Developing organisational decision-making capability

Journal of Knowledge Management
Developing organisational decision-making capability: a knowledge manager's guide

Jane McKenzie, Christine van Winkelen, Sindy Grewal,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Jane McKenzie, Christine van Winkelen, Sindy Grewal, (2011) "Developing organisational decision‐making capability: a knowledge
manager's guide", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 15 Issue: 3, pp.403-421, doi: 10.1108/13673271111137402
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13673271111137402
Downloaded on: 15 April 2017, At: 08:16 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 103 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 4871 times since 2011*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2004),"Knowledge management impacts on decision making process", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 8 Iss 1 pp. 20-31 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/13673270410523880
Downloaded by Temple University At 08:16 15 April 2017 (PT)
(2011),"Enhancing decisions and decision-making processes through the application of emotional intelligence skills", Management Decision,
Vol. 49 Iss 5 pp. 710-721 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00251741111130805
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:310011 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about
how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/
authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than
290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional
customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and
also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Developing organisational
decision-making capability: a knowledge
manager’s guide
Jane McKenzie, Christine van Winkelen and Sindy Grewal
Abstract
Purpose – Decisions are integral to daily business practice. Sound and agile decision making is argued
to be a core strategic capability. Knowledge helps avoid the consequences of ill-informed decisions.
Facts and expertise provide content; know-how about the pitfalls and requirements of thinking through
problems in different contexts contributes to sound process. This paper seeks to offer a staged
framework to guide organisational discussions about how knowledge management (KM) can contribute
to better decision-making capability.
Design/methodology/approach – Consistent with a maturity model approach, the study used an
interactive multi-method design to explore knowledge and decision making with experienced
practitioners. Guided by the literature the authors collected input via three focus groups and eight
interviews with KM practitioners plus 19 interviews with senior decision makers chosen for their good
track record. From the combination of input five stages of capability building in five key areas of
intellectual capital development were identified.
Findings – The output is a maturity model that can be used to assess organisational status in
Jane McKenzie is Director knowledge-enabled decision making and plan for relevant KM interventions to improve organisational
of the KN Forum and capability across a range of contexts.
Christine van Winkelen is Practical implications – A discussion around current status raises awareness of the pitfalls that can
Visiting Academic Fellow, lead to poor or unsound decisions. This can help individuals reflect on how to improve their practice, and
both at Henley Business organisations to learn systematically from past experience, improve governance of the decision-making
School, University of process and progressively improve capability by planning deliberate developmental action.
Reading, Henley on Originality/value – The paper provides a rigorously developed tool for systematic evaluation and
Thames, UK. Sindy Grewal planning about a critical business capability.
is Head of Knowledge Keywords Decision making, Skills, Technology led strategy, Learning, Knowledge management
Mobilisation at the National Paper type Research paper
Audit Office, London, UK.
Introduction
Decision making is an intrinsic aspect of business activities. Ill-informed decisions can have
far reaching consequences. Knowledge is raw material, work in process, and deliverable in
any decision (Holsapple, 2001). Sound decisions rely on having the right knowledge in the
right place at the right time, to be able to act effectively. ‘‘Right’’ knowledge may be different
for every decision – some decisions require only surface knowledge, some require more
investigation and an evidence base, some use tacit expertise, and others creative insight,
intuition and judgement (Snowden and Boone, 2007; Bennet and Bennet, 2008) Perhaps,
because decision making is so common place, knowledge management (KM) has paid
limited attention to improving the process. Yet, as Mitroff (2008) argues, deciding what
knowledge to use when making decisions is a critical organisational responsibility.
KM practices are well placed to improve decision making. In an increasingly connected
world, information and opinion abounds, fuelled by the momentum of collaborative web 2.0
Received: 6 September 2010
technologies to democratise choice (Leadbeater, 2009; Tapscott and Williams, 2006). Yet
Accepted: 15 January 2011 deep knowledge and insight is often at a premium. Boundaries blur, requiring time to validate
DOI 10.1108/13673271111137402 VOL. 15 NO. 3 2011, pp. 403-421, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1367-3270 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 403
information and opinion (Toffler, 2006); external events change strategic demands as
decisions progress; questions arise as to the reliability and relevance of knowledge at each
stage. Strategic decision makers are mired in uncertainty and ambiguity. Adjusting
assumptions, boundaries and the direction of long-term decisions as more becomes known,
is essential but often hard to achieve due to vested interests and personal reputation. The
speed of strategic decision making has been shown to be directly related to performance
(Baum and Wally, 2003; Eisenhardt, 1989). To remain distinctive and continue to thrive in
changing environments, we are told organisations need dynamic capabilities (Eisenhardt and
Martin, 2000; Gibson and Birkinshaw, 2004; Teece and Pisano, 1994). Eisenhardt and Martin
(2000) consider strategic decision making is one such capability. Agility in the
decision-making process is important for relevant and viable decisions (Shimizu and Hitt,
2004), but requires concerted effort to develop. It relies on individual and organisational
capacity to learn new things, unlearn what has worked in the past and sustainable processes
for continuously reconfiguring the firm’s knowledge base. Here KM has much to offer.
This paper explores what constitutes good practice in decision making in the light of
influences on the knowledge-base. We identify priority areas where knowledge managers
can support the development of a dynamic decision making capability, and populate a
framework through focus groups with KM practitioners. The relevance and validity of the
content is tested against interviews with well-respected decision makers. The result is a
maturity model that defines five potential stages for improving decisions in five key
knowledge-related areas.
What is a decision?
Defining the scope of the output is not straightforward. Decisions can be singular, one-off in
the moment or the product of many smaller assessments, agreements and choices (Simon,
1960). They can be individual or taken by teams. Although complex strategic decisions are
important because they are more challenging and carry more risk and consequence for
business performance, they are not the sole focus.
Different assumptions about how we make decisions must be addressed (Buchanan and
O’Connell, 2006). Rational-economic perspectives consider individual utility as the main
influence on decision outcomes; sociologists suggest people act implicitly to manage social
accountabilities (Tetlock, 1991) but psychologists suggest that evaluating the pain/loss
associated with outcomes against pleasure/gain significantly influences the decision
process. Yet it is not all rational. Loss aversion and learned responses to prior loss tend to be
more influential than the possibility of pleasure or potential gain (Tversky and Kahneman,
1991) and rational choice is often violated in situations that are not completely transparent,
because uncertainty affects both framing and evaluation of probabilities and correlations
(Tversky and Kahneman, 1986). Recent insights from neuroscience show that emotion plays
an indispensable role in all decisions (Damasio, 2006). Consequently, we adopted a simple
but inclusive definition, namely that a decision is:
[. . .] a commitment to a course of action that is intended to yield results that are satisfying for
specified individuals (Yates and Tschirhart, 2006).
Specifying the beneficiaries is critical, because individuals attribute different values to the
decision outcomes. Inevitably the number and distribution of beneficiaries will vary as well
as the criticality of the decision to the organisation and the assessment of the stakeholders.
Such factors frame the context for any decision.
How decision context affects knowledge needs

Distinguishing different types of decision-making provides a sense of different knowledge
and learning requirements for each context. A taxonomy (Table I) itself is not critical; its value
lies in raising awareness and providing ammunition for reflecting on two contentions: That
how we approach a situation frames the decisions that can be taken, and decision makers
need both experience to recognise, and respond appropriately to different contexts, and
sensitivity to the way problem presentation and their own norms, habits and expectations
j j
PAGE 404 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 15 NO. 3 2011
Table I Knowledge and knowing processes across contexts

