledge Management to Ecosystems of Innovation

table 2 Comparison of Approaches to the Management of Commons

Item Models
Centralized Decentralized Polycentric
Schools/ Hardin (1968) Austrian school Ostrom (1990), Hess
examples (1940s) and Ostrom (2007),
Pisano and Shih
(2009), Frischmann,
Madison, and
Strandburg (2014)
Characteristics Historically, the first Emphasis on private State-of-the-art ap-
approach to manag- property, and justifi- proach to managing
ing commons cation for it commons
Focus Overharvesting of Problems arising Empirical analysis of
commons leading from unclear owner- the management of
to the tragedy of the ship long-lasting and ro-
commons bust commons
Solution Regulation Privatization Design principles for
managing commons
Result Prevention of the Tragedy of the an- Growth and robust-
overuse of commons; ticommons (Heller ness of commons
prone to failure 1998)

Michael Heller (1998) introduced the concept of the tragedy of the

anticommons, which describes the kind of market failure that occurs
when ownership is so fragmented that its use becomes problemati-
cal. Typically, this takes the form of a blockage of innovation, a kind
of gridlock arising out of excessive patent protection, which in turn
leads to a phenomenon that may be termed underuse of resources.
James McGill Buchanan, Nobel Laureate in Economics, also sees a
useful metaphor in the term anticommons, in that it draws attention
to the problem of under-use, directly comparable with overuse, of
resources.
Business organizations cannot expect to use the protected intellec-
tual property of others in the near future. They therefore have to dig
deeper into their own structures, right to the level of departments
and employees. Such entities are ineluctably faced with the reali-
ties and problems of daily function. Every day, new, sophisticated
or improvisational solutions to existing problems must be assessed.
These solutions may be considered as new and available informa-
tion or knowledge commons. Business organizations can sustainably
benefit from these solutions, no doubt, but there is no escape from
a re-instantiation of the principles of their appropriate management
within the organization (Ostrom 1990; Hess and Ostrom 2007; Os-
trom 2010; Frischmann, Madison, and Strandburg 2014).

number 1 · spring 2015 89

 Eva Gatarik et al.

Sharing and Creation of Knowledge as a Commons:

The Core of Ecosystems of Innovation
ecosystem and innovation: some definitions
The term ecosystem originally came from the natural sciences (Tans-
ley 1935) and there are some differences in its interpretation be-
tween the natural and socio-economic sciences; however, there is
also a great deal in common (Vermeij and Leigh 2011), definitely
enough to justify its use in the latter context.
The natural sciences view an ecosystem as a network of all the
organisms within a defined unit of space, which interact with, and
affect, each other and their surroundings, having all the compo-
nents necessary for survival. From another point of view, it is a dy-
namic, unpredictable ad hoc open-system analysable by scientists
(Arms 1990; Chiras 1990; Odum and Barrett 2005; Warren and Rob-
bins 2007; Wright and Nebel 2002).
For the purposes of this contribution, a definition of innovation
coined by Baregheh, Rowley, and Sambrook (2009, 12) was se-
lected for its robust meaning: ‘Innovation is the multi-stage process
whereby organizations transform ideas into new/improved products,
service or processes, in order to advance, compete and differentiate
themselves successfully in their marketplace.’

ecosystems of innovation: approaches

Increasing globalization leading to increasing competition, shorten-
ing life cycles of products, excess of supply in many industries and/or
rapidly changing conditions are just some of the environmental fac-
tors putting pressure on the ecosystems of organizations. Adaptation
to ever-changing environments is essential to long-term survival, in
human and societal networks as in the natural world. Innovation is
viewed as a key to success and prosperity (Kotzier and Alon 2013).
As conditions change, so must organizations – and innovation is the
key.
Synthesizing various other definitions of innovation ecosystems,
Gobbles’ (2014, 1) definition is used in this work: ‘Innovation ecosys-
tems are dynamic, purposive communities with complex, interlock-
ing relationships built on collaboration, trust, and co-creation of
value and specializing in exploitation of a shared set of complemen-
tary technologies or competencies.’
This work classifies Ecosystems of Innovation from an organiza-
tion-environment perspective. Three major approaches to Ecosys-
tems of Innovation are identified:

