WIN-WIN KNOWLEDGEMENT MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES

WIN-WIN KNOWLEDGEMENT MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES BETWEEN A NEW BORN BABY AND A GIANT IN ACADEMIA
DONALD HENRY AH PAK
Business, Economics and Management Department, Xi'an Jiaotong-Liverpool University
donald.pak@xjtlu.edu.cn

Rita Yi Man Li
Department of Real Estate and Construction, The University of Hong Kong
ritarec@hotmail.com

Knowledge management has far greater focus on the management of knowledge as a strategic asset and a focus on encouraging the sharing of knowledge and to adapt to changing environments and markets. The researchers argue that strategic knowledge management and collaborations between universities can attain the goal of win-win situations. It is further envisaged that by using the 7 S Mckinsey frameworks, value creation is enhanced and knowledge management is furthered. The exploration of establishing links is abundant and the advantages can be immense. The authors conclude that when planning collaboration, the implementation is external in nature and the 7S is too viewed as holistically and with deeper understanding to meet the requirements of internal and external alignment. The authors include for obvious reasons students and stakeholders. A single university, however rarely holds all the information and know-how needed for optimal knowledge creation. In their search for this kind of information and unique know-how, knowledge workers need to have the freedom to choose with whom to interact. These acts, however, often go beyond the organization’s boundaries in search of partners with needed knowledge resources.

1. Introduction
This paper reports on the development of win-win knowledge management strategies between two universities, one in greater China and the other in the special administrative district, Hong Kong. XJTLU is a research led university and HKU is research intensive all around the world, research universities are the primary sources of disseminating new knowledge and innovation and with this it can be argued that society develops itself. It also has to be understood that a new university faces the challenge of building research capacity from a baseline of limited resources in order to developing and cultivating a research culture.
Whilst research capacity is a global issue, capacity building strategies are implemented in ways which differ according to local cultural and politico-professional contexts (Wilson-Barnett, 2001). For instance, the UK Research Assessment Exercise shapes how academic schools focus and articulate their research (Biship, 2006). To fully understand research in this paper’s context, therefore we explore knowledge management strategies and strategic tools to enhance collaboration between the baby and the giant, so that condusive and plausible research foundation is built. This is in agreement; with Schroeder et al. (2009) the emerging Knowledge Management discipline provides strategies, tools and processes through which organizations can management knowledge as a strategic resource.
Furthermore, by adopting a case study method, it allows the researchers to explore organizations, simple through complex interventions, relationships, communities and or programs (Yin, 2003) and supports the deconstruction of various phenomena. There are two key approaches that guide case study methodology: one proposed by Stale (1995) and the second by Yin (2003, 2006). Both seek to discuss the topics at hand and what phenomena is proposed. In this paper, and according to Yin (2003) a case study design should be considered when (a) the focus of the study is to answer “how” and “why” questions; (b) you cannot manipulate the behaviour of those involved in the study; (c) you want to cover contextual conditions because you believe they are relevant to the phenomena under study and (d) the boundaries are not clear between the phenomena and the context.
This research seeks to explore the knowledge management strategic mechanisms of the two universities, within a knowledge management domain. The rationale for the study is to identify and analyse the working mechanisms of the two case organizations and to determine if a strategic integration can be theoretically and practically undertaken. The structure of the paper is as follows: first, introduction to the case study universities, the knowledge management is conceptualised and the relevant literature is reviewed. Third, the research methodology is outlined and fourth, the findings are discussed, with possible recommendations for joint strategies to be formulated within the knowledge management domain.