Decision
criticality Decision type Decision context Decision dynamics Critical knowledge Key players Critical learning capability
Hi What the Identity The domain of Questioning and Meta-level knowledge, Key stakeholders at the Triple-loop learning and
organisation purpose, mission, values re-evaluating raison external sensitivity highest level system unlearning
exists for d’être integrative thinking
Crisis/emergency Chaotica; Snowden and Act, sense, respond An appropriately diverse Someone with enough Rapid feedback, short
Boone call this the ‘‘Domain range of expert judgement to leadership and know-how to cycles of action and
of rapid response’’ review and make sense once take control and initiate re-diagnosis, reflection
order is restored action to restore some order during and immediately after
action. Experts use pattern
matching and narrative for
sense-making and
situational awareness.
Simulations post situation
help learning (Lipshitz et al.,
2006)
Strategic Complexa; Snowden and Probe, sense, respond Pattern detection and Leadership/management Insight, intuition, reflection
Boone call this the ‘‘Domain recognition, integrative teams informed by experts during and on experience,
of emergence’’ thinking challenge to past learning,
double-loop learning
Operational Complicateda; Snowden and Sense, analyse, respond Evidence-based research Management/supervisors Understanding causality,
Boone call this the’’ Domain and principles, and meaning making, single-
of experts’’ recognising what is and double-loop learning
meaningful for relationships
j
Lo Tactical Simplea; Snowden and Sense, categorise, Descriptive information and Routine practitioners Awareness, memorising,
Boone call this the ‘‘Domain respond explicit knowledge, understanding, absorbing
of best practice’’ know-how in terms of action, explicit knowledge,
rules of thumb, behaviour single-loop learning
Disordera created by large numbers of If you realise you are in this realm, break the situation into simple, complicated and complex chunks and act
irreconcilable perspectives, factions and accordingly
cacophony
Note: aAs defined by Snowden and Boone (2007)
j
VOL. 15 NO. 3 2011 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 405
affect the framing process (Tversky and Kahneman, 1986). Otherwise, individuals and
organisations risk choosing the right solution to the wrong problem (Mitroff and
Fetheringham, 1976). ‘‘The daunting reality [is] that enormously important decisions made
by intelligent, responsible people with the best information and intentions are sometimes
hopelessly flawed.’’ (Cambell et al., 2009) so raising awareness and increasing reflection are
important steps for developing capability to make sound decisions.
Authors from strategy, psychology, decision-science and operations management
distinguish three primary decision-making contexts of increasing levels of criticality for the
organisation. Generally associated with tactical, operational and strategic issues
respectively, they occur with decreasing frequency:
1. Simple decisions are not necessarily easy decisions, but cause and effect linkages are
readily identifiable and action produces a foreseeable outcome.
2. Complicated decisions arise less frequently. Cause and effect linkages are still
identifiable, but it is harder. It takes expertise to make sense of the situation and evaluate
options.
3. Complex decisions have no right answers. Although infrequent they have big
consequences. Cause and effect is indeterminable because of interdependent factors
and influences. The outcome of actions is unpredictable; patterns can only be identified
in retrospect.
Two special contexts exist:
1. Crisis or emergency where the stakes are high, the situation demands rapid responses to
constantly changing conditions, (Klein and Klinger, 1991). The situation appears chaotic
until someone intervenes to establish stability (Weick, 1995; Weick et al., 2005; Dane and
Pratt, 2007; Snowden and Boone, 2007). Constant re-diagnosis is required avoid fixation
to during an event, and learning comes from real-time re-evaluation from repeated
judgement-action-feedback loops (Ross et al., 2006). People become expert in coping
with the tension and constantly changing conditions through practice, or simulation in
less pressured times (Rudolph et al., 2009).
2. Making decisions about the organisational raison d’être; who questions organisational
identity and purpose and when is it a complex problems writ large, with the deepest
implications in terms of change. Decisions about mission and values require a
qualitatively different type of input, know-how, and involvement. Openness to learning
and unlearning skills is essential (Brown and Starkey, 2000).
Outside these five domains, is complete disorder, which must be disrupted stepwise to be
addressed.
Each context requires a different weighting and ordering of three generic decision dynamics
(Choo and Johnston, 2004; Choo, 2002; Simon, 1960; Nicolas, 2004) and a feedback loop
(Howard et al., 2006)
1. Intelligent sense-making to gauge the reality of the problem (sense).
2. Identifying options (including the need for new knowledge) to conceptualise an
appropriate response (respond).
3. Making choices that generate action (act).
‘‘ Distinguishing different types of decision-making provides a

sense of different knowledge and learning requirements for
each context. ’’
j j
Analysis works in some situations, in others probing questions are required to challenge
assumptions before it even makes sense to conceptualise a response. Consequently:
B Knowledge input will have different characteristics depending on the decision type e.g.
explicit knowledge in databases is likely to be more operationally and tactically valuable;
network knowledge for competitor intelligence or tacit knowledge in the heads of trusted
advisors may be more of a priority for strategic decisions; deep expertise can bring both
confidence to take control and faster decisions in crises, but can still produce biased
assessments of how representative the input is for the current decision. Even experts
misjudge the implications of prior knowledge. They can be insensitive to omissions and
lack of knowledge, or make illusory connections between ideas, or misconceive the
relevance of a finding to a new situation (Tversky and Kahneman, 1974).
B Know-how to process the input also needs systematic development (e.g. leaders with
integrative thinking skills and the ability to cope with paradox and tension will be essential
for effective decisions about the organisational purpose (Benson and Dresdow, 2009,
Martin, 2007, McKenzie et al., 2009)). Such knowledge is hard won and difficult to retain
(Nalbantian and Guzzo, 2009). Similarly, deep analytical skills, key to competitive
performance (Davenport and Harris, 2007) are in high demand, short supply and difficult
to retain (Davenport et al., 2001).
Strategies for developing people, technology/processes, collaborative relationships
(internal and external), all affect the quality of knowledge available and used. In practice,
responsibility for developing individual and organisational capability to create, share and
use knowledge is often divided between HR and KM. As decision making is a critical
capability, there is a strong business argument for co-ordinating the individual and
organisational learning dimensions. The supply of knowledgeable people with different
levels of experience and expertise, the coherence of the various learning strategies and the
co-ordination of the various pressures affecting the relevant process of unlearning where
required (Akgun et al., 2007; Schwenk, 2001) is a strategic issue.
In terms of the bottom-line impact, the higher decision levels in Table I are likely to have the
most significant consequences, making it worth prioritising interventions here for significant
improvements. Yet these are the decisions which rely more on judgement, intuition or ‘‘gut’’
instinct (Gladwell, 2006; Buchanan and O’Connell, 2006), making them most vulnerable to
bias. They also demand most learning and adjustment in the execution phase (Tichy and
Bennis, 2007), so decision makers need the self-confidence to admit something is wrong
and change direction.
Awareness of how decision bias affects judgement is important knowledge

‘‘Flawed’’ humans faced with incomplete information must avoid various biases in knowing
en route to good decisions (Cyert and March, 1963; Argote and Greve, 2007). The cognitive
processes used to make sense of circumstances and speed up decisions have limitations.
People rarely take into account all the possible consequences of a decision or follow the
rational decision analysis process that would allow them to formulate evaluate and appraise
the different aspects of the situation and revise their framing based on an appropriately
weighted assessment (Howard, 1988); instead they use heuristics to make judgements
under uncertainty (Tversky and Kahneman, 1974) and political bargaining to resolve
conflicts (van Ees et al., 2009). Rational and social agendas get distorted and political
manipulation affect sense-making processes, shaping action and response.
Possible routes to reduce bias are many and varied. Some examples, by no means an
exhaustive list, are identified to show where active KM can have an impact (see Table II).
The beliefs values and preferences in column 2 cause bias because they affect emotional
drivers, which can be more powerful than rational ones. The role of the emotion-driven
primitive structures of our brains in decision making is the subject of extensive research
(Morse, 2006). Emotional intelligence is now accepted as equally important for leaders and
decision makers as logical intelligence (Higgs, 2009). There is an emotional element to
j j
Table II Potential decision making biases with moderating governance processes
Type of mental bias What it means Recognised routes to reduce decisions bias
Escalation Commitment to a losing course of action Intentionally bringing in external perspectives to

stemming from unwavering positive beliefs in the challenge embedded assumptions; deliberate
face of negative new information, over-optimism upfront framing of big decisions as part of an
or loss aversion (Biyalogorsky et al., 2006; evolving portfolio, rather than a single
Lovallo and Sibony, 2006; Shimizu and Hitt, 2004) unchallengeable decision; including milestones
for re-evaluation from the outset (Shimizu and
Hitt, 2004; Tichy and Bennis, 2007)
Anchoring Giving disproportionate weight to the first Building ‘‘re-do’’ loops into the preparation
information received (Hammond et al., 2006) phase, whereby decision makers set up a ‘‘straw
man’’ and test it out with stakeholders, then
revisits (Tichy and Bennis, 2007)
Status quo Preferring alternatives that preserve the status Deliberating involving external and internal
quo (Hammond et al., 2006) partners to stimulate learning, during sensing
and responding ((Skjolsvik et al., 2007)
Sunk-cost Making choices that justify past choices Keeping decision purpose clear. Challenging
(Hammond et al., 2006; Shimizu and Hitt, 2004). project review boards at key stages with external
Reviewing incremental developments too evaluation. Decision support technology can
liberally, allowing weak projects to continue, increase the diversity of input and help achieve
resources to be wasted and opportunities to be alignment (McKenzie and Van Winkelen, 2004)
missed (Schmidt et al., 2009).
Confirming evidence Seeking information that supports own point of Stimulating debate and dialogue to get more
view and avoiding information that does not challenge and oversight (Cambell et al., 2009)
(Hammond et al., 2006)
Framing The choice made about how to position the Involving more stakeholders to search for
problem, for example as a gain or a loss, or in alternatives (Nutt, 2004). Using common
relation to particular reference points. A poorly sense/intuition in parallel with rational analysis
framed problem leads to precise answers to the (Goodwin, 2009; Dane and Pratt, 2007)
wrong question (Mitroff, 2008; Hammond et al., Analysing the influences diagrammatically for
2006; Tversky and Kahneman, 1986) transparency (Howard and Matheson, 2005a)
Over-confidence General tendency to be overconfident about the ‘‘Considering the opposite‘‘, i.e. deliberately
accuracy of estimates or forecasts; experts may looking for reasons why a decision may be
be particularly vulnerable (Hammond et al., wrong. Decision conferences to collectively
2006) and may predict the outcome that best evaluate costs and risks (Cassidy and Buede,
represents the data without taking into account 2009). The use of collaborative decision support
real probabilities (Tversky and Kahneman, 1974) systems (perhaps with anonymous contribution)
to get a more balanced perspective (Courtney,
2001). Influence diagrams to assess real
probabilities (Howard and Matheson, 2005b, a)
Over-prudence/Risk aversion Tendency to be overcautious, adjusting Addressing fears and anxieties through open
estimates or forecasts ‘‘to be on the safe side dialogue ((Barabba and Pudar, 1998; Isaac,
’’(Hammond et al., 2006). Risk aversion that 1993)
prevents radical new ideas progressing, or
decisions being made (Schmidt et al., 2009;
Tversky and Kahneman, 1991)
Recallability Being over-influenced by past dramatic events or Developing a combination of inquisitiveness and
those that have left a strong impression scepticism to update beliefs about a situation
(Hammond et al., 2006) (Cassidy and Buede, 2009)
Preference for outsiders Valuing knowledge from external sources more Some decision makers favour this for stimulating
than from internal ones (Menon and Pfeffer, 2003) belief change; awareness of the risks of
inappropriately framing problems is important
handling uncertain, ambiguous and contradictory situations; often anxiety increases,