90 management · volume 10
 From Knowledge Management to Ecosystems of Innovation

A Single-organization ecosystem – an ecosystem within an organi-

zation
B Networks of organizations – inter-organizational relationships
C Regional innovation networks – a whole region as an ecosystem
It is worth noting that, while sub-approaches in category B are
somewhat self-contained, lone theories A and C are used as a blend
of different sub-approaches with only the underlying aspect of com-
mon perspective.

Single-Organization Ecosystem
Approach A is probably the least developed in the current contri-
bution, despite a great deal of interest from the academic and non-
academic worlds (e.g. Trifilova and von Stamm 2009; Koetzier and
Alon 2013).
In this field, there is little consensus about what constitutes a
single-company ecosystem of innovation, i.e. an innovative ecosys-
tem within a company’s boundaries. Yet, only partial aspects of this
perspective have attracted research attention. Actual case studies of
companies trying to establish an ecosystem of innovation for their
own purposes (e.g. Thompson et al. 2012) are of especial interest.
However, these organizations employ a somewhat ad hoc approach
to a number of innovation concepts, rather than a single structured
technique, to establish their innovation ecosystems.
Some identified sub-approaches:
1. Stanford’s Innovation Ecosystem Network (Russell et al. 2011;
Still et al. 2012) – data-driven study of relations within the net-
work as a source of sustained value co-creation.
2. Chinese schools of Innovation Ecosystems – Emerging interest
among Chinese academics in this field has led to the creation of
several approaches toward Ecosystems of Innovation, of which
probably the most promising is Total Innovation Management
(Xu et al. 2007; Xu 2012), which has been put forward as a
paradigm for management of an innovation value network.
3. High Reliability Organizations (e.g. Weick and Roberts 1993) –
studies of systems within organizations that have avoided fail-
ures in high-risk environments.
4. Naíve simplification (e.g. Tidd and Bessant 2009) – usually in the
form of guidelines for the establishment of better innovation cli-
mates; however, without proposal of any system for understand-
ing underlying factors.

number 1 · spring 2015 91

 Eva Gatarik et al.

Networks of Organizations
Theories of inter-organizational ecosystems of innovation have re-
ceived far more attention than those outlined as approach A. Two in
particular are worthy of mention – Open Innovation and Clusters –
together with some less-developed sub-approaches:
1. Open Innovation – introduced by Chesbrough (2003), as the
opposite of old-fashioned closed innovation and defined as ‘a
paradigm that assumes that firms can and should use exter-
nal ideas as well as internal ideas, and internal and external
paths to market, as the firms look to advance their technology’
(Chesbrough 2006, xxiv). According to Remneland Wikhamn
and Wikhamn (2013), open innovation theory may be divided
into firm perspective and ecosystem perspective. The former is
represented by initial work on the part of Chesbrough (2003),
who co-developed it, into (open) business strategy (Chesbrough
and Appleyard 2007). The latter is more concerned with the en-
tire ecosystem beyond the boundaries of the given firm. Von
Hippel’s work (1986) on user innovation preceded the establish-
ment of this theory.
2. Clusters – based on Porter, who defined them as groups of physi-
cally close and inter-supporting industries creating ‘competitive
advantage in a range of interconnected industries that are all in-
ternationally competitive’ (Porter 1990, 86). A cluster is the nat-
ural result of vertical and horizontal relationships between a na-
tion’s regional, successful industries. They support each other’s
development in a mutually reinforcing process (Porter 2011).
According to Matei (2013), general cluster theory can now be
divided into two themes: clusters and competitive poles.
Other important sub-approaches:
3. Innovation Interdependence (Adner 2006; Adner and Kapoor
2010) – a view of Ecosystems of Innovation as a source that may
collectively offer of a network of organizations to a customer.
The contribution of each network member is essential to the fi-
nal result.
4. Ecosystem Lifecycle (Moore 1993) – proposes different kinds of
organizational innovation behaviour depending on the maturity
of an ecosystem (viewed as a parallel to natural ecosystems).