2. Brief Introduction to case study universities
2.1. Xian Jiatong-Liverpool University
Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University (XJTLU) is a new international university established between Xi’an Jiaotong University and the University of Liverpool, opening its doors on the 25 of May 2006 and is the first and only university of its kind approved by the Ministry of Education in China and awards the globally recognized Bachelor’s degrees awarded by the University of Liverpool. The university recruits students with university entrance scores (known in China as the Gao Kao) and international students with other appropriate qualifications from outside mainland China. The vision is to be a research-led international university in China and a Chinese university recognized internationally for its unique features in learning & teaching, research, social service, and education management and a role model in China and beyond.
The university is partnered with two research active universities and both have a very prestigious past and presently are actively producing high quality research output and Bond & Lemasson (1999) views collaboration as important vehicles and that international partnerships acquire multiple interpretations in the diverse research community. It is noted and accepted too, that as the university strategizes to further develop its international partnerships and to create global portfolios of focussed influential scholarship initiatives of international significance raise a number of serious questions with regard to governance of the internationalization process. Both institutional and divisional authorities encounter new challenges in how to find connections and build integrative modes between the institutional aspiration for a high impact international strategy and everyday grassroots level activities.

2.2. The University of Hong Kong (HKU)
The University of Hong Kong is the oldest tertiary education institution in Hong Kong. the University launched its official opening with its founding Faculty of Medicine which had evolved from the Hong Kong College of Medicine On March 11, 1912. One of the most renowned early alumni was Dr Sun Yat-sen, the founder of modern China. In December 1916, when the first congregation was held, there were 23 graduates only. In ninety years’ time, number of students enrolled in the university has increased to 13345 in 2007-2008 (Table 1) (The University of Hong Kong 2009c). She has also been ranked 1 in Asia in 2009 (QS Top Universities 2009) with approximately 6700 research papers in 2006/07 (Table 2).

Number of UGC-funded Students Enrolled in Headcount in 2007/08
Faculty
Research Postgraduate
(Doctor of Philosophy) Research Postgraduate
(Master of Philosophy) Taught Postgraduate Undergraduate All Levels
Full-time Part-time Full-time Part-time Full-time Part-time Full-time Part-time Full-time Part-time All
Architecture 53 28 20 11 184 1 342 - 599 40 639
Arts 58 44 62 16 - - 1,362 - 1,482 60 1,542
Business and Economics 53 5 14 2 - - 1,702 - 1,769 7 1,776
Dentistry 32 8 10 - - - 258 - 300 8 308
Education 87 53 26 22 279 534 567 17 959 626 1,585
Engineering 229 32 107 9 - - 1,511 - 1,847 41 1,888
Law 30 10 3 1 135 15 375 - 543 26 569
Medicine 257 37 184 19 2 - 1,440 - 1,883 56 1,939
Science 271 10 153 8 - 1 1,560 - 1,984 19 2,003
Social Sciences 93 41 53 12 38 - 859 - 1,043 53 1,096
All Faculties 1,163 268 632 100 638 551 9,976 17 12,409 936 13,345
Table 1 Number of UGC-funded Students Enrolled in Headcount in 2007/08 (The University of Hong Kong 2009b)

Research Output in 2006/07 by Type of Research Activities
Type of Research Activities Number %
Academic Research, Refereed 4,960 74.1
Academic Research, Not Refereed 448 6.7
Contract Research 86 1.3
Other Output 1,204 18.0
All 6,698 100.0
Table 2 Research output in 2006/07 (The University of Hong Kong 2009b)

3. Literature Review

3.1. Knowledge Management
Knowledge Management (KM) is a discipline since 1991 and according to Wikipedia: KM efforts typically focus on organizational objectives such as improved performance, competitive advantage, innovation, the sharing of lessons learned, and continuous improvement of the organisation. KM efforts overlap with Organisational Learning, and may be distinguished from that by a greater focus on the management of knowledge as a strategic asset and a focus on encouraging the sharing of knowledge. KM efforts can help individuals and groups to share valuable organizational insights, to reduce redundant work, to avoid reinventing the wheel per se, to reduce training time for new employees, to retain intellectual capital as employees turnover in an organisation, and to adapt to changing environments and markets (McAdam & McCreedy 2000)(Thompson & Walsham 2004).
Within modern society, universities have a major role to play. Capital and labour are no longer the dominant production factors. They have been superseded by knowledge. Although it is hard to find a generally accepted definition, one could say that: “knowledge management embodies organizational processes that seek the synergistic combination of data and information processing capacity of information technologies, and the creative and innovative capacity of human beings.”

