Skip to main content
Log in

From Fitness Landscapes to Knowledge Landscapes

  • Published:
Systemic Practice and Action Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Based on the complexity theory concept of fitness landscapes, this article develops and discusses the concept of “knowledge landscapes.” A knowledge landscape is a metaphor describing the ever-changing potential knowledge peaks and valleys that surround each one of us. Individuals, communities, and organizations move on their own knowledge landscapes by simultaneously climbing local peaks and exploring other visible peaks. The higher one climbs, the harder it is to climb still higher. Our ability to climb is also limited by our identity, who we are, which on an organizational level is linked to the tightness of organizational interconnectedness. Coevolutionary struggles between individuals and organizations can lead us to climb potential knowledge peaks faster. Moreover, our knowledge landscapes exist on many levels of scale, meaning that what appears to be one peak is actually a series of subpeaks on a smaller level of scale.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  • Arthur, W. B. (1990). Positive feedbacks in the economy. Sci. Am. Feb. 80–85.

  • Arthur, W. B. (1996). Increasing returns and new world of business. Harv. Bus. Rev. July–Aug. 100–109.

  • Ashby, W. R. (1960). An Introduction to Cybernetics Chapman & Hall, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bak, P., and Chen, K. (1991). Self-organized criticality. Sci. Am. Jan. 46–54.

  • Barnett, W. P., and Hansen, M. T. (1996). The Red Queen in organization evolution. Strat. Manage. J. 17 139–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beamish, P., and Killing, P. (eds.) (1997). Cooperative Strategies (Part I: North American Perspectives: Part II: Asian-Pacific Perspectives; and Part III: European Perspectives) New Lexington Press, San Francisco.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bettis, R., and Prahalad, C. K. (1995). The dominant logic: Retrospective and extension. Strat. Manage. J. 16 5–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruderer, E., and Singh, J. V. (1996). Organizational evolution, learning, and selection: A genetic-algorithm-based model. Acad. Manage. J. 39(5), 1322–1349.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgelman, R. A. (1991). Intraorganizational ecology of strategy making and organizational adaptation: Theory and field research. Organiz. Sci. 2 239–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carley, K. (1992). Organizational learning and personnel turnover. Organiz. Sci. 3 20–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conner, K. R., and Prahalad, C. K. (1996). A resource-based theory of the firm: Knowledge versus opportunism. Organiz. Sci. 7(5), 477–501.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eigen, M., and Oswatitsch, R. W. (1992). Steps Towards Life: A Perspective on Evolution Oxford University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garud, R., and Karnoe, P. (1996). Path creation & dependence in the Danish wind turbine field. Presented at INFORMS College for Organization Science, Atlanta, Nov.

  • Grant, R. M. (1996a). Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments: Organizational capability as knowledge integration. Organiz. Sci. 7(4), 375–387.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant, R. M. (1996b). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strat. Manage. J. 17 Winter Special Issue), 109–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamel, G. (1991). Competition for competence and inter-partner learning within international strategic alliances. Strat. Manage. J. 12 83–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannan, M. T., and Freeman, J. (1977). The population ecology of organizations. Am. J. Sociol. 82 929–964.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannan, M. T., and Freeman, J. (1984). Structural inertia and organizational change. Am. Sociol. Rev. 49 149–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holland, J. (1995). Hidden Order Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holland, J. H., Holyoak, K. J., Nisbett, R. E., and Thagard, P. R. (1986). Induction: Processes of Inference, Learning and Discovery MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huber, G. P. (1991). Organization learning: The contribution processes and the literatures. Organiz. Sci. 2(1), 89–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jantsch, E. (1980). The Self-Organizing Universe Pergamon Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, J. L., and Burton, B. K. (1994). Chaos and complexity theory for management: Caveat emptor. J. Manage. Inquiry 3(4), 320–328.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kane, D. (1996). Local hillclimbing on an economic landscape. Santa Fe Institute Working Paper, 96-08-065.