Regional Innovation Networks

Concepts of Regional Innovation Networks constitute an ad hoc cat-
egory comprising countless theories together with, most importantly,

92 management · volume 10
 From Knowledge Management to Ecosystems of Innovation

their practical deployment by regional governments. These concepts

differ from the previous approaches in two dimensions – overall goal
(i.e., the economic success of a region) and extent (mostly, all the or-
ganizations in a region).
Approach C is more concerned with supporting the competitive
advantage of a whole region rather than a single industry (or group
of closely related industries). This definition tends to confine matters
to local governments, since the grasp of other organizations rarely
extends so widely.
The theoretical basics of this approach are very loose. The config-
uration of these networks is subject to very fundamental differences
in economic, political and other theory, from libertarianism to cen-
tralism.
Promoting economic success, which is an overall goal of this ap-
proach, in a region is actually the subject of works of traditional
economic authors from Antiquity and recent history (e.g. Aristotle,
mercantilism, Adam Smith) and remains important in modern times
(e.g., Paul Krugman and his economic geography 1991, or competi-
tive advantage, Michael Porter 2011).

limits and implications for further research

Some more general concepts have been excluded from this review,
although they touch this field partially or could be used for better
understanding of some of its aspects (e.g. theories about strategic
alliances or Supply Chain Management).
The results of this review pinpoint important differences in the
development of theories arising out of individual approaches. Al-
though there are dominant and self-sufficient concepts for networks
of organizations (Approach B) and Regional Innovation Networks
(Approach C), such coverage is absent from a single-organization
perspective, despite an undeniable need for such concepts among
organizational leaders. In Accenture’s 2012 Innovation Survey, only
28% of 519 executives expressed belief that their organizations were
achieving consistent innovation performance (Koetzier and Alon
2013).

Conclusion and Some Research Imperatives

The general intention of this contribution is to assist understanding
of, and improve, the evolutionary processes that efficiently influence
organizational performance.
Starting with the central task of organizations, i.e. to simplify and
systematize production processes, it emerges that the knowledge of

number 1 · spring 2015 93

 table 3 Comparison of Approaches to Ecosystems of Innovation
Single- Networks of Open Innovation Clusters Regional
organization Organizations Innovation
Ecosystem (in general) Networks
Scope Inside organization Network of Network of Network of Network of all
mutually organizations and mutually organizations in a
connected individuals connected selected region

94
organizations organizations in a
certain industry in
a selected region
Eva Gatarik et al.

Source of innovation Inside Inside Outside Inside Inside

Primary goals Promoting success Promoting success Contact with Promoting success Promoting
of an organization of individual innovation talent of individual development
(through better members beyond a given members and of a region
innovation) organization; their region (employment,
promoting taxes, business
progress in a success)
selected field

management · volume 10
Major stakeholders Shareholders, Organizations Stakeholders in Organizations Government,
management, general organizations,
employees inhabitants
Approach to intellectual property Closed Mixed Open Mixed Mixed
Relations among members Medium-tight Loose-medium Loose Loose Loose
General preconditions Suitable organiza- Mixed Openness, fair Concentration of Government
tional culture; behaviour and organizations in a support
management and meritocracy similar industry
employee support
Duplicability and imitability Difficult Easy-medium Medium Easy Easy
 From Knowledge Management to Ecosystems of Innovation