3. 2. Historical framework
Medieval universities considered themselves to be the guardian of human knowledge, and concentrated on what was known, instead of exploring new knowledge. Today, the modern university is characterized by the co-existence of a series of fundamental elements:
−knowledge creation
−knowledge dissemination
−academic service to society
Faced with competition and increasingly dynamic environments, organisations are beginning to realise that there is a vast and largely untapped asset diffused around in the organisation – knowledge (Gupta, Iyer & Aronson, 2000). TFPL (1999) argued that “for organisations to compete effectively in the knowledge economy they need to change their values and establish a new focus on creating and using intellectual assets”.
On the other hand, information as a concept takes up different meanings, depending on the context in which is discussed. Through learning and adoption, information can be changed into knowledge (Suurla, Markkula & Mustajarvi, 2002). Despite the difficulties in defining knowledge, it is well agreed that, “knowledge is the expertise, experience and capability of staff, integrated with processes and corporate memory” (Abell & Oxbrow 2001, p.73).
Knowledge and management of knowledge appear to be regarded as increasingly important features for organisational survival (Martensson, 2000). Yu (2002) pointed out that organisations put more emphasis on understanding, adapting and managing changes and competing on the basis of capturing and utilising knowledge to better serve their markets. Most of this knowledge is represented in a wide variety of organisational processes, best practices and know-how (Gupta, Iyer & Aronson 2000).
Knowledge management as it evolved in the business sector is slowly gaining acceptance in the academic sector. Oosterlink and Leuven (2002) pointed out that, “In our era of knowledge society and a knowledge economy, it is clear that universities have a major role to play”. In other words, universities are faced with a challenge to better create and disseminate knowledge to society. However, Reid (2000) argued traditionally, universities have been the sites of knowledge production, storage, dissemination and authorisation”. Similarly, Ratcliffe-Martin, Coakes and Sugden (2000) articulated that universities traditionally focus on the acquisition of knowledge and learning.

3.3. Service to society
Beginning, with the third aspect a service to society, this includes a multitude of tasks, from contract research and scientific popularization to job creation through spin-offs.
Knowledge management viewed from this means that institution has to guarantee the most efficient contact between university research results and possible applications in economic life. One of the most important ones is the cross-pollination between research and business. On the one hand, the economy receives valuable input, which can generate added value and new jobs, and in turn, a university receives additional income and valuable feedback, which, in turn, can be used to improve research results, or to start completely new research.
This is beneficial to the students, who are introduced to the corporate world and understands the dynamics of business. Unfortunately this rarely occurs as companies still don’t have the habit of knocking at a university’s door, and university staff lacks the experience or the courage to enter into business life.
A second way in which service to society coincides with knowledge management can be found in communication in this respect, universities should try to communicate more openly and more actively about the many specializations and specialists within its walls.
A third way universities can materialize their knowledge management can be found in the popularization of science. The fourth component of service to society is ‘permanent or lifelong learning’.
Although academic schools utilize a range of strategies to develop research capacity, Nolinda (2002) captures three areas which must be addressed: the mapping of current capacity (Crookes and Bradshaw, 2002), the training of individuals, and the cultivation of research infrastructures and support mechanisms (Cormack, 2000; Jootun and McGhee, 2003). Academic schools need to be clear, well communicated strategies (Gething and Leelarthaepin, 2000), with effective leadership and management (White 2002; Jootun and McGhee, 2003). Formal strategies must contribute to the cultivation of an all-embracing culture (Feldman and Acord, 2002; Jootun and McGhee, 2003; Mckenna, 2005).
Traynor and Rafferty (1999) consider the choice between ‘inclusive’ and ‘exclusive’ approaches to capacity development. Inclusive approaches provide opportunities for all staff to develop research skills and conduct research, while exclusive approaches place limits on the number of people who can be supported, or identify staff whose primary role is teaching (Traynor and Rafferty, 1999; Green et al., 2006).
Trying to include all members of staff in research activity can be construed as a form of empowerment, but may place pressure on staff whose primary interest is in teaching (Traynor and Rafferty, 1999; Clare and Hawes, 2001).
Abell and Oxbrow (2001, p.230) pointed out that, “as with all organisations, academic institutions have recognised that their strength in the market may in future hinge on their ability to build collaborative and strategic partnerships”. These demands require the development of partnerships between universities and curricula customised to meet students’ needs. It can be noted that universities are complicated environments, incorporating a variety of very different kinds of work. As is true of all organisations, the universities have their own political structures and their own cultures (Budd, 1998, p.6).

