Increasing Intellectual Bandwidth: Generating Value from Intellectual Capital with Information Technology

Abstract

An organization's Intellectual Bandwidth (IB) is its capacity to transform External Domain Knowledge (EDK) into Intellectual Capital (IC), and to convert IC into Applied Knowledge (AK), from which a task team can create value. An organization's IB is an upper boundary on its ability to solve complex problems. To create value, members of an organization must search for knowledge, share it, and, bring it to bear on the issue at hand. The Intellectual Bandwidth of an organization must therefore be, to a certain extent, a function of the ability of its members to access data, information, and knowledge that is relevant in the context of the task at hand in order to understand the causes and consequences of their problem. They must reason about possible solutions and their potential consequences. Throughout the task they must communicate with other stakeholders and subject matter experts as they make a joint effort toward their goal. This paper develops a model of IB based on these and other concepts. It posits that IB is the product of a Hierarchy of Understanding and a Hierarchy of Collaboration. The paper suggests that the model may be useful for analyzing and deploying IT in ways that reduce the cognitive load of bringing EDK and IC to bear on the task at hand. Future research must focus on refining and validating constructs and developing measures of IB, and using those measures to find ways to increase the value derived from EDK and IC.

REFERENCES

  1. Ackoff, R. L. (1967). “Management Misinformation Systems,” Management Science 14(4), B147-B156.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ackoff, R. L. (1989). “From Data to Wisdom,” Journal of Applied Systems Analysis 16, 3-9.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ackoff, R. L. (1996). “On Learning and the Systems that Facilitate it,” Center for Quality of Management Journal 5(2), 27-35.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Alter, S. (1999). Information Systems: A Management Perspective, 3rd Ed. Auckland, NZ: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Argote, L., and P. Ingram. (2000). “Knowledge Transfer: A Basis for Competitive Advantage in Firms,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 82(1), 150-169.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bellinger, G., D. Castro, and A. Mills. (2000). “Data, Information, Knowledge, and Wisdom,” available at: http:/ /www.outsights.com/systems/dikw/dikw.htm.

  7. Bellinger, G. (2000). “Knowledge Management — Emerging Perspectives,” available at: http://www.outsights.com/ systems/KMgmt/KMgmt.htm.

  8. Bohn, R. E. (1997). “Measuring and Managing Technological Knowledge,” IEEE Engineering Management Review (Winter): 77-88.

  9. Borman, M., and H. Williams. (1996). “Collaboration — More than the Exchange of Information,” Electronic Markets 6(2) 7-13.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Briggs, R. O., and J. F. Nunamaker, Jr. (1994). “Getting a Grip on Groupware,” in P. Lloyd (ed.), Groupware in the 21st Century: Computer Supported Cooperative Working Toward the Millennium, chapter 7. Westport, CN: Praeger Publishers, 61-72.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Brooking, A. (1996). Introduction to Intellectual Capital. Cambridge, England: The Knowledge Broker Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Dennis, A.R., J. S. Valacich, and J. F. Nunamaker, Jr. (1990b). “An Experimental Investigation of the Effects of Group Size in an Electronic Meeting System Environment,” IEEE Transactions of Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 20(5), 1049-1057.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Desanctis, G., and R. B. Gallupe. (1987). “A Foundation for the Study of Group Decision Support Systems,” Management Science 33(5) 589-609.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Edvinsson, L., and P. Sullivan. (1996). “Developing a Model for Managing Intellectual Capital,” European Management Journal 14(4): 356-364.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Gallupe, B. D., A. Cooper, J. Valacich, Bastianutti, and J. F. Nunamaker, Jr. (1992). “Electronic Brainstorming and Group Size,” Academy of Management Journal 35(2) 350-369.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Holsapple, C. W., and K. D. Joshi. (1999). “Description and Analysis of Existing Knowledge Management Frameworks,” Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Hawai'i International Conference on System Sciences, Maui, HI, IEEE Computer Society Press.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ives, W., B. Torrey, and C. Gordon. (1997). “Knowledge Management: An Emerging Discipline with a Long History,” Journal of Knowledge Management 1(4), 269-274.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Malone, T. W., and K. Crowston. (1994). “The Interdisciplinary Study of Coordination,” ACM Computing Surveys 26(1), 87-119.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Matthews, P. (1998). “What Lies Beyond Knowledge Management: Wisdom Creation and Versatility,” Journal of Knowledge Management 1(3), 207-214.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Merriam-Webster. (2001). Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, Incorporated, available online at: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary.

  21. Niederman, F., and G. Crosetto. (1999). “Valuing the IT Workforce as Intellectual Capital,” Proceedings of the ACM SIGCPR Conference on Computer Personnel Research. New Orleans, LA: ACM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Nunamaker, J. F., Jr., A. R. Dennis, J. S. Valacich, D. R. Vogel, and J. F. George. (1991). “Electronic Meeting Systems to Support Group Work: Theory and Practice at Arizona,” Communications of the ACM 34(7), 40-61.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Nunamaker, J. F., Jr., R. O. Briggs, D. D. Mittleman, and P. B. Balthazard. (1996). “Lessons from a Dozen Years of Group Support Systems Research: A Discussion of Lab and Field Findings,” Journal of Management Information Systems 13(3), 163-207.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Nunamaker, J., R. O. Briggs, and G. J. de Vreede. (2001). “From Information Technology to Value Creation Technology,” in G. Dickson and G. DeSanctis (eds.), Information technology and the New Enterprise: New Models for Managers, chapter 4. Prentice Hall, 102-124.

  25. Quinn, J. B. (1992). Intelligent Enterprise. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Romano, N. C., Jr., J. F. Nunamaker, Jr., R. O. Briggs, and D. R. Vogel. (1998). “Architecture, Design, and Development of an HTML/JavaScript Web-Based Group Support System,” Journal of the American Society for Information Science (JASIS) 49(7), 649-667.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Sena, J. A., and A. B. Shani. (1999). “Intellectual Capital and Knowledge Creation: Towards an Alternative Framework,” in J. Liebowitz (ed.), Knowledge Management HandBook, chapter 8. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Senge, P. M. (1994). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization New York: Currency/Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Simon, H. (1973). “The Structure of Ill Structured Problems,” Artificial Intelligence 4(1), 181-201.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Stewart, T. A. (1991). “Brain Power: How Intellectual Capital Is Becoming America's Most Valuable Asset,” Fortune 247, 44-60.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Toffler, A. (1991). Powershift. New York: Bantam Books.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Tuomi, I. (2000). “Data is More than Knowledge,” Journal of Management Information Systems 16(3) 103-117.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Valacich, J. S., A. R. Dennis, and J. F. Nunamaker, Jr. (1992). “Group Size and Anonymity Effects in an Electronic Meeting Systems Environment,” Small Group Research 23(1), 49-73.

    Google Scholar 

  34. van Heijst, G., R. Van Der Spek, and E. Kruizinga. (1997). “Corporate Memories as a Tool for Knowledge Management,” Expert Systems with Applications 13(1) 41-54.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Wiig, K. M. (1997). “Knowledge Management: Where Did It Come From and Where Will It Go?” Expert Systems with Applications 13(1), 1-14.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Nunamaker, J.F., Romano, N.C. & Briggs, R.O. Increasing Intellectual Bandwidth: Generating Value from Intellectual Capital with Information Technology. Group Decision and Negotiation 11, 69–86 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015201126568

Download citation

Keywords

  • Information Technology
  • Posit
  • Potential Consequence
  • Subject Matter
  • Complex Problem