the members of an organization has an important function. This de-

pends on either individual knowledge or organizational knowledge
(an organization can produce knowledge by itself, which is more
than the sum of the individual knowledge contributions).
The topic of organizational epistemology arises out of this, concen-
trating on the emergence of knowledge in both the individual and
the organizational realms in order to explain success in organiza-
tional performance and find out how one can influence the other in
a positive way. Thus, knowledge is understood as a causal factor for
both the functioning and the success of organizations.
In attempts to analyse the causal influence of knowledge upon de-
cisions and creation within organizations, the beginning of research
in the field of knowledge management was strongly influenced by
cognitivist or representational analysis of knowledge, primarily ori-
entated towards explanation of success in organizational perform-
ance. In the context of application, presuppositions of local opera-
tionalisation – put differently, enactment of knowledge – were not
taken into account.
In parallel, research addressing the sustainable management of
commons was in process to address the problem of their overex-
ploitation (Rose 1986; Ostrom 1990), finally leading to the idea of
considering knowledge itself as a commons as well (Hess and Os-
trom 2007; Frischmann, Madison, and Strandburg 2014). Von Krogh
(2003) condensed the point of research into commons to communal
knowledge in association with the enactment of knowledge as inves-
tigated from the very outset by Weick, Tsoukas and others.
Returning to the first research question, these two lines of devel-
opment, the representational and the enactivist approaches, develop
an understanding of how knowledge can be constructed, processed
and justified within an organization. In summary, it could be said that
the cognitivist approach concentrates primarily on sharing knowl-
edge, whereas the enactivist approach addresses the sharing of re-
sources, in which knowledge itself is considered a resource to be
handled as a commons.
A constructive combination of the two approaches, establishing
a bridge between the cognitivist trend on the one hand and con-
sidering knowledge a resource on the other, will lead to model-
theoretic ideas that allow for the emergence, promotion and sup-
port of knowledge-intensive environments built around communal
knowledge as per von Krogh (2003) and the core of research on com-
mons as per Ostrom (1990; 2010) and Hess and Ostrom (2007). Such
knowledge-intensive environments are the backbone of sustainable

number 1 · spring 2015 95

 Eva Gatarik et al.

Organizational
epistemology

Knowledge management Commons (operationa-

(structure of knowledge) lization of knowledge)

Sharing knowledge Sharing resources

Knowledge-intensive
environments

Ecosystems of inno-
vation and adaptation

Organizational
performance

figure 1 Organizational Epistemology of Ecosystems of Innovation

management of commons and, furthermore, establish the ecosys-

tems essential to innovative adaptation to changes in the world.
The third research question leads to the conclusion that innova-
tion ecosystems are not sufficiently analysed in the literature; the
term has more currency as a buzzword than as a concrete cognitive
tool. The existence of Ecosystems of Innovation needs to be sup-
ported by knowledge-intensive environments resting upon what ap-
pears above. At the same time, this supplies answers to the second
research question concerning the design of organizations that sup-
port knowledge sharing and knowledge creation.
This scoping review was intended to uncover the innovative sta-
tus of our own research (Born and Gatarik 2013; Gatarik, Born, and
Kulhavý, forthcoming) by revealing the solid line of development that
leads through both knowledge management and research into com-
mons with respect to organizational epistemology.
It is worth reiterating that, in the commons research of Ostrom, it
is suggested that factors influencing knowledge sharing in commu-
nities be involved, insofar as they support innovations, as well as into

96 management · volume 10
 From Knowledge Management to Ecosystems of Innovation

knowledge management. There is a strong assumption that the com-

bination of classical knowledge management and commons can lead
to the construction of a new kind of meta-theory with ecosystems of
innovation as core element. This meta-theory is expected to lead to
new and effective ways of addressing the original task of knowledge
management discussed at the beginning of this contribution. Such
a theory could contribute greatly to a deeper understanding of the
field of ecosystems of innovation in its intention to support organi-
zational epistemology, and thus organizational performance.