3.4. Knowledge Management in Universities: A Strategic Approach
Rooney (2000) suggests it is useful to examine common ways of defining knowledge and it can be divided into know-who (or where to go for the necessary knowledge to enable action); know-what (to do); know-why (to do it); and know-how (to do things) (Machlup 1962), while the other view is to divide knowledge into codified and tacit knowledge Polanyi (1967).
An alternative is to see knowledge as a ‘thing’ the other option being to change focus from knowledge artefacts to knowledge environment Rooney (2000). The researchers argue that while transferring, translating and transforming knowledge, as specified by Carlile (2004), from this vantage point, instead of seeing the firm as a bundle or resources (Barney 1991), it can be more completely described as a bundle of different types of boundaries where knowledge must be shared and assessed.
This framework provides a concrete description of such boundary capabilities, a potentially fruitful ground to begin linking a firm’s organizational and strategic views and that the challenge for any perspective that seeks to explain how systems adapt over time remains understanding the capacities and the abilities of actors to make the necessary trade-offs between the knowledge that was used before and the novelty present to create something new.
Carrillo and Gaimon (2004) introduce a holistic view of a plant’s knowledge-based resource capabilities that reflects results from research in operations management, organizational theory and strategy. In this paper, the author’s uses Mckinseys’7 S framework, value creation, KM and strategy to introduce a framework that will enhance and deliver for university collaboration.
The 7 S models are used for identifying and exploiting an organization's human resources in order to create competitive advantage and have been applied widely in strategy alignment. But, critics say that it is inwardly focussed. The authors conclude this is not the case and that when planning collaboration, the implementation is external and the 7S is viewed as holistically and with deeper understanding to meet the requirements of internal and external alignment.
This framework is well known to comprise of seven elements, the authors include for obvious reasons students and stakeholders. This will entail a value creation to all concerned as new knowledge is created when individuals with specialized knowledge share experiences to combine and exchange information and know-how with others (Nonaka,1994). A single university, however rarely holds all the information and know-how needed for optimal knowledge creation. In their search for this information and unique know-how, knowledge workers have the freedom to choose with whom to interact often go beyond the organization’s boundaries in search of exchange partners with needed knowledge resources (Kogut and Zander, 1996).


Source: 7 S Mckinsey Framework, Mckinsey Quarterly.

Geographically distant relationships do not preclude face-to-face contract, that they do require that contact become scheduled or formally planned (Audretsch and Stephan, 1996). Tacit knowledge is very difficult to transfer and generally requires direct interaction (McFayen and Cannella, 2009). Although further theory suggests that the motivation for individuals to go beyond organizational and geographic boundaries is the pursuit of exchange partners with common interests, but unique or specialized knowledge, and this knowledge may not be available in nearby locations (Price and Beaver, 1996).
The 7S model can be used in a wide variety of situations where an alignment perspective is useful, the example that the authors are looking at is how best to implement KM with the 7S framework and this involves seven interdependent factors which are categorized as either “hard” or “soft” elements: Strategy, Structure, Systems, Shared Values, Skills, Style and Staff.
The model is based on the theory that, for an organization to perform well, these seven elements need to be aligned and mutually reinforcing. So, the model can be used to help identify what needs to be realigned to improve performance, or to maintain alignment (and performance) during other types of change.
The model can be used to understand how the organizational elements are interrelated, and so ensure that the wider impact of changes made in one area is taken into consideration.