tension is rife and delay uncomfortable (McKenzie et al., 2009). The emotional response is to
act to reduce anxiety, the logical one is to delay and live with tension in order to allow more
time to understand the connections and contradictions that affect interpretation and
outcomes. Detached integrative thinking is needed to defuse collective tension, and find
solutions that creatively and coherently reconcile the values of more stakeholders.
Column three highlights learning-related governance processes. For significant decisions,
some companies set up a red flag system to pinpoint potential biases amongst the most
j j
influential decision makers in a team (Cambell et al., 2009). Then the organisation can
pre-empt and manage potential distortions through targeted coaching or mentoring or
alternative governance processes, as part of an organisational learning process. For less
significant decisions, reflection and increased awareness through coaching programmes
brings the issues to the fore in the collective conscious.
Psychological safety affects ‘‘gut’’ decisions (Roberto, 2002). The emotional climate
changes personal risk orientation and responsiveness. Most of us sense unspoken
emotional states. Decision makers’ and stakeholders’ negative emotions can compound to
create ‘‘toxic decision processes’’ that fuel unproductive behaviour and establish future
emotional biases (Maitlis and Ozcelik, 2004). The infamous Challenger disaster was a good
example of a toxic climate:- rigorous governance processes were in place, but the emotional
conditions produced fear and a collective inability to draw on lessons from the past
(Starbuck and Hedberg, 2001). This affects willingness to share, use and create knowledge.
A supportive climate has enough positive emotion but not so much that people become
blasé; enough caution without fear of challenge and experimentation.
Taking time, adding governance and increasing dialogue and debate would obstruct the
sort of fast, decision making required in crisis and emergency (Buchanan et al., 2006; Baum
and Wally, 2003; Eisenhardt, 1990; Ross et al., 2006). This is a rare and specialised context
where the courage to make a decision, matters as much as the quality of its foundations, so it
has been excluded from the rest of this research.
Where should expertise and technology contribute?

Deep technical expertise is expensive and has pros and cons depending on the context.
Considering how to use it advisedly to address the ‘‘right problem’’ in the right way (Mitroff,
2008) means asking what it can reasonably contribute. Can it:
B Solve the problem – i.e. is there a single exact solution; could experts find a true formula
or reach consensus.
B Dissolve the problem – i.e. expert disagreement and different perspectives indicate a
need to lower or redefine problem importance.
B Resolve the problem – i.e. the problem can only be contained within acceptable limits;
expertise provides multiple perspectives and options, expert disagreement provides
sensible containment boundaries.
B Absolve the problem – i.e. the problem may never go away (e.g. terrorism), so decisions
can only focus on the interdependencies in the system so as to minimise the risk of it
growing and maximise possibilities to suppress it.
Although Mitroff does not suggest it as an approach, one might reasonably consider where
new expertise or combinations of expertise can help reframe the problem as well (see
Table III).
‘‘ ‘Expert’ decisions makers individually developed their

personal skills through deliberate reflection on past, present
and future decisions or through conversations with coaches
and mentors, but this was motivated by personal desire to
improve, rather than a systematic human resource
development or structured organisational learning
processes. ’’
j j
Table III How expertise and technology contribute in different contexts
Context Using expertise appropriately Using technology appropriately
Simple decisions – the domain of best To reduce waste and increase efficiency. Decision support tools add consistency in
practice Cognitive aids like checklists help overcome repetitive situations
memory limitations but may become Artificial intelligence spreads access to
mechanical (Bould et al., 2009) expertise
Expertise databases enable middle managers
and knowledge workers to make operational
decisions locally (Yim et al., 2004; Mansingh
et al., 2009)
External sites that aggregate information
provide useful intelligence (Buchanan and
O’Connell, 2006)
Complicated decisions – the domain of To identify and evaluate alternatives (Choo Use technology-based diagnostics to
experts and Johnston, 2004; McKenzie and Van ‘‘scaffold’’ expert decision making (Pech and
Winkelen, 2004) Durden, 2004)
Experts recognise critical factors faster than Expert systems can support tactical and
novices or competent colleagues (Ericsson, operational decisions. Integrated with forecast
2006) and report systems (Yim et al., 2004) they
Overvaluing expert sense-making can lead to provide simple ways to represent complex
incorrectly framed decisions (Gore et al., tacit thinking (Buchanan and O’Connell,
2006). Remaining sceptical and challenging 2006)
expert opinion prevents risk from
over-confidence (Cassidy and Buede, 2009)
Knowing how much expertise is enough and

reconciling different expert views is
challenging (Drior, 2005; Drior and Charlton,
2006)
Disciplined reflection before, during and after
action enhances expertise and safeguards
relevance (Schön, 1987). An expert guide can
improve reflection (van Winkelen et al., 2009)
Use new experience constructively to revisit
mental models (Klein, 1997)
Complex decisions – the domain of Don’t seek expert solutions (Mitroff, 2008). Achieve a holistic overview by modelling and
emergence Accepted wisdom can have limitations. Step simulating situations in integrated decision
back and question assumptions (Snowden support systems (Cooke and Slack, 1984) that
and Boone, 2007) represent perceived relationships between
Temper technical expertise with non expert attributes through cognitive modelling linked
opinion and soft input like ethics value (Stacey, to voting and analysis tools and knowledge
2001; Rittel and Webber, 1973) storage and retrieval systems
Experts become trusted advisors for collective Mess mapping and resolutions mapping for
sense making process; their knowledge is large scale problems allows input of multiple
tested against other perspectives (Harrison, perspectives (Horn and Weber, 2007)
1996)
Negotiate solutions to ‘‘wicked’’ social
problems through coalitions, teams, and
working groups that represent the informal
organisation and provide feedback
(Cunningham and Kempling, 2009). Paying
attention not just to technical expertise but to
procedural justice facilitates acceptance (Kim
and Mauborgne, 1998)
Intensive interaction between experts is key
when speed matters (Eisenhardt, 1989)
Internal and external collaboration affect access to knowledge

Most decision-making contexts today require collaboration inside and outside the
organisation, to access and share essential knowledge (Sveiby, 2001). Collaboration
keeps knowledge vital and relevant. Increasingly input from outside challenges the status
quo, fills a knowledge gap providing access expensive deep expertise quickly and relatively
cheaply.
j j
Collaborative knowledge sharing activities are better supported as web 2.0 technology
evolves, but experts working together across domains of expertise or generalist and experts
co-operating still encounter communication problems, or structural inhibitors. The type of
ties the organisation has – whether loose or tight – and the shape of individual and
organisational networks also significantly affects the knowledge available to decision
makers and hence how the organisation frames and responds to situations (McKenzie and
Van Winkelen, 2004). Such challenges of distributed cognition are as yet unresolved. Many
factors affect knowledge sharing relationships, e.g. cross-cultural understanding, sharing
proprietary knowledge across organisational boundaries and getting value from enterprise
networks (Rindova and Kotha, 2001; Mariotti and Delbridge, 2001; Allee, 2000; McKenzie
and van Winkelen, 2005). Although all have a strong influence on how dynamic decision
making can be, they are too large to explore here. The key issue is decision makers’
awareness of why and how collaboration can affect decisions. Knowledge managers can
raise awareness of the resource implications of co-ordinating a portfolio of collaborative
relationships and facilitate knowledge sharing process so that decision makers get the most
value from time and resources invested in intelligent networking.
Using the factors to build a KM framework for developing decision-making capability