Acknowledgements
This contribution owes a great debt to Prof. Dr. Rainer Born of the
University of Linz and Vienna, in terms of both inspiration and ex-
ecution. We would also like to extend our sincere thanks to both the
anonymous reviewers; their comments were constructive and im-
mensely helpful. Dr. Tony Long helped work up the English. Without
all of them, it simply could not have happened.

References
Adner, R. 2006. ‘Match Your Innovation Strategy to Your Innovation
Ecosystem.’ Harvard Business Review 84 (4): 98–107.
Adner, R., and R. Kapoor. 2010. ‘Value Creation in Innovation Ecosys-
tems: How the Structure of Technological Interdependence Affects
Firm Performance in New Technology Generations.’ Strategic Man-
agement Journal 31 (3): 306–33.
Andriessen, D. 2008. ‘Stuff or Love? How Metaphors Direct Our Ef-
forts to Manage Knowledge in Organisations.’ Knowledge Manage-
ment Research & Practice 6 (1): 5–12.
Arksey, H., and L. O’Malley. 2005. ‘Scoping Studies: Towards a Method-
ological Framework.’ International Journal of Social Research Meth-
odology 8 (1): 19–32.
Arms, K. 1990. Environmental Science. Philadelphia: Saunders College
Publishing.
Attewell, P. 1990. ‘What Is Skill?’ Work and Occupations 17 (4): 422–48.
Baregheh, A., J. Rowley, and S. Sambrook. 2009. ‘Towards a Multidisci-
plinary Definition of Innovation.’ Management Decision 47 (8): 1323–
39.
Barták, J. 2008. Od znalostí k inovacím. Prague: Alfa.
Born, R., and E. Gatarik. 2013. ‘Knowledge Management and Cogni-
tive Science: Reflecting the Limits of Decision Making.’ In Cognition
and Motivation: Forging an Interdisciplinary Perspective, edited by S.
Kreitler, 321–51. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, J. S., and P. Duguid. 1991. ‘Organizational Learning and Commu-
nities-of-Practice: Toward a Unified View of Working, Learning, and
Innovation.’ Organization Science 2 (1): 40–57.

number 1 · spring 2015 97

 Eva Gatarik et al.

Chesbrough, H. W. 2003. ‘The Era of Open Innovation.’ mit Sloan Man-

agement Review 44 (3): 35–41.
. 2006. Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Prof-
iting from Technology. Boston, ma: Harvard Business School Press.
Chesbrough, H. W., and M. M. Appleyard. 2007. ‘Open Innovation and
Strategy.’ California Management Review 50 (1): 57–76.
Chiras, D. D. 1990. Environmental Science: Action for a Sustainable Fu-
ture. Redwood City, ca: Benjamin Cummings.
Collins, H., and R. Evans. 2007. Rethinking Expertise. Chicago: Chicago
University Press.
Collison, C. 2005. Knowledge management: praktický management zna-
lostí z prostředí předních světových učících se organizací. Brno: Com-
puter Press.
Častorál, Z. 2010. Strategický management změn a znalostí. Prague: Uni-
verzita Jana Amose Komenského.
Danneels, E. 2010. ‘Trying to Become a Different Type of Company: Dy-
namic Capability at Smith Corona.’ Strategic Management Journal 32
(1): 1–31.
Davenport, T. H., and L. Prusak. 1998. Working Knowledge: How Orga-
nizations Manage What They Know. Boston, ma: Harvard Business
School Press.
Dreyfus, H. L. 2005. ‘Overcoming the Myth of the Mental: How Philoso-
phers Can Profit from the Phenomenology of Everyday Expertise.’
Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association
79:47–65.
Dreyfus, H. L., and S. E. Dreyfus. 1986. Mind over Machine: The Power of
Human Intuition and Expertise in the Era of the Computer. New York:
Free Press.
Drucker, P. F. 1993. Managing in Turbulent Times. New York: Routledge.
Fauré, B., and L. Rouleau. 2011. ‘The Strategic Competence of Accoun-
tants and Middle Managers in Budget Making.’ Accounting, Organi-
zations and Society 36 (3): 167–82.
Frischmann, B. M., M. J. Madison, and K. J. Strandburg. 2014. Governing
Knowledge Commons. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fuster Morell, M. 2010. ‘Governance of Online Creation Communities:
Provision of Infrastructure for the Building of Digital Commons.’
Doctoral dissertation, European University Institute, Florence.
Gatarik, E., R. Born, and V. Kulhavý. Forthcoming. ‘Managing Network
Economies: The Competitive Advantage of Commons as Ecosystems
of Innovation.’ Journal of Organizational Transformation and Social
Change.
Gherardi, S. 2009. Organizational Knowledge: The Texture of Workplace
Learning. Oxford: Blackwell.
Gibson, C. C., M. A. McKean, and E. Ostrom. 2000. People and Forests:
Communities, Institutions, and Governance. Cambridge, ma: mit Press.

