Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Complementarity Perspective of Knowledge Resources

  • Published:
Journal of the Knowledge Economy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to develop a complementarity view of the heterogeneous knowledge archetypes. The study first employed a psycho-cognitive perspective to provide theoretical backing for the emergence of knowledge types. Then, a complementarity methodology was employed to synthesize the co-created, heterogeneous knowledge resources into an operation-friendly model. The study shows that, by using the psycho-cognitive lens, the explicit, implicit, and tacit knowledge types are co-created. And that knowledge is actually created as a bundle of heterogeneous but complimentary resources. The complementary view is built off the assumption that a bundle of resources grants a higher value and that a separate use of resource may produce zero value. This paper highlights the capability of the knowledge-as-a-bundle to offer higher values to organizations when deployed jointly rather than the separate use propagated with the dichotomous view of the knowledge resources (types). This paper, therefore, adds, to the existing literature in the knowledge management field, a complementarity lens of knowledge typologies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adler, P. S. & Heckscher, C. (2006). Towards a collaborative community. In C. Heckscher & P. S. Adler (Eds.), The firm as a collaborative community: Reconstructing trust in the knowledge economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Ainley, P., & Rainbird, H. (Eds.). (1999). Apprenticeship: Towards a new paradigm of learning. London: Kogan Page.

  • Alasoini, T. (2011). Workplace development as part of broad-based innovation policy: Exploiting and exploring three types of knowledge. Nordic Journal of Working Life Studies, 1(1), 23–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen, R. & Reber, A.S. (2017). “Unconscious intelligence.” A companion to cognitive science, pp.314–323.

  • Ambrosini, V., & Bowman, C. (2001). Tacit knowledge: Some suggestions for operationalization. Journal of Management studies, 38(6), 811–829.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, C. L., Biscaye, P., Coney, S., Hutchinson, E. H. B., Neidhardt, M., & Reynolds, T. (2008). Review of national identity programs. Evans School Policy Analysis and Research (EPAR): University of Washington.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrew, N., Tolson, D., & Ferguson, D. (2008). “Building on Wenger: Communities of practicemin nursing.” Nurse Education Today, 28, 246–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argote, L., & Miron-Spektor, E. (2011). Organizational learning: From experience to knowledge. Organization Science, 22(5), 1123–1137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argyres, N. & Zenger, T. (2007, August). Are capability-based theories of firm boundaries really distinct from transaction cost theory?. In Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 2007, No. 1, pp. 1-6). Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510: Academy of Management.

  • Armstrong, C. E., & Shimizu, K. (2007). A review of approaches to empirical research on the resource-based view of the firm. Journal of management, 33(6), 959–986.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arrow, H., McGrath, J.E. & Berdahl, J.L. (2000). Small groups as complex systems: Formation, coordination, development, and adaptation. Sage Publications.

  • Bain & Co. (1998). 1998 Management tool utilization and satisfaction survey. Consultant's News, November, 8.

  • Baroody, A. J. (2003). The development of adaptive expertise and flexibility: The integration of conceptual and procedural knowledge. The development of arithmetic concepts and skills: Constructive adaptive expertise, pp. 1–33.

  • Baroody, A., Baroody, A. J., & Coslick, R. T. (1998). Fostering children's mathematical power: An investigative approach to K-8 mathematics instruction. Routledge.

  • Baroody, A. J., Feil, Y., & Johnson, A. R. (2007). Research commentary: An alternative reconceptualization of procedural and conceptual knowledge. Journal for research in mathematics education, 38(2), 115–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackler, F. (1995). Knowledge, knowledge work and organizations: An overview and interpretation. Organization Studies, 16(6), 1021–1046.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blöte, A. W., Van der Burg, E., & Klein, A. S. (2001). Students’ flexibility in solving two-digit addition and subtraction problems: Instruction effects. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(3), 627.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boisot, M. H. (1995). “Information space: A framework for learning in organizations. Routledge, London, UK: Institutions and Culture.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bolade, S. & Sindakis, S. (2019). Micro-foundation of knowledge creation theory: Development of a conceptual framework theory. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 1–17.

  • Bosancic, B. (2016). Information in the knowledge acquisition process. Journal of documentation, 72(5), 930–960.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bossen, C. & Dalsgaard, P. (2005). “Conceptualization and appropriation: the evolving use of a collaborative knowledge management system.” In Proceedings of the 4th decennial conference on Critical computing: between sense and sensibility (pp. 99–108). ACM.