Decision making is a knowledge-intensive activity. Content knowledge keeps decisions
relevant to circumstances and rooted in expertise; process knowledge, such as skills and
organisational structures to support better decision making, is equally valuable in
developing a capability to make significant decisions well. Research identifying the sort of
KM strategies that would support more effective decision making considers the pattern of
transformations between tacit and explicit knowledge during the three phases of intelligent
sense-making, conception of the response and choice for action (Nicolas, 2004).
Codification of explicit knowledge (often through technology) seems worthwhile in the
intelligence phase and again at the end of the process where ‘‘codified knowledge helps to
legitimise the strategic choice’’ (Nicolas, 2004, p. 27) resulting from negotiating different
valued outcomes. A KM strategy based on knowledge developed and held by individuals
shared through dialogue, personal contact and shared experience (personalisation), most
effectively supports the intelligent sense-making phase, when dialogue unveils shared
experiences and emotional intelligence helps build collective consensus about a situation. A
KM strategy based on fostering knowledge communities that exchange and pool knowledge
(socialisation) is most helpful in the conception phase to allow rapid location of knowledge
across the organisation and the creative generation of alternative solutions.
In the foregoing discussion we have explored three aspects of intellectual capital (human,
structural and relationship), by examining the development and use of expertise, the
contribution of technology and suitable governance processes, and why internal and
external collaboration are required for effective knowledge flows respectively. We have
explored ways that they provide a capacity to act in different decision contexts and avoid
decision traps. In addition, individual learning about sound decision-making and
organisational learning about decision making processes echo thematically through the
discussion as important factors for a dynamic decision-making capability. Effective
performance across these five factors would support decision making in simple,
complicated and complex contexts, through the recognised phases of decision making.
We formulated this into five target areas for improving organisational decision-making
capability (summarised in Table IV).
Although not an exhaustive list of factors, it provides a reasoned framework to guide an
empirical exploration of ways KM can improve decision making.
Populating progressive stages in the framework

In accordance with the maturity model approach advocated by Parcell and Collison (2009),
we conducted three focus groups to consider what progressive stages of organisational
development would look like for each of the five factors in Table IV column 2. Six experienced
j j
Table IV An outline framework of KM factors that support organisational decision making as a dynamic capability
Intellectual capital component Important KM factors Most significant contributions
Human capital Identifying experts developing and retaining Decision making in complicated situations.
expertise Sense-making and identifying options
Supporting reflective practice for individual Managing cognitive bias, increasing range and
learning depth of experience, increasing debate,
challenge and openness. Developing expertise.
Reflection on practice and self-awareness to
develop strategic decision making skills
Structural capital Using technology to structure, integrate and Access to current and well-structured explicit
provide access to explicit knowledge resources knowledge to provide input for simple decision
making. Support expert decision making.
Support data collection and selection phases of
complex decision making
Developing decision review processes for Recognising different kinds of decision- making
organisational learning situations. Investing in the development of an
appropriate repertoire of decision-making
modes to suit the context
Relational capital Adopting an integrated approach to internal and Gathering intelligence. Accessing multiple
external collaboration perspectives to formulate the decision to be
made in complex contexts. Making connections
to create knowledge to generate new options
KM practitioners from both public and private sector organisations participated. Maturity
modelling is a way of describing development of an organisational capability over time. The
most well-known example is the Capability Maturity Model (CMM) for software development
(Paulk et al., 1995); the field of project management has also used the approach extensively
(Pennypacker and Grant, 2003). Organisations are familiar with maturity models as a useful
mechanism around which to have an informed discussion. In general, maturity models are
structured around levels, each of which is characterised by the achievement of certain
requirements. The levels are sequentially ordered, from an initial baseline to some superior
capability level, and labelled with words rather than numbers in order not to imply that the
lower levels are bad. In alignment with Parcell and Collison (Parcell and Collison, 2009)
Aware implies knowledge of the basics, Ad hoc represents reactionary application of the
practices. Applied implies a more proactive approach to practice, Accepted suggests that
the practices have become sustainable and broadly embedded and Ambient means that it
knowledge-enabled decision-making practices are an integral part of daily activities.
Organisations progress step wise from level to level (Klimka, 2001).
The first focus group populated the baseline level, labelled ‘‘awareness’’, of requirements for
good decision making. The definitions were reviewed by other practitioners for sense and
relevance.
We then interviewed 19 senior executives, with primary responsibility for significant
decisions in ten organisations to explore their experience in practice. With one exception,
interviewees were nominated by the KM manager within the organisation because they were
acknowledged as having a good reputation for decision making generally. The literature and
this preliminary focus group input informed the design of the one-hour, semi-structured
interviews. Focus groups members considered that KM was more active in the categories of
expertise, technology and collaboration, so the interviews should place more emphasis on
understanding steps to improve reflective practice for individual learning and the review
process for organisational learning about decision making. Consequently, a larger
proportion of each interview was devoted to exploring these factors. However, all factors
were covered during the one-hour conversations.
Telephone interviews were recorded, and notes taken during the interviews. Table V shows
the sample split. The researchers categorised the decisions against the Snowden and
Boone criteria simply to check coverage across the types of decision context. Where the
j j
Table V The sample distribution
Sector
Decision type Number Private Public
Complex 9 3 6
Complicated 7 5 2
Simple 3 1 2
researchers disagreed arguments were presented to justify the independent choice and
highlight differences in assessment until agreement was reached.
Prior to analysing the interviews, a second focus group populated the improvement levels of
the maturity model. Then results of the interviews were summarised against the five factors
and a third focus group reviewed the analysis of the data against a refined version of the
framework produced by the researchers. This hermeneutic process (Gummesson, 1991,
p. 62) was designed to ensure that the levels of the framework were coherently progressive
and comprehensive for each factor. As a final consistency check, the KM managers in eight
out of the nine organisations interviewed were asked to assess their organisational position
with respect to the stages of maturity for each of the five factors. This was done through
half-hour telephone interviews, and their assessment on each of the factors was checked
against the executives’ explanation of the organisational context for decision making.
This multi-method approach to interactive research (van Winkelen and Truch, 2002), working
with different groups of active practitioners, is argued to keep attention close to
organisational reality, which matters for relevance of the output. Interpretation evolves
over the various stages and is continuously tested against experience, as well against the
appropriate body of academic literature in a typical Mode 2 applied research fashion
(Bryman and Bell, 2007, p. 6). The repeated cycles improve credibility, dependability,
confirmability and transferability across contexts of exploratory research (Bryman, 2004;
Lincoln and Guba, 1985). The output is a first step towards defining a dynamic knowledge
enabled decision-making capability (see Table VI).
How to use the maturity model

The value of maturity models lies in the conversations they spark. Groups agree
improvements relevant to their context, based on discussion around a distilled specification.
The steps in the process are:
1. Assemble a representative group of people, sufficiently diverse to cover the span of

activities in the business.
2. Start the discussion at the lowest level (Aware) for each factor and have the group decide
which description best fits the current situation. None will be perfect, the aim is simply to
establish the baseline from which to improve.
3. Set a timescale to achieve results. Twelve to 18 months is often a realistic target. Longer
can result in demoralisation and delay. Shorter can produce raw or insufficiently robust
results.
4. Repeat the discussion to identify a realistic target level for achievement against each
factor during that time.
5. Agree action plans, prioritising the biggest gaps. Peer learning is a key element in the
improvement process, so where participants feel their area has a higher rating on a
particular factor and pair them with people who see that they need to improve.
6. Review progress at the end of the agreed timescale.
j j
Table VI A knowledge management perspective on developing the decision-making capability of an organisation
j
Using internal and external Organisational learning about Developing individuals as decision
Stage Using experts Using technology collaboration decision making makers
Ambient Decision makers are able to There is pervasive use of information Decision makers are able to There is an organisational process to Reflective practice is embraced and
recognise situations which require systems, decision support tools and recognise situations when a range of continuously appraise the approach modelled throughout the
internal and external expert input. collaborative working systems by knowledge and points of view are to decision making, including organisation. Decision makers are
Internal experts are accessible to decision makers. Decision makers needed for good decisions. An whether experts, technology and encouraged to look outside the usual
decision makers in terms of both time know when to adopt different tools integrated approach to using internal collaboration are being used boundaries (internal or external) to
and their own ability to contribute. and approaches for different and external knowledge sources is appropriately and effectively and find new ways of understanding
There are multiple ways for decision situations. Systems provide real-time evident through the adoption of a how risk is being assessed. There is difficult issues. More sophisticated
makers to identify internal experts, information for operational decision wide range of collaborative methods an open culture in which debate and techniques such as framing insightful
and for experts to identify making and can also be manipulated and technologies, as well as challenge in relation to decisions is questions, achieving strategic
opportunities to contribute. Experts to generate new perspectives on communities and networks that encouraged. Where lessons learned influence, and achieving change in
are active in passing on their situations. Collaborative include internal and external following a decision review suggest complex organisational systems are
j
knowledge to others, building the technologies are widely used to participants. Senior decision makers an institutional change is needed, developed in senior decision
organisational knowledge base in widen participation in decision adopt consultative approaches, processes exist to embed it into makers
their field making demonstrating integrity in their structures or policies
behaviour and actions
Accepted Senior decision makers have been New technologies are adopted to Different interpretations of a situation There is widespread use of a variety There is an integrated approach to
developed to know how to use support key business drivers and are regularly explored through of decision review processes to learn developing the capacity of individual

