Analysing the Relationship Between Components of Knowledge Orientation Strategy in Chilean Enterprises

  • Teresita Arenas
  • Paul Griffiths
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 185)


Research performed in the latter part of the prior decade arrived at a strategy-intellectual capital (IC) management alignment framework that presented two alternative orientations for managing IC: People-based networks, and Technology-based networks. Interestingly it was found that these two types of networks were mutually exclusive, that is that organisations would opt for one or the other, not both.

Under suspicion that there could be a shift in this paradigm over the last five years, this research is conducted to find out if organizations really have to choose between these two types of network. The strategy-knowledge management alignment model is tested by doing a survey on knowledge orientation in 54 Chilean companies, and it concludes that, in effect, that the model is no longer valid. On the positive side, this research finds a set of variables that closely represent the three constructs.


Knowledge orientation People-based networks Technology-based networks Intellectual capital Knowledge Management Maturity 


  1. AIIM.: What is Enterprise 2.0 (2013).
  2. Arenas, T.: Diseño de un método para diagnosticar el capital intelectual de una región. Aplicación a la Región de Valparaíso-Chile. Tesis Doctoral, Universidad de Barcelona (2012)Google Scholar
  3. Arenas, T., Griffiths, P.D.R., Freraut, A.: An individual-centred model of Intellectual Capital. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Intellectual Capital, Knowledge Management and Organisational Learning (ICICKM 2013), The George Washington University, Washington D.C., USA, 24-25 October 2013Google Scholar
  4. Barnes, H., Smeaton, D., Taylor, R.: An ageing workforce: the employer’s perspective. Report 468, Institute of Employment Studies, Brighton, UK (2009)Google Scholar
  5. Bartlett, C.A.: McKinsey & Company: Managing Knowledge and Learning. Harvard Business School Case Study, No. 9-396-357 (2000)Google Scholar
  6. Bockman, S., Sirotnik, B.: The aging workforce: an expanded definition. Bus. Renaiss. Q. 3(3), 129–135 (2008)Google Scholar
  7. Collins, R.: The Sociology of Philosophies: A Global Theory of Intellectual Change. Belknap-Harvard University Press, Cambridge (2002 [1998]). ISBN 0-674-00187-7Google Scholar
  8. Davenport, T.H., Hansen, M.T.: Knowledge Management at Andersen Consulting. Harvard Business School Case Study 9-499-032 (1999)Google Scholar
  9. Deloitte.: Enterprise 2.0 - What it means to be a Social Enterprise (2013).
  10. Ezingeard, J.-N., Leigh, S., Chandler-Wilde, R.: Knowledge management at Ernst & Young: getting value through knowledge flows. In: ICIS Conference Proceedings (2002)Google Scholar
  11. Griffiths, P.D.R., Remenyi, D.: Using knowledge for competitive advantage in professional services: a case study. In: Remenyi, D. (ed.) Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Intellectual Capital, Knowledge Management & Organisational Learning, pp. 169–178. University of Stellenbosch Business School, South Africa, 15–16 October 2007Google Scholar
  12. Griffiths, P.D.R., Remenyi, D.: Aligning knowledge management with competitive strategy: a framework. Electron. J. Knowl. Manag. (Special Edition, Edited by Prof Rembrandt Klopper) 6(2), 125–134 (2008).
  13. Haas, M.R., Hansen, M.T.: When using knowledge can hurt performance: the value of organisation capabilities in a management consulting company. Strateg. Manag. J. 26, 1–24 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hinchcliffe, D.: The state of Enterprise 2.0. ZDNet (2007).
  15. in ‘t Hout, R., Vrancken, J., Schrijnen, P.: Wiki-based knowledge management in a transpot consultancy, a case study. Electron. J. Inform. Syst. Eval. 13(2), 133–142 (2010)Google Scholar
  16. McAfee, A.: Enterprise 2.0: How to Manage Social Technologies to Transform Your Organisation. Harvard Business School Publishing: Boston (2009)Google Scholar
  17. Raskino, M.: In 2008, Enterprise Web 2.0 Goes Mainstream. Gartner Research, 17 December 2007Google Scholar
  18. Romano de Sant’ Ana, A.: Brasil-Chile, Ayer y Hoy. In Cave, R. (ed.) Brasil y Chile: Una mirada hacia America Latina y sus perspectivas. Instituto de Estudios Internacionales & Embajada de Brasil (2006)Google Scholar
  19. Sarvary, M.: Knowledge management and competition in the consulting industry. Calif. Manag. Rev. 41(2, Winter), 95–107 (1999)Google Scholar
  20. Stewart, T.: Intellectual Capital: The New Wealth of Organizations. Double Day, New York (1999)Google Scholar
  21. Tencer, D.: Forbes Survey: Workplace Diversity Key To Innovation. The Huffington Post Canada, 29 August 2011.
  22. Tishman, F.M., Van Looy, S., Bruyere, S.M.: Employer Strategies for Responding to an Aging Workforce. The NTAR Leadership Center, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (2012)Google Scholar
  23. Treacy, M., Wiersema, F.: The Discipline of market leaders, reading, mass, Addison-Wesley (1995)Google Scholar
  24. UCSF University of California, San Francisco.: Managing Diversity in the Workplace, Human Resources/Guide to Managing Human Resources, Chap. 12 (2012). Downloaded on 14 June 2013
  25. Viedma, J.M., Cabrita, M.R.: Entrepreneurial Excellence in the Knowledge Economy. Palgrave MacMillan, London (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Work and Family Researchers Network.: Definitions of Aging Workforce (2013). Downloaded on 13 June 2013

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universidad Técnica Federica Santa MaríaSantiagoChile
  2. 2.Henley Business SchoolReadingUK

Personalised recommendations