98 management · volume 10
 From Knowledge Management to Ecosystems of Innovation

Gobble, M. M. 2014. ‘Charting the Innovation Ecosystem.’ Research

Technology Management 57 (4): 55–7.
Gu, J., and Z. Zhu. 2000. ‘Knowing Wuli, Sensing Shili, Caring for Renli:
Methodology of the wsr Approach.’ Systemic Practice and Action Re-
search 13 (1): 11–20.
Hardin, G. 1968. ‘The Tragedy of the Commons.’ Science 162 (3859):
1243–8.
Heller, M. A. 1998. ‘The Tragedy of the Anticommons: Property in the
Transition from Marx to Markets.’ Harvard Law Review 3:621–88.
Hess, C., and E. Ostrom. 2005. ‘A Framework for Analyzing the Knowl-
edge Commons: A Chapter from Understanding Knowledge as a
Commons; From Theory to Practice.’ Libraries’ and Librarians’ Pub-
lications 21, Syracuse University, Syracuse, ny.
. 2007. Understanding Knowledge as a Commons. Cambridge, ma:
mit Press.
Hutchins, E. 1991. ‘The Social Organization of Distributed Cognition.’
In Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition, edited by L. B. Resnick,
J. M. Levine, and S. D. Teasley, 283–307. Washington, dc: American
Psychological Association.
Ingold, T. 2000. The Perception of the Environment: Essays on Livelihood,
Dwelling and Skill. London: Psychology Press.
Jesson, J., L. Matheson, and F. M. Lacey. 2011. Doing Your Literature
Review: Traditional and Systematic Techniques. Thousand Oaks, ca:
Sage.
Koetzier, W., and A. Alon. 2013. ‘Innovation Survey: Why Low-Risk In-
novation Is Costly.’ http://www.accenture.com/us-en/Pages/insight
-low-risk-innovation-costly.aspx
Krugman, P. R. 1991. Geography and Trade. Leuven: Leuven University
Press.
Matei, R.-M. 2013. ‘Creating Competitive Poles: The Sustainable Model
for Obtaining the Competitive Advantage.’ Theoretical & Applied
Economics 20 (8): 47–58.
Mládková, L. 2005. Moderní přístupy k managementu: tacitní znalost a
jak ji řídit. Prague: Beck.
Moore, J. F. 1993. ‘Predators and Prey: A New Ecology of Competition.’
Harvard Business Review 71 (3): 75–86.
Nag, R., and D. A. Gioia. 2012. ‘From Common to Uncommon Knowl-
edge: Foundations of Firm-Specific Use of Knowledge as a Re-
source.’ Academy of Management Journal 55 (2): 421–57.
Nicolini, D., S. Gherardi, and D. Yanow. 2003. Knowing in Organizations:
A Practice-Based Approach. New York: me Sharpe.
Nonaka, I., and H. Takeuchi. 1995. The Knowledge Creation Company:
How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. New
York: Oxford University Press.

number 1 · spring 2015 99

 Eva Gatarik et al.