internal and external expert advice personalised access profiles can be various collaborative mechanisms as from significant decisions, including decision makers. Training, coaching
effectively. Experts and expert created by decision makers. Blogs part of effective decision making. inter-group reflection processes to and mentoring support is widely
panels are used to explore the support personal reflection on External perspectives are actively support collective learning. available. Sharing personal learning
implications and provide advice for decisions and are encouraged within sought, particularly by strategic Leadership teams are developed from reflection is encouraged, for
significant decisions. The technical constructive ground rules. The decision makers. Communities and together to improve their decision example through the use of blogs,
and professional development of principles of evidence-based interest groups are established making. Risk appraisal methods within constructive ground rules.
internal experts is encouraged and decision making (using data, around key business topics to build incorporate learning from previous Organisational leaders share their
supported. Experts know how to information and explicit knowledge) organisational understanding and decisions, as well as considering the own thinking and reflections in a
pass on their knowledge to others as are understood and adopted in capability for future decision making. potential to learn from current constructive way, encouraging
they provide advice and through appropriate situations Codes of conduct regarding the decisions. The time at which a contributions whilst minimising the
mentoring and coaching protection of valuable knowledge are decision needs to be reviewed is potential for anxiety about change
widely understood recorded and a process maintained
to action this
Applied Expert advice is sought as input to A range of decision support systems Diverse views and contributions from Several parts of the organisation Several development initiatives
most significant decisions. An is available and decision makers within the organisation are regularly have developed a ‘‘no blame’’ culture encourage and support individual
expertise directory is maintained to know how to use these in conjunction sought by decision makers. Effective to support learning from decisions. decision makers to reflect on their
help identify in-house experts. These with in-house information systems, training and communication means Processes exist and are used to learn practice (for example, coaching,
experts are also able to identify external resources and databases, to that decision makers are confident in before, during and after key mentoring, leadership development),
opportunities themselves where they help make sense of a situation and using technology to collaborate with decisions. Group reflection activities, though these do not consistently and
can contribute. There is a coherent establish an evidence base. colleagues from elsewhere in the such as facilitation, workshops and coherently focus on improving
programme to develop and retain Technological solutions are organisation. External intelligence is standing agenda items, are used to decision making. Clear efforts are
expertise within the organisation. integrated and can provide a collected from various sources and is collectively review and learn from made to provide time and space for
Efforts are made to retain learning coherent picture across available to decision makers. Internal decisions. People management reflection, and this is modelled by
gained from using external experts organisational boundaries. and external collaboration initiatives practices (such as reward and more senior decision makers.
Information repositories are are largely pursued independently. appraisal) support team-based Corporate values are widely
managed with good governance. The organisation actively supports decision making understood as a reference point for
Collaborative working technologies employees’ participation in various decision making
are generally used to bring together external professional and specialist
those who need to be involved, as networks
well as to seek wider views as inputs
to decisions
(Continued)
Table VI
Using internal and external Organisational learning about Developing individuals as decision
Stage Using experts Using technology collaboration decision making makers
Ad hoc Decision makers usually seek expert There are some pockets of skill and The value of collaboration is not Some significant decisions and Senior decision makers make visible
advice for key decisions, but there is confidence in using information, widely appreciated by decision projects are subject to formal review to others the process they are using
no consistent basis for discerning the decision support and collaborative makers, though there are pockets of after they are completed, but the and the information that has informed
best opportunities for using working technologies to support good practice. Initiatives to support mechanisms to take this learning their conclusion, though they rarely
expertise. External experts are often better decision making. Technology better collaboration across the forward to future decisions are not share their personal reflections and
used and an ad hoc approach to solutions are available, but their use organisation are in place, though consistently available or applied. learning. Training is available in
involving internal and external is limited as there is not a clear without a coherent programme to Processes to assess risk in relation to techniques that support participative
experts means organisational strategy framing their purpose and ensure consistency. Groups and decisions are used, but rarely linked approaches to decision making,
learning is fragmented. Some application. Procedures, rather than teams are formed to solve specific to evaluation of the consequences of such as facilitation, negotiation,
training efforts address communication and training, are problems without a clear intention of the decision. Concerns about blame conflict resolution, leadership etc.
organisational knowledge gaps, but used to promote application improving the decisions made prevent open discussion of mistakes Some development initiatives (such
little coherent attention is given to through a consistent approach to as leadership or mentoring
building deep expertise collaboration. Some people programmes) do encourage
participate in external networks and individual reflection as the basis for
this mainly improves their personal learning
decision making
Aware Decision makers’ personal Some information systems are Decision makers tend to operate There are limited opportunities to Individual decision makers tend to
preferences determine the use of available to support decision making, within organisational silos. learn from past decisions; this mainly follow rules and procedures. An
experts. Experts are mainly identified but they are not ‘‘joined up’’ and may Collaboration is mainly with local happens when there have been action orientation is encouraged
through their role/job title or via give an inconsistent picture, colleagues. Wider knowledge significant mistakes. Databases do through people management
personal networks. Some core areas particularly across organisational sharing to contribute to decision store some ‘‘lessons identified’’ from processes (such as recruitment,
of expertise are recognised and boundaries. Governance is poor, making is limited due to ‘‘need to previous decisions and projects, but appraisal and reward), with limited
organisational efforts are made to which means information can be know’’ concerns, an organisational these are rarely re-used or value being placed on taking time to
develop knowledge in these areas, unreliable. The information systems tendency towards protecting referenced. Decision makers leave think about difficult issues and reflect
but most experts are responsible for and decision support tools available knowledge, or a ‘‘not invented here’’ the organisation or change role on learning. There are limited
their own development. Internal are not user friendly, or decision culture. Some external knowledge frequently meaning they do not have opportunities for individuals to share
j
expertise shortages are mainly makers have not been trained in their sources are used, but an internal bias responsibility for their decisions, and their reflections on decisions, where
covered by buying in consulting use. Technology to support is evident in strategic discussions successors tend not to look at the these have taken place
services collaborative discussion around records maintained by previous job
issues and to seek wider views is holders. Judgements of risk in
either not available or not widely used relation to decisions are often based
on the perceptions of individuals with
power in the organisation
j
How KM can contribute to better decision making
The specifications in the five-by-five framework offer a distilled guide to developing
capability combining literature and empirical exploration. Typically maturity models are then
used to evaluate status and target improvements in key areas.
Although the decision makers and KM practitioners we interviewed consistently identified
the business benefits of building better decision making capability, all but one considered
that their organisations did little to systematically develop internal capacity on the various
factors. ‘‘Expert’’ decisions makers individually developed their personal skills through
deliberate reflection on past, present and future decisions or through conversations with
coaches and mentors, but this was motivated by personal desire to improve, rather than a
systematic human resource development or structured organisational learning processes.
Both are worrying given the business arguments about why this topic is crucial for
performance and competitive advantage.
Clearly it is a generic framework; not every organisation would aspire to an ambient level on
each factor; with limited resources, it is important to prioritise which factors impact most on
overall performance improvement. The framework offers a rigorous basis for discussions
between KM practitioners, management and leadership as they systematically plan how to
improve decision making. This will help decision makers gain access to the knowledge they
need in a timely fashion and be aware of the appropriate processes for making a sound
decisions.
References
Akgun, A.E., Byrne, J.C., Lynn, G.S. and Keskin, H. (2007), ‘‘Organizational unlearning as changes in
beliefs and routines in organizations’’, Journal of Organizational Change Management., Vol. 20 No. 6,
pp. 794-812.
Allee, V. (2000), ‘‘Reconfiguring the value network’’, Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. 21 No. 4,
pp. 36-40.
Argote, L. and Greve, H.R. (2007), ‘‘A behavioral theory of the firm – 40 years and counting: introduction
and impact’’, Organization Science, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 337-49.
Barabba, V.P. and Pudar, N. (1998), ‘‘The dialogue decision process at General Motors’’, Knowledge
Management Review, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 14-19.
Baum, J.R. and Wally, S. (2003), ‘‘Strategic decision speed and firm performance’’, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 24 No. 11, pp. 1107-29.
Bennet, D. and Bennet, A. (2008), ‘‘The depth of knowledge: surface, shallow or deep?’’, The Journal of
Information and Knowledge Management Systems, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 405-20.
Benson, J. and Dresdow, S. (2009), ‘‘Common sense and integrative thinking’’, Management Decision,
Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 508-17.
Biyalogorsky, E., Boulding, W. and Staelin, R. (2006), ‘‘Stuck in the past: why managers persist with new
product failures’’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 70 No. 2, pp. 108-21.
Bould, M.D., Hayter, M.A., Campbell, D.M., Chandra, D.B., Joo, H.S. and Naik, V.N. (2009), ‘‘A cognitive
trial for neonatal resuscitation: a randomized controlled trial’’, Pediatric Anesthesia, Vol. 19, pp. 716-22.
Brown, A. and Starkey, K. (2000), ‘‘Organizational identity and learning: a psychodynamic perspective’’,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 102-20.
Bryman, A. (2004), Social Research Methods, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Bryman, A. and Bell, E. (2007), Business Research Methods, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Buchanan, B.G., Davis, R. and Feigenbaum, E.A. (2006), ‘‘Expert systems: a perspective from computer
science’’, in Ericsson, K.A., Charness, N., Feltovich, P.J. and Hoffman, R.R. (Eds), The Cambridge
Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, pp. 87-103.
j j
Buchanan, L. and O’Connell, A. (2006), ‘‘A brief history of decision making’’, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 84 No. 1, pp. 32-41.
Cambell, A., Whitehead, J. and Finkelstein, S. (2009), ‘‘Why good leaders make bad decisions’’,
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 87 No. 2, pp. 60-6.
Cassidy, M.F. and Buede, D. (2009), ‘‘Does the accuracy of expert judgement comply with common
sense: caveat emptor’’, Management Decision, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 454-69.
Choo, C.W. (2002), ‘‘Sensemaking, knowledge creation and decision making: organizational knowing as
emergent strategy’’, in Choo, C.W. and Bontis, N. (Eds), The Strategic Management of Intellectual
Capital and Organizational Knowledge, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 79-88.
Choo, C.W. and Johnston, R. (2004), ‘‘Innovation in the knowing organization: a case study of an
e-commerce initiative’’, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 8 No. 6, pp. 77-92.
Cooke, S. and Slack, N. (1984), Making Management Decisions, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Courtney, J.F. (2001), ‘‘Decision making and knowledge management in inquiring organizations: toward
a new decision-making paradigm for DSS’’, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 31, pp. 17-38.
Cunningham, J.B. and Kempling, J.S. (2009), ‘‘Implementing change in public sector organizations’’,
Management Decision, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 330-44.
Cyert, R.M. and March, J.G. (1963), A Behavioral Theory of the Firm, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Damasio, A. (2006), Descartes Error, Vintage Books, London.
Dane, E. and Pratt, M.G. (2007), ‘‘Exploring intuition and its role in managerial decisions making’’,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32, pp. 33-54.
Davenport, T.H. and Harris, J.G. (2007), Competing on Analytics: The New Science of Winning, Harvard
Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Davenport, T.H., Harris, J.G., de Long, D.W. and Jacobson, A.L. (2001), ‘‘Data to knowledge to results:
building an analytic capability’’, California Management Review, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 117-38.
Drior, I. (2005), ‘‘Perception is far from perfection: the role of the brain and mind in constructing realities’’,
Behavioral and Brain Science, Vol. 28 No. 6, p. 763.
Drior, I. and Charlton, D. (2006), ‘‘Why experts make errors’’, Journal of Forensic Identification, Vol. 56
No. 4, pp. 600-16.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), ‘‘Making fast decisions in high velocity environments’’, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 543-76.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1990), ‘‘Speed and strategic choice: how managers accelerate decision making’’,
California Management Review, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 39-54.
Eisenhardt, K.M. and Martin, J.A. (2000), ‘‘Dynamic capabilities: what are they?’’, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 21 Nos 10/11, pp. 1105-21.
Ericsson, K.A. (2006), ‘‘The influence of experience and deliberate practice on the development of
superior expert performance’’, in Ericsson, K.A., Charness, N., Feltovich, P. and Hoffman, R. (Eds),
The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Gibson, C.B. and Birkinshaw, J. (2004), ‘‘The antecedents, consequences and mediating role of
organizational ambidexterity’’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 209-26.
Gladwell, M. (2006), Blink. The Power of Thinking without Thinking, Penguin Books, Harmondsworth.
Goodwin, P. (2009), ‘‘Comnmon sense and hard decision analysis: why might they conflict?’’,
Management Decision, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 427-40.
Gore, J., Banks, A., Millward, L. and Kyriakidou, O. (2006), ‘‘Naturalistic decision making and
organizations: reviewing pragmatic science’’, Organization Studies, Vol. 27 No. 7, pp. 925-42.
j j
Gummesson, E. (1991), Qualitative Methods in Management Research, Sage Publications, Newbury
Park, CA.
Hammond, J.S., Keeney, R.L. and Raiffa, H. (2006), ‘‘The hidden traps in decision making’’, Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 84 No. 1, pp. 118-26.
Harrison, E.F. (1996), ‘‘A process perspective on strategic decision making’’, Management Decision,
Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 46-53.
Higgs, M. (2009), ‘‘The good, the bad and the ugly: leadership and narcissism’’, Journal of Change
Management, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 165-78.
Holsapple, C.W. (2001), ‘‘Knowledge management support of decision making’’, Decision Support
Systems, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 1-3.
Horn, R.E. and Weber, R.P. (2007), New Tools for Resolving Wicked Problems: Mess Mapping and
Resolution Mapping Processes, MacroVU(r) and Strategy Kinetics, San Francisco, CA.
Howard, R.A. (1988), ‘‘Decision analysis practice and promise’’, Management Science, Vol. 34 No. 6,
pp. 679-95.
Howard, R.A. and Matheson, J.E. (2005a), ‘‘Influence diagram retrospective’’, Decision Analysis, Vol. 2
No. 3, pp. 144-7.
Howard, R.A. and Matheson, J.E. (2005b), ‘‘Influence diagrams’’, Decision Analysis, Vol. 2 No. 3,
pp. 127-43.
Howard, R.A., Matheson, J.E., Merkhofer, M.W., Miller, A.C. and North, D.W. (2006), ‘‘Comment on
influence diagram retrospective’’, Decision Analysis, Institute for Operations Research, Zurich.
Isaac, W. (1993), ‘‘Taking flight: dialogue, collective thinking and organizational learning’’,
Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 24-39.
Kim, C.W. and Mauborgne, R. (1998), ‘‘Procedural justice, strategic decision making, and the
knowledge economy’’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 323-38.
Klein, G. (1997), ‘‘Developing expertise in decision making’’, Thinking and Reasoning, Vol. 3 No. 4,
pp. 337-52.
Klein, G. and Klinger, D. (1991), ‘‘Naturalistic decision making’’, Human Systems IAC Gateway, Vol. XI
No. 3, pp. 16-20.
Klimka, G. (2001), ‘‘Knowledge management and maturity models: building common understanding’’,
in Remenyi, D. (Ed.), European Conference on Knowledge Management.
Leadbeater, C. (2009), We think – Mass Innovation not Mass Production, Profile Books, Exmouth.
Lincoln, Y.S. and Guba, E. (1985), Naturalistic Inquiry, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
Lipshitz, R., Klein, G. and Carroll, J.S. (2006), ‘‘Introduction to the special issue. Naturalistic decision
making and organizational decision making: exploring the intersections’’, Organization Studies, Vol. 27
No. 7, pp. 917-23.
Lovallo, D.P. and Sibony, O. (2006), ‘‘Distortions and deceptions in strategic decisions’’, McKinsey
Quarterly, 1, February, pp. 18-29.
McKenzie, J. and Van Winkelen, C. (2004), Understanding the Knowledgeable Organization: Nurturing
Knowledge Competence, International Thomson, London.
McKenzie, J. and van Winkelen, C. (2005), ‘‘Individuals, organisations and networks: an integrated
framework to guide strategic knowledge based interventions’’, paper presented at Academy of
Management 5-7 August.
McKenzie, J., Woolf, N., van Winkelen, C. and Morgan, C. (2009), ‘‘Cognition in strategic decision
making: a model of non-conventional thinking capacities for complex situations’’, Management
Decision, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 209-32.
j j
Maitlis, S. and Ozcelik, H. (2004), ‘‘Toxic decision processes: a study of emotion and organizational
decision making’’, Organization Science, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 375-93.
Mansingh, G., Osei-Bryson, K.M. and Riechgelt, H. (2009), ‘‘Building ontology-based knowledge maps
to assist knowledge process outsourcing decisions’’, Knowledge Management Research and Practice,
Vol. 7, pp. 37-51.
Mariotti, F. and Delbridge, R. (2001), ‘‘Managing portfolios of ties in interfirm networks’’, paper presented
at Nelson and Winter Conference, Aalborg, June.
Martin, R. (2007), The Opposable Mind: How Successful Leaders Win through Integrative Thinking,
Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Menon, T. and Pfeffer, J. (2003), ‘‘Valuing internal vs external knowledge: explaining the preference for
outsiders’’, Management Science, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 497-513.
Mitroff, I.I. (2008), ‘‘Knowing: how we know is as important as what we know’’, Journal of Business
Strategy, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 13-22.
Mitroff, I.I. and Fetheringham, T.R. (1976), ‘‘Towards a behavioural theory of systemic hypothesis-tesing
and the error of the third kind’’, Theory and Decision, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 205-20.
Morse, G. (2006), ‘‘Decisions and desire’’, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 84 No. 1, pp. 42-51.
Nalbantian, H. and Guzzo, R.A. (2009), ‘‘Making mobility matter’’, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 87
No. 3, pp. 76-84.
Nicolas, R. (2004), ‘‘Knowledge management impacts on decision making process’’, Journal of