4. Methodology
The project adopted a case study approach to explore the situated process of win-win knowledge management strategies between a new born baby and a giant in academia, as well as understanding outcomes (Yin, 1994, 2008) in the two universities. The following research questions were devised:
1. What are the possible merits for the giant and baby to share their knowledge? (Section 1 and section 2)
2. What are the possible benefits when knowledge is shared between the two institutions in terms of research, education and our societies (section 3)
3. How can knowledge be managed across institutions by strategic approach? (Section 4)
4. Are there any ways to Ways to Improve University Knowledge Management Collaboration Framework? (Recommendations part) Furthermore, the project compared the two universities which had adopted differing approaches to research strategies development, involving a theoretical replication (Yin, 1994).

5. Data Collection and Analysis
Due to the nature of XJTLU been a new university, no data was available and HKU been an established university, available data was listed as above. These documents were analyzed to identify win-win strategies, their outcomes and the challenges faced. It was further considered to include in the analysis. Firstly, ‘stand alone’ documents, including departmental plans, research strategies, and briefing papers. The second group comprised sets of meeting minutes, from senior management teams, research office, and XJTLU’s management school which was available. The meeting minutes comprised approximately 75% of the total number of documents analyzed, given their repetitive, longitudinal nature.

6. Findings/Recommendations
It is important that education is a key factor, but at the crux of the matter, research is the centrepiece of an university and could be termed knowledge creation. This has to take place within a climate of academic freedom, although bearing in mind research is funded publicly too. It is appropriate to allow individuals to pursue their own research interests, but as university to limit the choices, as then the university can research niche areas and produce specialized knowledge.
Both universities take research quality very seriously. It has direct consequences in many areas. For instance: part of the internal funding system is directly influenced by the quality of the research output.
Academic research, which aims to extend the frontiers of knowledge, has a very particular nature:
−it is performed in an environment which supplies ‘academic freedom’, guaranteed by the tenured appointment.
−Second, it includes high scientific or economic risks, and it even has ‘the right to fail’.
−And third, skills, attitude and motivation belong to the most important input of the process. For these reasons, quality management can’t be limited to a mathematical model.
Research, or knowledge creation, is a key factor for a university to give tangible content to its responsibilities, within the stakeholder view of our place in society. A university is not only committed to providing a good education and to performing good research for their own sake, but also because this is one of the most important ways to return something to society at large which grants certain privileges to universities.
Just like business, higher education in the twenty-first century is facing numerous factors that are influencing, for better or worse, organizational effectiveness. A prerequisite is to reach beyond our own horizons when contemplating the best ways to educate the tech-savvy Generation Y, or Millennial, students.
It is deduced that the overall strategy will be looking across a wider external environment and the collaboration with an institution as Hong Kong University can be strategic in nature and increase the new university’s knowledge management prowess.
In order to undertake this there is a need to reach beyond existing demand, think non-customers before customers; commonalities before differences; and de-segmentation before pursuing finer segmentation.
It is imperative to recognise that there are four common hurdles that will impede new ideas:
Cognitive – status quo inertia
Resource – common assumptions that lead people to believe more resources are required.
Motivational – moving with speed to market and to break away from the status quo.
Political – groups that are not in sync with the organizational goals.
This leads us to believe what Beiman (2005) argues that, “there are multiple complex challenges embedded within the evolving science of strategic management. One of the most critical challenges for any enterprise is executing on the value proposition to its target markets. The value proposition clarifies why a customer should buy from you, rather than from a competitor. Prior research suggests that value propositions can be lumped into three broad categories: operational efficiency [best value]; customer intimacy [best customized solution]; product leadership [best product/service].”