Odum, E. P., and G. W. Barrett. 2005. Fundamentals of Ecology. Belmont,

ca: Thomson.
O’Riordan, T. 2014. Environmental Science for Environmental Manage-
ment. New York: Routledge.
. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collec-
tive Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ostrom, E. 2010. ‘Beyond Markets and States: Polycentric Governance
of Complex Economic Systems.’ The American Economic Review 100
(3): 641–72.
Petříková, R. 2010. Moderní management znalostí: principy, procesy,
příklady dobré praxe. Příbram: Professional Publishing.
Pisano, G. P., and W. C. Shih. 2009. ‘Restoring American Competitive-
ness.’ Harvard Business Review 87 (7–8): 114–25.
Porter, M. E. 1990. ‘The Competitive Advantage of Nations.’ Harvard
Business Review 68 (2): 73–93.
. 2011. Competitive Advantage of Nations: Creating and Sustaining
Superior Performance. New York: Free Press.
Reich, R. 1991. The Work of Nations: Preparing Ourselves for Twenty-
First Century Capitalism. New York: Alfred Knopf.
Remneland Wikhamn, B., and W. Wikhamn. 2013. ‘Structuring of the
Open Innovation Field.’ Journal of Technology Management & Inno-
vation 8 (3): 173–85.
Rose, C. 1986. ‘The Comedy of the Commons: Custom, Commerce, and
Inherently Public Property.’ The University of Chicago Law Review
53 (3): 711–81.
Rouleau, L., and J. Balogun. 2011. ‘Middle Managers, Strategic Sense-
making, and Discursive Competence.’ Journal of Management Stud-
ies 48 (5): 953–83.
Russell, M. G., K. Still, J. Huhtamäki, C. Yu, and N. Rubens. 2011. ‘Trans-
forming Innovation Ecosystems through Shared Vision and Net-
work Orchestration.’ Paper presented at the Triple Helix 9 Inter-
national Conference, 11–14 July, Stanford, ca.
Sandberg, J., and A. H. Pinnington. 2009. ‘Professional Competence as
Ways of Being: An Existential Ontological Perspective.’ Journal of
Management Studies 46 (7): 1138–70.
Sandberg, J., and A. Targama. 2007. Managing Understanding in Organi-
zations. London: Sage.
Sandelands, L. E., and R. E. Stablein. 1987. ‘The Concept of Organiza-
tion Mind.’ Research in the Sociology of Organizations 5:135–61.
Senge, P. M., B. Smith, N. Kruschwitz, J. Laur, and S. Schley. 2008. The
Necessary Revolution: How Individuals and Organizations Are Work-
ing Together to Create a Sustainable World. New York: Crown Busi-
ness.
Sennett, R. 2008. The Craftsman. New Haven, ct: Yale University Press.