Knowledge Management, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 20-31.
Nutt, P.C. (2004), ‘‘Expanding the search for alternatives during strategic decision-making’’, Academy of
Management Executive, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 13-28.
Parcell, G. and Collison, C. (2009), No More Consultants. We Know More than We Think, Wiley,
Chichester.
Paulk, M.C., Weber, C.V. and Curtis, W. (1995), The Capability Maturity Model. Guidelines for Improving
the Software Process, Addison Wesley, New York, NY.
Pech, R.J. and Durden, G. (2004), ‘‘Where decision-makers went wrong: from capitalism to
cannibalism’’, Corporate Governance, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 65-75.
Pennypacker, J.S. and Grant, K.P. (2003), ‘‘Project management maturity: an industry benchmark’’,
Project Management Journal, Vol. 34, pp. 4-11.
Rindova, V.P. and Kotha, S. (2001), ‘‘Continuous ‘morphing’: competing through dynamic capabilities,
form and function’’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 6, pp. 1263-80.
Rittel, H.W.J. and Webber, M.M. (1973), ‘‘Dilemmas in a general theory of planning’’, Policy Sciences,
Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 155-69.
Roberto, M.A. (2002), ‘‘Making difficult decisions in turbulent times’’, Ivey Business Journal, Vol. 66
No. 3, pp. 14-20.
Ross, K.G., Shafer, J.L. and Klein, G. (2006), ‘‘Professional judgements and‘naturalistic decision
making’’’, in Ericsson, K.A., Charness, N., Feltovich, P.J. and Hoffman, R.R. (Eds), The Cambridge
Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, pp. 403-19.
Rudolph, J.W., Morrison, J.B. and Carroll, J.S. (2009), ‘‘The dynamics of action oriented problem solving:
linking interpretation and choice’’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 733-56.
Schmidt, J.B., Sarangee, K.R. and Montoya, M.M. (2009), ‘‘Exploring new product development project
review practices’’, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 26, pp. 520-35.
Schön, D.A. (1987), Educating the Reflective Practitioner, Jossey Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Schwenk, C. (2001), Identity, Learning and Decision Making in Changing Organisations, Praeger Books,
Toronto.
j j
Shimizu, K. and Hitt, M.A. (2004), ‘‘Strategic flexibility: organizational preparedness to reverse
ineffective strategic decisions’’, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 44-59.
Simon, H.A. (1960), The New Science of Management Decision, Harper Brothers, New York, NY.
Skjolsvik, T., Lowendahl, B.R., Hvalshaugen, R. and Fosstenlokken, S.M. (2007), ‘‘Choosing to learn and
learning to choose: strategies for client co-production and knowledge development’’, California
Management Review, Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 110-28.
Snowden, D.J. and Boone, M.E. (2007), ‘‘A leader’s framework for decision making’’, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 85 No. 11, pp. 69-76.
Stacey, R. (2001), Complex Responsive Processes in Organizations: Learning and Knowledge Creation,
Routledge, London.
Starbuck, W.H. and Hedberg, B. (2001), ‘‘How organizations learn from success and failure’’, Handbook
of Organizational Learning and Knowledge, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 327-50.
Sveiby, K.E. (2001), ‘‘A knowledge-based theory of the firm to guide strategy formulation’’, Journal of
Intellectual Capital, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 344-58.
Tapscott, D. and Williams, A.D. (2006), Wikinomics. How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything,
Portfolio, a member of Penguin USA, New York, NY.
Teece, D. and Pisano, G. (1994), ‘‘The dynamic capabilities of firms: an introduction’’, Industrial
& Corporate Change, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 537-56.
Tetlock, P.E. (1991), ‘‘An alternative metaphor in the study of judgement and choice: people as
politicians’’, Theory and Psychology, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 451-75.
Tichy, N. and Bennis, W. (2007), ‘‘Making judgement calls: the ultimate act of leadership’’, Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 85 No. 10, pp. 94-102.
Toffler, A. (2006), Revolutionary Wealth. How It Will Be Created and How It Will Change Our Lives, Knopf
Borzoi Books, Random House, New York, NY.
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1974), ‘‘Judgement under uncertainty: heuristics and biases’’, Science,
Vol. 185 No. 4157, pp. 1124-31.
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1986), ‘‘Rational choice and the framing of decisions’’, Journal of
Business, Vol. 59 No. 4, pp. S251-78.
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1991), ‘‘Loss aversion in riskless choice: a reference dependent model’’,
Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 106 No. 4, pp. 1039-61.
van Ees, H., Gabrielsson, J. and Huse, M. (2009), ‘‘Toward a behavioural theory of boards and corporate
governance’’, Corporate Governance: An International Review, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 307-19.
van Winkelen, C. and Truch, E. (2002), ‘‘An assessment of the application of the interactive research
method using a multi-project case example’’, paper presented at the European Conference on
Research Methodology for Business and Management Studies, Reading.
van Winkelen, C., McDermott, R. and Grimwood, S. (2009), ‘‘Knowledge management’s role in making
visible the thinking processes of experts’’, paper presented at the 9th KM Forum Conference, Henley
Business School, Henley on Thames.
Weick, K.E. (1995), Sensemaking in Organizations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Weick, K.E., Sutcliffe, K.M. and Obstfeld, D. (2005), ‘‘Organizing and the process of sensemaking’’,
Organization Science, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 409-21.
Yates, J.F. and Tschirhart, M.D. (2006), ‘‘Decision-making expertise’’, in Ericsson, K.A., Charness, N.,
Feltovich, P.J. and Hoffman, R.R. (Eds), The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert
Performance, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, pp. 421-38.
Yim, N.-H., Kim, S.-H., Kim, H.-W. and Kwahk, K.-Y. (2004), ‘‘Knowledge based decision making on
higher level strategic concerns: system dynamics approach’’, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 27
No. 1, pp. 143-58.
j j
About the authors
Jane McKenzie (PhD, MBA, BA, FCCA) became Director of the KM Forum at Henley
Business School in 2009, having actively contributed to the community since 2000, working
on at least one research project per year. As Professor of Management Knowledge and
Learning, the majority of her research focuses on improving connections and managing
contradictions – particularly the connections between knowledge and learning,
organisational development and business value. She is interested in how decision makers
successfully handle the dilemmas and contradictions that arise in organisational networks
as a result of uncertainty and ambiguity. Her last book titled Understanding the
Knowledgeable Organization: Nurturing Knowledge Competence, was co-authored with
Christine van Winkelen. The partnership continues with Christine as primary author for the
next book to be published in 2011, called Knowledge Works: The Handbook of Practical
Ways to Identify and Solve Common Organisational Problems for Better Performance. Jane
McKenzie is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: jane.mckenzie@
henley.reading.ac.uk
Christine van Winkelen (PhD, MBA, MCIPD, CPhys) has worked with the KM Forum since its
inception in 2000, project managing and leading research activities and special interest
groups. She was the Director of the Forum for five years until February 2009. Christine is
actively involved in a number of KM-related research activities. Her focus is on forming a
‘‘bridge’’ between academic and practitioner aspects of the field. She has published
extensively in academic and practitioner journals and written two books, the latest of which
will be published by Wiley in 2011 under the title Knowledge Works. It is a useful handbook of
the practical guidance generated from KM Forum research in the last ten years. Christine is
committed to using the knowledge gained from research and 15 years in practice, to help
others learn and organisations get benefit from their know-how. Previously she worked in
technology multi-national companies in a variety of roles.
Sindy Grewal started her career in operational and customer service management roles in
the Financial Services industry. In 2001, she completed a MBA at Henley Business School
where her dissertation focused on the role of culture and process in promoting good
knowledge sharing. Sindy Grewal has held senior knowledge management posts in a
number of leading organisations, including Financial Ombudsman Service, the Audit
Commission and currently as a secondee to the National Audit Office. Her professional
interests are around the mobilisation of knowledge in organisations, establishing
communities of practice, and translating the theory into practice, to ensure knowledge
sharing practices are embedded in organisations. Sindy has written and co-authored a
number of articles for publication in leading KM and management journals. She is active in
developing new practitioner insights into the application of KM for corporate effectiveness.
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
j j
This article has been cited by:
1. IntezariAli Ali Intezari A.Intezari@uq.edu.au Ali Intezari is based at UQ Business School, University of Queensland, Brisbane,
Australia. GresselSimone Simone Gressel s.gressel@massey.ac.nz Simone Gressel is based at School of Management, Massey
University, Auckland, New Zealand. UQ Business School, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia School of Management,
Massey University, Auckland, New Zealand . 2017. Information and reformation in KM systems: big data and strategic decision-
making. Journal of Knowledge Management 21:1, 71-91. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
2. Victor Diogho Heuer de Carvalho, Thiago Poleto, Ana Paula Cabral Seixas. 2017. Information technology outsourcing
relationship integration: a critical success factors study based on ranking problems (P.γ) and correlation analysis. Expert Systems
e12198. [CrossRef]
3. HeisigPeter Peter Heisig Peter Heisig is based at the Department of Information Sciences, University of Applied Sciences
Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany. He is Professor for Information and Knowledge Management at the Department of Information
Sciences at the University of Applied Sciences Potsdam (Germany) and a Visiting Senior Research Fellow at the Leeds University
Business School (UK). Peter has worked for over 25 years in research and consulting focusing on knowledge management,
intellectual capital, process management, socio-technical design, innovation and benchmarking. Peter holds a Diploma in Social
Sciences and a PhD in Engineering. Peter founded the Competence Centre Knowledge Management at the Fraunhofer Society
(Germany) and Eureka. He joined the University of Cambridge (UK) to undertake research on “Knowledge and Information
Management through life” project. With the support of the Leeds University Business School, Peter Heisig initiated the Global