6.1 Ways to Improve University Knowledge Management Collaboration Framework
A university is a knowledge institution, almost any of its policies could be considered as ways to improve its knowledge management. The researchers will point out important possibilities, limiting to a few very general ideas and building on the frameworks as discussed.
−First, universities should draft a detailed statement of intention, clearly defining their three basic and interrelated duties, collaboration requirements and areas etc. To be meticulously discussed by the diverse within the university, but also by the stakeholders.
−Second, awareness should be created concerning the responsibility and accountability of the university members towards the university’s stakeholders.
−Third, it could be argued that most universities have a structure which is relatively hostile to interdisciplinary developments. Looking at it from that angle, our traditional division in faculties, departments etc., often with their very own policy-making authorities, might qualify for a thorough rethinking.
−Fourth, if a university is a knowledge institution, it should make sure that the rest of the world understands that information technology is not the same as knowledge management.
−Fifth, knowledge is, by its very nature, immaterial and not limited by physical or political boundaries. Therefore, universities should increase their international openness.
−Sixth, if our students are the key players in today’s and tomorrow’s knowledge society, it is vital that we prepare them as much as possible for the material and immaterial requirements of this knowledge society.
−Seventh, if a university is a knowledge institution; it is of vital importance that we welcome thorough and open evaluation. If the results of this evaluation are negative, we should develop a climate which is open to accepting even the most unpleasant consequences, even if these consequences would interrupt the cherished tenured appointment.
−Eighth, universities should stop considering themselves as highly individual institutions.
This attitude hinders institutional collaboration, which will become more and more essential in tomorrow’s world. What is true on the institutional level is also true for each individual. Professors and students need to learn how to work together, in order to strengthen the total research quality and the overall level of academic performance.
Universities still are not sufficiently aware of their place in society, which would automatically lead them to an increased and essential sense of responsibility and accountability. This is especially true in our current internationalized world. Modern universities are an integral part in a knowledge economy and a knowledge society, universities are the protagonists in providing the community, i.e. their stakeholders, with a competitive edge, both locally and globally.
Looking at knowledge management from a university’s point of view is, in fact, looking at the very heart of that university. It forces us to consider our threefold mission from a very modern perspective. The researchers am quite sure that we have not been able to cover everything, but we do hope that we have been able to give some insight into our threefold mission - service to society, education and research - which are essential in today’s knowledge society. It is our firm belief, then, that universities will continue to play a major role in tomorrow’s world, assuming that they are willing to assume their considerable responsibility and adopting a framework that models on what has been highlighted and put collaboration within a copasetic environment.

6.2 Win-Win Knowledge Sharing Between the Two Universities
The HKU is an established university with over 100 years while XJTLU was established in recent years. There is no doubt that HKU has a larger database of English journals, older books and periodicals. Yet, XJTLU also has cutting edge. It has a new database of Chinese journals and scholars with their own local knowledge. In view of rapid growth in Chinese economy where more and more people are interested in Chinese culture and knowledge, it is high time to build a database between the two universities to produce a win-win solution which can benefit both the scholars and students within the two universities. The fast development in costless Web 2.0 technologies, such as Wikis, Blogs, social network platforms provide a rosy view in knowledge sharing between the two universities. This suggestion, does not only restrict in our new born baby XJTLU and our giant HKU, it also provides insight for other similar cases globally.
Cowell (2005) argues that seminal developments in recent years amount to re-inventing the role of institutions. Quite simply, higher education can no longer, on its own, meet the advanced educational and training needs of today's society. Its distinctive role is to set the agenda and to assure the quality of strategic partnerships.