100 management · volume 10

 From Knowledge Management to Ecosystems of Innovation

Still, K., J. Huhtamäki, M. G. Russell, and N. Rubens. 2012. ‘Trans-

forming Innovation Ecosystems Through Network Orchestration:
Case eit ict Labs.’ Paper presented at the 23rd ispim Conference,
Barcelona, 17–20 June.
Swan, J., and H. Scarbrough. 2001. ‘Knowledge Management: Concepts
and Controversies.’ Journal of Management Studies 38 (7): 913–21.
Takeuchi, H. 1998. ‘Beyond Knowledge Management: Lessons from
Japan.’ Monash Mt Eliza Business Review 1 (1): 21–9.
Takeuchi, H. 2001. ‘Towards a Universal Management Concept of Knowl-
edge.’ In Managing Industrial Knowledge: Creation, Transfer and Uti-
lization, edited by I. Nonaka and D. Teece, 315–35. Thousand Oaks,
ca: Sage.
Tansley, A. G. 1935. ‘The Use and Abuse of Vegetational Concepts and
Terms.’ Ecology 16 (3): 284–307.
Thompson, V., B. Decker, J. A. C. Hardash, and R. O. Summers. 2012.
‘nasa (In)novation Ecosystem: Taking Technology Innovation from
Buzz to Reality.’ Paper presented at the 2012 ieee Aerospace Con-
ference, Big Sky, mt, 3–10 March.
Tidd, J., and J. Bessant. 2009. Managing Innovation: Integrating Techno-
logical, Market and Organizational Change. Chichester: Wiley.
Toulmin, S. 1990. Cosmopolis: The Hidden Agenda of Modernity. Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press.
Trifilova, A., and B. Von Stamm. 2009. The Future of Innovation. Farn-
ham: Gower.
Tsoukas, H. 2005. Complex Knowledge: Studies in Organizational Episte-
mology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
. 2009. ‘A Dialogical Approach to the Creation of New Knowledge
in Organizations.’ Organization Science 20 (6): 941–57.
Tsoukas, H., and E. Vladimirou. 2001. ‘What Is Organizational Knowl-
edge?’ Journal of Management Studies 38 (7): 973–93.
Varela, F., E. Thompson, and E. Rosch. 1992. The Embodied Mind. Cam-
bridge, ma: mit Press.
Veber, J. 2009. Management: základy, moderní manažerské přístupy,
výkonnost a prosperita. Prague: Management Press.
Vermeij, G. J., and E. G. Leigh. 2011. ‘Natural and Human Economies
Compared.’ Ecosphere 2 (4): 1–16.
Vogel, R. 2012. ‘The Visible Colleges of Management and Organization
Studies: A Bibliometric Analysis of Academic Journals.’ Organiza-
tion Studies 33:1015–1043.
Von Hippel, E. 1986. ‘Lead Users: A Source of Novel Product Concepts.’
Management Science 32 (7): 791–805.
Von Krogh, G. 2003. ‘Knowledge Sharing and the Communal Resource.’
In The Blackwell Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowl-
edge Management, edited by M. Easterby-Smith and M. A. Lyles,
372–92. Chichester: Wiley.

number 1 · spring 2015 101

 Eva Gatarik et al.

Vymětal, J., A. Diačiková, and M. Váchová. 2006. Informační a znalostní

management v praxi. Prague: LexisNexis.
Warren, W. A. 2007. ‘Ecosystem.’ In Encyclopedia of Environment and
Society, edited by P. Robbins, 529–33. Thousand Oaks, ca: Sage.
Weick, K. E. 1969. The Social Psychology of Organizing. Reading, ma:
Addison-Wesley.
. 1995. Sensemaking in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, ca: Sage.
Weick, K. E., and K. H. Roberts. 1993. ‘Collective Mind in Organizations:
Heedful Interrelating on Flight Decks.’ Administrative Science Quar-
terly 38 (3): 357–81.
Weick, K. E., K. M. Sutcliffe, and D. Obstfeld. 2005. ‘Organizing and the
Process of Sensemaking.’ Organization Science 16 (4): 409–21.
Wiig, K. M. 1997. ‘Knowledge Management: An Introduction and Per-
spective.’ Journal of Knowledge Management 1 (1): 6–14.
Wright, R. T., and B. J. Nebel. 2002. Environmental Science. Upper Saddle
River, nj: Pearson.
Xu, Q. 2012. Leverage Innovation Capability? Application of Total Innova-
tion Management in China’s Smes’ Study. Singapore: World Scientific
Publishing Company.
Xu, Q., J. Chen, Z. Xie, J. Liu, G. Zheng, and Y. Wang. 2007. ‘Total Innova-
tion Management: A Novel Paradigm of Innovation Management in
the 21st Century.’ The Journal of Technology Transfer 32 (1–2): 9–25.
Zhu, Z. 2004. ‘Knowledge Management: Towards a Universal Concept
or Cross-Cultural Contexts?’ Knowledge Management Research &
Practice 2 (2): 67–79.

This paper is published under the terms of the Attribution-

NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (cc by-nc-nd 4.0)
License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

102 management · volume 10