Knowledge Research Network with more than 25 partners worldwide to undertake joint research. He delivered keynotes in
Brazil, China, Finland, Japan, South Africa, Switzerland and the UK. Peter served standardization bodies such as CEN and
DIN on KM. He is a founding member of the International Association of Knowledge Management (IAKM). SurajOlunifesi
Adekunle Olunifesi Adekunle Suraj Olunifesi Adekunle Suraj is based at the School of Communication, Lagos State University,
Lagos, Nigeria. He is a UNESCO Consultant on Media and Information Literacy. He is presently a Postgraduate Coordinator of
postgraduate programmers at the School of Communication, Lagos State University, where he is actively engaged in Teaching,
Research and Supervision of Students up to doctoral (PhD) level. He holds master and doctorate degrees in Information
Science with specialization in knowledge management/intellectual capital from University of Ibadan and a postgraduate degree
in Mass Communication from University of Lagos. He is a consultant to many international, public and private organizations.
His research interests include, among others, internet governance, media and information literacy, social media, knowledge
management and intellectual capital. He is a member of British Academy of Management (BAM), International Association
of Media and Communication Research (IAMCR) and Global Knowledge Research Networks. KiantoAino Aino Kianto
Aino Kianto, D.Sc. (Econ. & Bus. Adm.), is based at the School of Business and Management, Lappeenranta University of
Technology, Lappeenranta, Finland. She is Professor of Knowledge Management at the School of Business and Management
of Lappeenranta University of Technology, and the Academic Director of the Master’s Program in Knowledge Management
and Leadership. Her teaching and research focus on knowledge management, intellectual capital, creativity, innovation and
organizational renewal. She has authored and co-authored more than 100 academic articles, papers, books and book chapters on
these topics, and has received several awards for research excellence. Her expertise spans outside the academia, e.g. she is the
inventor of the ORCI-method, used for assessing and developing organizational renewal capability in more than 100 organizations
across Europe; she has worked with the Future committee of the Finnish Parliament; and she regularly lectures for companies
and practitioners. KemboiCosmas Cosmas Kemboi Cosmas Kemboi is based at the School of Business and Public Management,
KCA University, Nairobi, Kenya. He is Lecturer at the School of Business and Public Management, KCA University, Nairobi,
Kenya. He is a member of Global Knowledge Research Network, British Academy of Management, International Association for
Knowledge Management and Kenya Institute of Management. His teaching and research interests lie in the areas of knowledge
and innovation management. He is pursuing PhD in Business Administration (Strategic Management) at Jomo Kenyatta
University of Agriculture and Technology, with his thesis on knowledge management. Perez ArrauGregorio Gregorio Perez
Arrau Dr Gregorio Perez Arrau is based at the Facultad de Administración y Economía, Universidad de Santiago de Chile,
Santiago, Chile. He is Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Management and Economy, Universidad de Santiago de Chile, where
he is the Director of Knowledge Management in Organizations. He holds a PHD in Management Studies from the University of
Liverpool and a master’s degree in Human Resources Management from the Universidad de Santiago de Chile. He is a member
and co-founder of Red Latinoamericana de Estudios Organizacionales (Latin American Network of Organizational Studies)
and a member of the Latin American European Meeting on Organization Studies (LAEMOS- EGOS). He has also taught in
several universities throughout Chile and Latin America. His career also includes experience as a consultant in public and private
organizations in Chile. Fathi EasaNasser Nasser Fathi Easa Nasser Fathi Easa is based at the Business Administration Department
Faculty of Commerce, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt. He is Assistant Professor of Knowledge Management at
Alexandria University, Egypt. Nasser Easa undertook PhD on Knowledge Management & Innovation in Banking at the
University of Stirling, UK. He is a member of Global Knowledge Research Network, British Academy of Management, and a
committee member of European Conference of Knowledge Management, International Conference of Organizational Learning
& Knowledge Capabilities (OLKC). He has taught in several universities in Egypt. Nasser Easa is also a consultant and trainer
for public and private organizations. His teaching and research interest include the areas of knowledge management, innovation
and HR development. Department of Information Sciences, University of Applied Sciences Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany School
of Communication, Lagos State University, Lagos, Nigeria School of Business and Management, Lappeenranta University of
Technology, Lappeenranta, Finland School of Business and Public Management, KCA University, Nairobi, Kenya Facultad de
Administración y Economía, Universidad de Santiago de Chile, Santiago, Chile Business Administration Department Faculty of
Commerce, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt . 2016. Knowledge management and business performance: global experts’
views on future research needs. Journal of Knowledge Management 20:6, 1169-1198. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
4. YatesDave Dave Yates Dave Yates (PhD, – University of Southern California) is based at Department of Business Information
& Analytics, University of Denver, Denver, Colorado, USA. He is an Assistant Professor of Business Information & Analytics,
Daniels College of Business, University of Denver. His research interests are in organizational use of social media, emergency and
disaster response; and information security and ethics. His work has been published in the International Journal of Information
Management, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Government Information Quarterly,
Journal of Information Systems Education and MIS Quarterly. Department of Business Information & Analytics, University of
Denver, Denver, Colorado, USA . 2016. The impact of focus, function, and features of shared knowledge on re-use in emergency
management social media. Journal of Knowledge Management 20:6, 1318-1332. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
5. Alexander Serenko, Nick Bontis, Emily Hull. 2016. An application of the knowledge management maturity model: the case of
credit unions. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 14:3, 338-352. [CrossRef]
6. YeungChui Ling Chui Ling Yeung Chui Ling Yeung is based at the Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering of
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong,China. She is a Research Assistant in the Department of Industrial and
Systems Engineering of The Hong Kong Polytechnic University. She graduated in the same department with a bachelor’s degree
in industrial and systems engineering and a PhD. Her research interests are knowledge management, narrative analysis and
generation, intellectual capital, healthcare and waste management. CheungChi Fai Chi Fai Cheung Chi Fai Cheung is a Professor,
He is based at Knowledge Management and Innovation Research Centre (KMIRC) in Department of Industrial and Systems
Engineering of The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China. Benny is a Professor and an Associate Director of
Knowledge Management and Innovation Research Centre (KMIRC) in Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering of
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Moreover, he is an Associate Member of the International Academy for Production
Engineering (CIRP). His research in knowledge and technology management encompasses broad-based research of methods,
systems and tools built on a basis of information processing and artificial intelligence technologies for supporting the management
of knowledge and technology for enterprises from various industries such as manufacturing, public utility, social service, logistics,
transportation, etc. WangWai Ming Wai Ming Wang Dr Wai Ming Wang is a research associate, He is based at Knowledge
Management and Innovation Research Centre (KMIRC) in Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering of The Hong
Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China. He is a Project Associate of Knowledge Management and Innovation Research
Centre in Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering of the Hong Kong Polytechnic University. He received his BE in
manufacturing engineering and PhD degree at the same university. His research interests include computational intelligence,
computer modeling of social theories, knowledge-based systems, text and knowledge mining, decision-making in organizations
and knowledge engineering. TsuiEric Eric Tsui Eric Tsui is a Professor and He is based at Knowledge Management and
Innovation Research Centre (KMIRC) in Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering of The Hong Kong Polytechnic
University, Hong Kong, China. He had spent 16 years in industry with Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC) in Australia taking
on various capacities including Chief Research Officer and Innovation Manager. During this period, he has made significant
contributions to the company’s expert systems products, applied research and innovation programs. LeeWing Bun Wing Bun
Lee Wing Bun Lee is a Chair Professor, He is based at Knowledge Management and Innovation Research Centre (KMIRC) in
Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering of The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China. He obtained
PhD from the Department of Mechanical Engineering of The University of Hong Kong in 1986. He had been the Head of
the Department of Manufacturing Engineering and the first Head of the Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering
between 1996 and 2008. In 2007, he established the first Knowledge Management Research Centre and co-found the joint
Knowledge Management and Innovation Research Centre with Xian Jilting University in 2009. His research interests include
advanced manufacturing technology, materials processing, ultra-precision machining, manufacturing strategy and knowledge-
based systems and organizational learning. Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering of The Hong Kong Polytechnic
University, Hong Kong, China. Knowledge Management and Innovation Research Centre (KMIRC) in Department of Industrial
and Systems Engineering of The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China. . 2016. Managing knowledge in
the construction industry through computational generation of semi-fiction narratives. Journal of Knowledge Management 20:2,
386-414. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
7. Neeta BaporikarKnowledge Management Initiatives in Indian Public Sector 53-89. [CrossRef]
8. Neeta BaporikarKnowledge Management Initiatives in Indian Public Sector 1065-1100. [CrossRef]