7. Conclusion
We often coined society today as knowledge explosion era. Knowledge is no longer monopolized by one single body. Likewise, it does not only lie in the hands of some famous universities or scholars in the world of academia. Technological breakthrough allows strategic collaboration to be done on the internet. All of these knowledge sharing activities enable insights, experience and strategic ambitions to be shared between various stakeholders in universities at different level of staff.
Research has always been recognized as an important vehicle in knowledge creation. Giant and baby in academia can cooperate to benefit both research and teaching. One vivid example comes from the heart of knowledge in each university – libraries. HKU has huge storage of English journals and XJTLU contains plenty of Chinese journals and local knowledge. Knowledge sharing between the two can fill the knowledge gap and brainstorm new idea. The 7S framework which includes Strategy, Structure, Systems, Shared Values, Skills, Style and Staff implies that these seven elements need to be aligned and mutually reinforcing to facilitate knowledge sharing.
The authors conclude that for our students, it is foundation that as learning institutes we provide the stepping stones for them to elevate to postgraduate studies, developing work place skills and become multi-skilled to serve society, business and also for them to ascertain self actualization. There will need to be a two way dialogue, between universities and business and a rethink on how collaboration can be attained through knowledge management and delivering this new found knowledge to the students.
All of these activities, and many more, have in common a commitment to the sharing of insights, experience and strategic ambitions between universities, and of course, our students and the various stakeholders and this will involve, for staff at every level, a redefinition of their role within a knowledge management framework and how value can be created.

