Ryoko Toyama

SECI, Ba and Leadership: a Unified Model of Dynamic Knowledge Creation

Abstract Despite the widely recognised importance of knowledge as a vital source of competitive advantage, there is little understanding of how organisations actually create and manage knowledge dynamically. Nonaka, Toyama and Konno start from the view of an organisation as an entity that creates knowledge continuously, and their goal in this article is to understand the dynamic process in which an organisation creates, maintains and exploits knowledge. They propose a model of knowledge creation consisting of three elements: (i) the SECI process, knowledge creation through the conversion of tacit and explicit knowledge; (ii) ‘ba’, the shared context for knowledge creation; and (iii) knowledge assets, the inputs, outputs and moderators of the knowledge-creating process. The knowledge creation process is a spiral that grows out of these three elements; the key to leading it is dialectical thinking. The role of top management in articulating the organisations knowledge vision is emphasised, as is the important role of middle management (‘knowledge producers’) in energising ba. In summary, using existing knowledge assets, an organisation creates new knowledge through the SECI process that takes place in ba, where new knowledge, once created, becomes in turn the basis for a new spiral of knowledge creation.

The Knowledge-creating Theory Revisited: Knowledge Creation as a Synthesizing Process

This paper is a part of our attempt to build a new knowledge-based theory of the firm and organization to explain the dynamic process of knowledge creation and utilization. For this, we revisit the theory of knowledge creation through the SECI process and ba, and try to advance them further by incorporating the dialectic thinking. In this paper, knowledge creation is conceptualized as a dialectical process, in which various contradictions are synthesized through dynamic interactions among individuals, the organization, and the environment. With the view of a firm as a dialectic being, and strategy and organization should be re-examined as the synthesizing and self-transcending process instead of a logical analysis of structure or action. An organization is not an information-processing machine that is composed of small tasks to carry out a given task, but an organic configuration of ba. Ba, which is conceptualized as a shared context in motion, can transcend time, space, and organization boundaries to create knowledge.

Coevolution of patent strategy and product strategy

In the era of knowledge, the fit between the environment such as market and national patent system and product and patent strategies determines the longevity of a product. Patent strategy and product strategies coevolve by influencing each other through technology choices. This study offers a model to explain the coevolution of patent and product strategies.

Catch up of semiconductor latecomers in China

Purpose – This study aims to discuss the development of the semiconductor industry in China and analyzes it through current studies about the catch up of latecomers in newly industrialized countries (NICs).Design/methodology/approach – Use the case study approach to explore and discuss the development track of the Chinese semiconductor industry and the catch up experience of Huang Hong NEC in China.Findings – The experience of NICs can explain the catch up of semiconductor latecomers in China. However, the role of government has changed along with the whole development of the China semiconductor industry; external pressure may influence the pace of development and the span of control of the China Government for future catch ups.Research limitations/implications – The study focuses on one single case, which may not reflect the individual differences appeared in different firms in China.Originality/value – This study contributes to our knowledge about the catch up of latecomer firms in an emerging market an...

Classification of the patent strategy of the Japanese firms by market environment and the characteristics of technology

This paper attempts to offer a theoretical framework to explain why firms in different industries take different patent strategies. The framework categorizes patent strategies based on the interaction between market characteristics and product characteristics. In this paper, product life cycle and autarky of elemental technology are selected as the axes to explain the differences of patent strategy.

Introduction: Why We Need a New Theory of the Knowledge-Based Firm

We are currently in the midst of great change, a condition which Lester Thurow (2003) called the third industrial revolution. It is a shift towards a knowledge-based economy, where knowledge is the most important resource, superseding the traditional management resources of land, capital, and labor (Drucker, 1993). This has stimulated more active discussion about the theory and practice of “knowledge management.” Yet most firms still have serious difficulty understanding the knowledge resource, and we still lack an effective theoretical framework for understanding the operations of the firm in the knowledge-based economy.

Vision and Driving Objectives: Values for the Common Good

This chapter describes how firms create knowledge to change themselves and their environment, based on their vision and driving objectives. The vision sets the direction for the firm’s strategy and its operations by drawing an image of the future that the firm wants to create. This vision motivates employees and lays the foundation for the firm’s value system, based on defined relationships both inside and outside the company.

The Characteristics of Knowledge

In this chapter, we discuss the nature of knowledge and how it differs from other resources. This will explain why we need a new theory of knowledge and its management. The issue of knowledge in theories of the firm has been addressed mainly in the resource-based view of the firm, where it has been treated as one of the important resources that lead to above average returns (Winter, 1987; Prahalad and Hamel, 1990; Nelson, 1991; Kogut and Zander, 1992; Leonard-Barton, 1992; Teece et al., 1997). The central questions in this view have been concerned with what kind of knowledge resources bring above average returns, how a firm can realize potential profit from the knowledge it owns, and how a firm can protect such knowledge as a resource. Although this view recognizes the dynamic capability of the firm (Teece et al., 1997; Teece, 2007), many of the arguments tend to focus on the utilization of resources, rather than on the dynamics in which the firm continuously builds resources through interaction with the environment. What is missing in the resource-based approach is a comprehensive framework that shows how various parts within and across organizations interact with each other over time to create something new (for a detailed critique see, e.g., Priem and Butler, 2001). The so-called knowledge-based view of the firm (Grant, 1996; Spender, 1996; Nonaka and Toyama, 2005) that grew out of the resource-based view tries to overcome this weakness.

Leading the Knowledge-Creating Firm

In the previous chapter we discussed the dynamic model in which a firm creates knowledge through interactions with its environment. The driver of this entire dynamic process is leadership. Leadership plays a variety of roles in the knowledge-creating process, such as: providing knowledge-vision and a driving objective; developing and promoting the sharing of knowledge assets; creating, energizing, and connecting ba; and enabling and promoting the continuous spiral of knowledge creation through dialogue and practice. At the base of such leadership is phronesis, that is, practical wisdom to make the necessary decisions and take the appropriate action with the right timing to achieve a common good.

Leadership: Fostering Distributed Excellence in the Organization

In previous chapters we have discussed how a firm creates knowledge through dialogue and practice, guided by its knowledge vision and following a driving objective. We have also looked at ba, knowledge assets, and the ecosystem as the foundation for knowledge creation. The question remains: what drives the entire process? We believe it is a leadership capability that can coherently synthesize, direct, and implement the various elements that foster knowledge creation. However, in the knowledge-based firm, leadership is not exclusive to an elite few. It is distributed throughout the organization among individuals who can exercise phronesis to make decisions and act appropriately to each situation to realize a common good. Knowledge-based management requires management of both internal and external knowledge creation activities, case-by-case, because knowledge is created both inside the organization as well as in dynamic interaction with the external environment. In other words, companies exist in an ecosystem of knowledge. Therefore, leaders must be capable of immediate decision-making in response to the ba that continuously emerge and vanish both inside and outside the organization. This would be impossible in an organization where leadership is fixed.