Developing organisational decision-making capability

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Developing organisational decision-making capability

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Knowledge Management

Developing organisational decision-making capability: a knowledge manager's guide

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

How decision context affects knowledge needs

Table I Knowledge and knowing processes across contexts

Note: aAs defined by Snowden and Boone (2007)

‘‘ Distinguishing different types of decision-making provides a

Awareness of how decision bias affects judgement is important knowledge

Escalation Commitment to a losing course of action Intentionally bringing in external perspectives to

handling uncertain, ambiguous and contradictory situations; often anxiety increases,

Where should expertise and technology contribute?

‘‘ ‘Expert’ decisions makers individually developed their

Knowing how much expertise is enough and

Internal and external collaboration affect access to knowledge

Using the factors to build a KM framework for developing decision-making capability

Populating progressive stages in the framework

How to use the maturity model

1. Assemble a representative group of people, sufficiently diverse to cover the span of

Table VI A knowledge management perspective on developing the decision-making capability of an organisation

PAGE 414 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 15 NO. 3 2011

Bryman, A. (2004), Social Research Methods, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Damasio, A. (2006), Descartes Error, Vintage Books, London.

Nicolas, R. (2004), ‘‘Knowledge management impacts on decision making process’’, Journal of

Weick, K.E. (1995), Sensemaking in Organizations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

You might also like