8. References:
Abell, A. and Oxbrow, N. (2001). Competing with knowledge: the information professional in the knowledge management age. London: Library Association.
Barney, J. B. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17: 99-120
Berger, P., and Luckman, T. (1966) The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. New York: Doubleday.
Bond, S. & Lemasson, J.P. (Eds.). (1999). A new world of knowledge. Canadian Universities and Globalization. Ottawa: IDRC, p.243.
Budd, J. M. (1998). The academic library: its context, its purpose and its operation.
Englewood, Colorado: Libraries Unlimited.
Berger, P., and Luckman, T. (1966) The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. New York: Doubleday.
Castells, M. The Rise of Network Soc iety. Malden: Blackwell Publishers. (1996), Chia, R. “From Complexity Science to Complex Thinking: Organization as Simple Location.” Organization, Vol. 5, 341– 369.
Combs, A. (1995) The Radiance of Being: Complexity, Chaos and the Evolution of Consciousness. Edinburgh: Floris Books.
Carlile, P.R. (2004) Transferring, Translating, and Transforming: An Integrative Framework for Managing Knowledge across Boundaries. Organization Science, Vol. 15, No. 5 (Sep –Oct), pp. 555-568.
Carillo, J.E. and Gaimon,. C. (2004) Managing Knowledge-Based Resource Capabilities Under Uncertainty. Management Science, Vol. 50, No. 11, November, pp. 1504-1518.
Castells, M. (1996) The Rise of Network Society. Malden: Blackwell Publishers.
Chia, R. (1998) “From Complexity Science to Complex Thinking: Organization as Simple Location.” Organization, Vol. 5, 341– 369.
Combs, A. (2009) The Radiance of Being: Complexity, Chaos and the Evolution of Consciousness. Edinburgh: Floris Books, 1995. Department of Real Estate and Construction (2009) Introduction, available at: http://fac.arch.hku.hk, 6th July.
Gerald R. Brown, K. W. Chau. (1997) Excess Returns in the Hong Kong Commercial Real Estate Market, Journal of Real Estate Research, VOLUME 14, NUMBER 1/2, 91-105
Graeme Newell, Kwong Wing Chau. (2009) Linkages between direct and indirect property performance in Hong Kong, Journal of Property Finance, Vol. 7 No. 4, 1996, pp. 9-29 QS Top Universities (2009) Top 200 Universities, Available at: http://www.topuniversities.com/worlduniversityrankings/asianuniversityrankings/asian_university_rankings_top_200_universities, 7th July.
Gupta, B., Iyer, L. S. and Aronson, J. E. (2000). Knowledge management: practices and challenges. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 100(1), 17-21.
Hansen, M.T. (1999) “The Search-Transfer Problem: The Role of Weak Ties in Shar ing Knowledge Across Organization Subunits.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 82–111.
Hearn, G., and Rooney,D. (1999) “The Role of Communication in the Knowledge Economy.” Proceedings of the Exploring Cybersociety Conference: Social, Political,Economic and Cultural Is sues . University of Northumbria, Newcastle on Tyne.
Klobas, J. E. (1997) Information services for new millennium organizations: librarians and knowledge management. In: Raitt, D (ed) Libraries for the new millennium: implications for managers. London: Library Association, 39-64.
Knowledge Management. Case-study based journal. Ark Publishing (tel 0171 795 1234, e-mail ark@dircon.co.uk).
Knowledge Connections (David Skyrme Associates) Home Page. http://www.skyrme.com
Knowledge Management. Practitioner-oriented magazine. Learned Information (tel 01865 388000, e-mail customerservice@learned.co.uk).
Klobas, J. E. (1997) Information services for new millennium organizations: librarians and knowledge management. In: Raitt, D (ed) Libraries for the new millennium: implications for managers. London: Library Association, 39-64.
Knowledge Management. Case-study based journal. Ark Publishing (tel 0171 795 1234, e-mail ark@dircon.co.uk).
Knowledge Connections (David Skyrme Associates) Home Page. http://www.skyrme.com
Knowledge Management. Practitioner-oriented magazine. Learned Information (tel 01865 388000, e-mail customerservice@learned.co.uk).
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. 1996. What firms do? Coordination, identity, and learning. Organization Science, 7: 502-518.
Machlup, F. (1962) The Production and Distribution of Knowledge in the United States. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Mantovani, G. (1996) New Communication Environments: From Everyday to Vir tual. London: Taylor and Francis.
Martensson, M. (2000). A critical review of knowledge management as a management tool. Journal of Knowledge Management, 4(3), 204-216.
McFayden, M.A., and Cannella, A.A. (2005) “Knowledge creation and the location of university research scientists interpersonal exchange relations: within and beyond the university. Strategic Organization, pp. 131-152.
Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14-35
Oosterlink, A. and Leuven, K. U. (2002). Knowledge management in post-secondary education: universities. http://www.oecd.org/pdf/M00027000/M00027356.pdf (accessed 2.08.09).
Polanyi, M. (1967) The Tacit Dimension, London: Routledge & Keagan Paul.
Ratcliffe-Martin, V., Coakes, E. and Sugden, S. (2000). Enhancing knowledge
acquisition and transfer in the university sector. http://users.wmin.ac.uk/~coakes/knowledge/bit2000.htm (accessed 28.08.09).
Reid, I. C. (2000). The web, knowledge management and universities. http://ausweb.scu.edu.au/aw2k/papers/reid/ (accessed 24.08.09).
Rooney, D. Knowledge Management In Universities: A Strategic Approach. On the Horizon., July/August, 2000, pp. 11-13.
Schroeder, A., Pauleen, D and Huff, D. (2009) “ Emerging evidence on linkages between Knowledge Management (KM) governance and management strategy: the case of two organizations”. International Journal of Knowledge Management Studies, Vol. 3, Nos. ½.
Steve Rowlinson, Fiona Y. K. Cheung, Roland Simons and Alannah RaffertyAlliancing (2006) No-Litigation Contracts: A Tautology? J. Profl. Issues in Engrg. Educ. and Pract. Volume 132, Issue 1, pp. 77-81 (January)
Suurla, R., Markkula, M. and Mustajarvi, O. (2002). Developing and implementing knowledge management in the Parliament of Finland.
TFPL. (1999). Skills for knowledge management: building a knowledge economy. London: TFPL. http://www.lic.gov.uk/publications/executivesummaries/kmskills.pdf (accessed 29.08.09).
The University of Hong Kong (2009a) International and Mainland Collaboration , available at: http://www.hku.hk/about/international.html, 6th July 2009
The University of Hong Kong (2009b) Quick Statistics, available at: http://www.hku.hk/qstats/index.html, 7th July 2009
The University of Hong Kong (2009c) The Early Years, available at: http://www.hku.hk/about/u_glance.html, 7th July 2009
The University of Hong Kong (2009d) The University Today, available at http://www.hku.hk/about/today.html, 7th July 2009
1 http://www.brint.com/km/whatis.htm
Yu, C. M. (2002). Socialising knowledge management: the influence of the opinion
leader. Journal of Knowledge Management Practice. http://www.tlainc.com/articl42.htm (accessed 10.02.03.).