  • Boshoff, N. (2014). “Types of knowledge in science-based practices.”

  • Byrnes, J., & Wasik, B. (1991). Role of conceptual knowledge in mathematical procedure learning. Developmental Psychology, 27, 777.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, R. A., & Dulany, D. E. (1985). Conscious attention and abstraction in concept learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11(1), 45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Canobi, K. H. (2009). Concept-procedure interactions in children’s addition and subtraction. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 102, 131–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Canobi, K. H., & Bethune, N. E. (2008). Number words in young children’s conceptual and procedural knowledge of addition, subtraction and inversion. Cognition, 108(3), 675–686.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chatti, M. A. (2012). Knowledge management: A personal knowledge network perspective. Journal of Knowledge Management, 16(5), 829–844.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choo, C. W. (1998). The knowing organization. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cirino, P. T., Tolar, T. D., Fuchs, L. S., & Huston-Warren, E. (2016). Cognitive and numerosity predictors of mathematical skills in middle school. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 145, 95–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cleeremans, A., & Jiménez, L. (2002). Implicit learning and consciousness: A graded, dynamic perspective. Implicit learning and consciousness, 2002, 1–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, H.M. (1993). “The structure of knowledge.” Social research, pp.95–116.

  • Cook, S. D. N., & Yanow, D. (1993). Culture and organizational learning. Journal of Management Inquiry, 2(4), 373–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corradi, G., Gherardi, S., & Verzelloni, L. (2010). Through the practice lens: where is the bandwagon of practice-based studies heading? Management learning, 41(3), 265–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, M. (2015). “Knowledge–explicit, implicit and tacit: Philosophical aspects.” International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences, pp.74–90.

  • De Jong, T., & Ferguson-Hessler, M. G. (1996). Types and qualities of knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 31(2), 105–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dienes, Z., & Perner, J. (1999). A theory of implicit and explicit knowledge. Behavioral and brain sciences, 22(5), 735–808.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dosi, G., Nelson, R. E. & Winter, S. G. (2002). “Introduction: the nature and dynamics of organizational capabilities”, in Dosi, G., Nelson, R. E. & Winter, S.G. (Eds). The Nature and Dynamics of Organizational Capabilities. Oxford University Press, New York, NY, pp. 1-22.

  • Dulany, D. E., Carlson, R. A., & Dewey, G. I. (1984). A case of syntactical learning and judgment: How conscious and how abstract? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113(4), 541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edmondson, A. C. (2003). Speaking up in the operating room: How team leaders promote learning in interdisciplinary action teams. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1419–1452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, N.C. (1994). Implicit and explicit language learning. Implicit and explicit learning of languages, pp.79–114.

  • Ellis, R. (2005). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study. Studies in second language acquisition, 27(2), 141–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engeström, Y. (2007). From communities of practice to mycorrhizae. In J. Hughes, N. Jewson & L. Unwin (Eds.), Communities of practice: Critical perspectives. London: Routledge.

  • Farnese, M. L., Barbieri, B., Chirumbolo, A., & Patriotta, G. (2019). Managing knowledge in organizations: A Nonaka’s SECI model operationalization. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2730.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fernández, E., Montes, J. M., & Vázquez, C. J. (2000). Typology and strategic analysis of intangible resources: A resource-based approach. Technovation, 20(2), 81–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeze, R. & Kulkarni, U. (2005). January. Knowledge management capability assessment: = Validating a knowledge assets measurement instrument. In Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 251a-251a). IEEE.

  • Fridland, E. (2014). They’ve lost control: Reflections on skill. Synthese, 191(12), 2729–2750.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furlan, A. and Grandinetti, R. (2016). "Spinoffs and their endowments: Beyond knowledge inheritance theory", Journal of Intellectual Capital, 17(3), 570 – 589.

  • Galunic, D. C., & Rodan, S. (1998). Resource recombinations in the firm: Knowledge structures and the potential for Schumpeterian innovation. Strategic management journal, 19(12), 1193–1201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gelman, R., & Williams, E. M. (1998). Enabling constraints for cognitive development and learning: Domain specificity and epigenesis.