  • Kauffman, S. (1993). The Origins Order: Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution Oxford University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kauffman, S. (1995). At Home in the Universe Viking, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kauffman, S. A. (1996). Investigations: The nature of autonomous agents and the worlds they mutually create. Santa Fe Institute Working Paper, 96-08-072.

  • Kauffman, S., and Levin, S. (1987). Towards a general theory of adaptive walks on rugged landscapes. J. Theor. Biol. 128 11–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, K. T. (1997). The Logic of Reliable Inquiry Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, D. H. (1993). The link between individual and organizational learning. Sloan Manage. Rev. Fall 37–50.

  • Kogut, B., and Zander, U. (1996). What firms do? Co-ordination, identity, and learning. Organiz. Sci. 7(5), 502–518.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinthal, D. (1997). Adaptation in rugged landscapes. Manage. Sci. 43(7), 934–950.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levy, D. (1994). Chaos theory and strategy: Theory, application and managerial implications. Strat. Manage. J. 15 167–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liebeskind, J. P., Oliver, A. L., Zucker, L., and Brewer, M. (1996). Social networks, learning and flexibility: Sourcing scientific knowledge in new biotechnology firms. Organiz. Sci. 7(4), 428–443.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lissack, M. (1997). Mind your metaphors: Lessons from complexity science. Long Range Plan. 30(2), 294–298.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lissack, M., and Roos, J. (1997). Words count: Viewing organizations as emerging systems of languaging. IMD Working Paper, June.

  • Luhmann, N. (1986). The autopoiesis of social systems. In Geyer, F. and Van der Zouwen, J. (eds), Sociocybernetic Paradoxes—Observation, control and Evolution of Self-Steering Systems Sage, London, pp. 172–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organiz. Sci. 2(1), 71–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maturana, H., and Varela, F. J. (1987). The Tree of Knowledge Shambhala, Boston, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKelvey, W. (1997). Quasi-natural organization science. Organiz. Sci. 8(4), 352–380.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merry, U. (1997). Fitness on Rugged Landscapes. Postings to COMPLEX @ LISSACK.SPACELAB. NET LISTSERV.

  • Mingers, J. (1995). Self-Producing Systems: Implications and Applications of Autopoiesis Plenum Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, G. (1986). Images of Organization Sage, Newbury Park, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I., and Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge-Creating Company Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romer, P. (1986). Increasing returns and long-run growth. J. Polit. Econ. 94(5), 1002–1037.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, W. R. (1987). Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems 2nd ed., Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Senge, P. M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline, the Art and Practice of the Learning Organization Doubleday Currency, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stacey, R. (1992). Managing Chaos Kogan-Page, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stacey, R. (1996). Complexity and Creativity in Organizations Barrett-Koehler, San Francisco.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sveiby, K. E. (1996). Transfer of knowledge and the information processing professions. Eur. Manage. J. 14(4), 379–388.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szpiro, G. G. (1997). The emergence of risk aversion. Complexity 2(4), 31–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teubner, G. (1989). How the law thinks: Towards a constructive epistemology of law. Law Soc. Rev. 23 727–757.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in Action McGraw-Hill, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsoukas, H. (1996). The firm as a distributed knowledge system: A constructionist approach. Strat. Manage. J. 17 (Winter Special Issue), 11–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Valen, L. (1973). A new evolutional law. Evol. Theory 1 1–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Krogh, G., Roos, J., and Slocum, K. (1994). An essay on corporate epistemology. Strat. Manage. J. 15 53–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldrop, M. M. (1992). Complexity: The Emerging Science at the Edge of Chaos Simon & Schuster, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, S. (1932). The roles of mutation, inbreeding, crossbreeding and selection in evolution. Proc. Sixth Int. Conf. Genet. 1 356–366.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Johan Roos.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Roos, J., Oliver, D. From Fitness Landscapes to Knowledge Landscapes. Systemic Practice and Action Research 12, 279–293 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022451718231

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022451718231

Navigation