  • Gherardi, S. (2001). From organizational learning to practice-based knowing. Human Relations, 54(1), 131–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gherardi, S. (2006). Organizational knowledge: The texture of workplace learning. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gherardi, S. (2009). Practice? It’s a matter of taste! Management Learning, 40(5), 535–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godfroid, A., Loewen, S., Jung, S., Park, J. H., Gass, S., & Ellis, R. (2015). Timed and untimed grammaticality judgments measure distinct types of knowledge: Evidence from eye-movement patterns. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37(2), 269–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldin-Meadow, S., Alibali, M. W., & Church, R. B. (1993). Transitions in concept acquisition: using the hand to read the mind. Psychological review, 100(2), 279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hajizadeh, A., & Zali, M. (2016). Prior knowledge, cognitive characteristics and opportunity recognition. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 22(1), 63–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halford, G. S. (1993) Children's understanding: The development of Mental Models. Erlbaum.

  • Hecht, S. A., & Vagi, K. J. (2010). Sources of group and individual differences in emerging fraction skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 843.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hemmasi, M., & Csanda, C. M. (2009). The effectiveness of communities of practice: An empirical study. Journal of Managerial Issues, 21(2), 262–279.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hislop, D. (2013) Knowledge management in organisations (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • James, W. (1950). The principles of psychology. New York: Dover.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1992). Nature, nurture and PDP: Preposterous developmental postulates? Connection Science, 4(3–4), 253–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman, S.B. (2011). “Intelligence and the cognitive unconscious.” The Cambridge handbook of intelligence, pp.442–467.

  • Kenny, B., & Fahy, J. (2011). Network resources and international performance of high tech SMEs. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 18(3), 529–555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, S., & Mahoney, J. (2008). Resource co specialization, firm growth, and organizational performance: An empirical analysis of organizational restructuring and IT implementations (pp. 08–0107). College of Business: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirkhart, M. W. (2001). The nature of declarative and nondeclarative knowledge for implicit and explicit learning. The Journal of General Psychology, 128(4), 447–461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirsimarja, B. & Aino, K. (2015). Knowledge-based view of the firm–Theoretical notions and implications for management.

  • Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Leal-Rodrigues, J. R., Leal, A., & Ortega-Gutierrez, J. (2013). Knowledge management, relational learning, and the effectiveness of innovation outcomes. Service Industries Journal, 33(13–14), 1294–1311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, G. K., & Cole, R. E. (2003). From a firm-based to a community-based model of knowledge creation: The case of the Linux kernel development. Organization Science, 14, 633–649.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liew, A. (2013). DIKIW: Data, information, knowledge, intelligence, wisdom and their interrelationships. Business Management Dynamics, 2(10), 49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Litman, L. & Reber, A.S. (2005). “Implicit cognition and thought.” The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning, 431–453.

  • Malhotra, Y. (2000). Knowledge assets in the global economy: Assessment of national intellectual capital. Journal of Global Information Management, 8(3), 5–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martín-de-Castro, G., Delgado-Verde, M., López-Sáez, P., & Navas-López, J. E. (2011). Towards ‘an intellectual capital-based view of the firm’: origins and nature. Journal of Business Ethics, 98(4), 649–662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGrath, J. E., & Argote, L. (2001). Group processes in organizational contexts (pp. 603–627). Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Group processes.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newell, K. M. (1990). Physical activity, knowledge types, and degree programs. Quest, 42(3), 243–268.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicolini, D., Gherardi, S., & Yanow, D. (2003). Introduction: Toward a practice-based view of knowing and learning in organizations. In D. Nicolini, S. Gherardi, & D. Yanow (Eds.), Knowing in organizations: A practice-based approach: (3–31). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

  • Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I., Keigo, S., & Ahmed, M. (2003). Continuous Innovation: The Power of Tacit Knowledge. Elsevier Ltd: Handbook of Innovation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski, W. J. (2002). Knowing in practice: Enacting a collective capability in distributed organizing. Organization Science, 13, 249–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paradis, M. (2004). A neurolinguistic theory of bilingualism (18). John Benjamins Publishing.

  • Pavese, C. (2016). Skill in epistemology I: Skill and knowledge. Philosophy Compass, 11(11), 642–649.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penrose, L. S. (1959). Self-reproducing machines. Scientific American, 200(6), 105–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pitelis, C. N., & Teece, D. J. (2010). Cross-border market co-creation, dynamic capabilities and the entrepreneurial theory of the multinational enterprise. Industrial and corporate change, 19(4), 1247–1270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reber, A. S. (1976). Implicit learning of synthetic languages: The role of instructional set. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 2(1), 88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rebuschat, P. (2013). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge in second language research. Language Learning, 63(3), 595–626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Resnick, L. B. (1982). Syntax and semantics in learning to subtract. Addition and subtraction: A cognitive perspective, pp. 136–155.

  • Resnick, L. B., & Omanson, S. (1987). Learning to understand arithmetic. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (pp. 41–95). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

  • Rittle-Johnson, B., & Alibali, M. W. (1999). Conceptual and procedural knowledge of mathematics: Does one lead to the other? Journal of educational psychology, 91(1), 175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rittle-Johnson, B., Schneider, M., & Star, J. R. (2015). Not a one-way street: Bidirectional relations between procedural and conceptual knowledge of mathematics. Educational Psychology Review, 27(4), 587–597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robeyns, I. (2003). Sen’s capability approach and gender inequality: selecting relevant capabilities. Feminist Economics, 9(2–3), 61–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rudd, J., Butson, M. L., Barnett, L., Farrow, D., Berry, J., Borkoles, E., & Polman, R. (2016). A holistic measurement model of movement competency in children. Journal of Sports Sciences, 34(5), 477–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rundquist, J. (2012). The ability to integrate different types of knowledge and its effect on innovation performance. International Journal of Innovation Management, 16(02), 1250014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryle, G. (1949). Meaning and necessity. Philosophy, 24(88), 69–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarayreh, B., Mardawi, A., & Aldmour, R. (2012). Comparative study: The Nonaka model of knowledge management. International Journal of Engineering and Advanced Technology, 1(6), 45–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scharmer, C.O. (2001). Self‐transcending knowledge: sensing and organizing around emerging opportunities. Journal of Knowledge Management.

  • Schulze, A., & Hoegl, M. (2006). Knowledge Creation in New Product Development Projects. Journal of Management, 32(2), 210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sirmon, D. G., & Hitt, M. A. (2003). Managing resources: Linking unique resources, management, and wealth creation in family firms. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 27(4), 339–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegler, R. S., & Stern, E. (1998). Conscious and unconscious strategy discoveries: A microgenetic analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127(4), 377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spender, J. C. (1996). Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), 45–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spender, J. C. (1994). Organizational knowledge, collective practice and Penrose rents. International business review, 3(4), 353–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spender, J. C. (1998). Pluralist epistemology and the knowledge-based theory of the firm. Organization, 5(2), 233–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spender, J. C. & Marr, B. (2006). How a knowledge-based approach might illuminate the notion of human capital and its measurement. Expert Systems with Applications, 30(2), pp.265-271.

  • Stanley, J. (2011). Know how. OUP Oxford.

  • Stanley, J., & Krakauer, J. W. (2013). Motor skill depends on knowledge of facts. Frontiers in human neuroscience, 7, 503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Star, J. R. (2005). Reconceptualizing procedural knowledge. Journal for research in mathematics education, 36(5), 404–411.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg, R. J., & Hedlund, J. (2002). Practical intelligence, g, and work psychology. Human performance, 15(1–2), 143–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Svabo, C. (2009). Materiality in a practice‐based approach. The Learning Organization.

  • Sveiby, K. E. (2001). A knowledge-based theory of the firm to guide in strategy formulation. Journal of intellectual capital, 2(4), 344–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sykes, C., & Dean, B. A. (2013). A practice-based approach to student reflection in the workplace during a work-integrated learning placement. Studies in Continuing Education, 35(2), 179–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsoukas, H., & Chia, R. (2002). On organizational becoming: Rethinking organizational change. Organization science, 13(5), 567–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsoukas, H. (2005). Complex knowledge: Studies in organizational epistemology. Oxford University Press.

  • Ullman, D. G. (2010). The mechanical design process: Part 1.

  • Von Krogh, G., Ichijo, K., & Nonaka, I. (2000). Enabling knowledge creation. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wenger, E. (1996). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning meaning and identity (6th ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, P. W. (2009). Assessing mobile learning effectiveness and acceptance (Doctoral dissertation, The George Washington University).

  • Zhang, J., Hong, H. Y., Scardamalia, M., Teo, C. L., & Morley, E. A. (2011). Sustaining knowledge building as a principle-based innovation at an elementary school. The Journal of the learning sciences, 20(2), 262–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Identity Management Commission, Abuja, Nigeria

    Sunday Bolade

  2. Knowledge and Talent Management Centre, Ajowa-Akoko, Ondo State, Nigeria

    Sunday Bolade

Authors
  1. Sunday Bolade
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sunday Bolade.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bolade, S. A Complementarity Perspective of Knowledge Resources. J Knowl Econ 13, 1300–1320 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-021-00743-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-021-00743-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation