Knowledge, Information, Rules, and Structures

Knowledge is frequently defined as separate from information and as existing only in the heads of people. To the contrary, information is critical to a pragmatic approach to knowledge consistent with epistemic game theory. Such information is frequently protected by intellectual property claims, re-inforcing their importance as knowledge assets in an economy and in society. Moreover, knowledge exists at the group, firm, and system level through the organizational coordination of individuals. Individuals may enter and exit, but work is still coordinated. In an age where increasingly work is accomplished through intelligent machines, an understanding of social rules and mechanisms is critical for the analysis of the generative rules that guide the structure of knowledge in an economy and society. This point is demonstrated through a simple simulation of three rules (random, preferential, and transitive) that generate three distinctive network structures. In this perspective, knowledge is structure and structure is the network. These simulations show that much as people influence structure, structure also influences the decisions of agents. Crucial to this analysis is the assumption made on the local information available to agents that informs their choices.

[1]  Joshua M. Epstein,et al.  Growing Artificial Societies: Social Science from the Bottom Up , 1996 .

[2]  Michael X Cohen,et al.  Organizational Routines Are Stored as Procedural Memory: Evidence from a Laboratory Study , 1994 .

[3]  Akira Takeishi,et al.  Special Issue: Knowledge, Knowing, and Organizations: Knowledge Partitioning in the Interfirm Division of Labor: The Case of Automotive Product Development , 2002, Organ. Sci..

[4]  I. Nonaka,et al.  How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation , 1995 .

[5]  David M. Kreps.  Corporate culture and economic theory , 1990 .

[6]  S. Winter,et al.  An evolutionary theory of economic change , 1983 .

[7]  R. T. Beaty,et al.  The competitive challenge , 1993 .

[8]  I. Nonaka,et al.  SECI, Ba and Leadership: a Unified Model of Dynamic Knowledge Creation , 2000 .

[9]  K. Shepsle,et al.  Perspectives on Positive Political Economy: REFLECTIONS ON THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS , 1990 .

[10]  A. Kashyap,et al.  Corporate Financing and Governance in Japan: The Road to the Future , 2001 .

[11]  Ikujiro Nonaka,et al.  Strategic vs. Evolutionary Management: A U.S.-Japan Comparison of Strategy and Organization. , 1987 .

[12]  Hiroyuki Itami.  Mobilizing invisible assets , 1987 .

[13]  J. Brown,et al.  Organizational Learning and Communities-of-Practice: Toward a Unified View of Working, Learning, and Innovation , 1991 .

[14]  Paul J. Gordon,et al.  The mind of the strategist: The art of Japanese business: by Kenichi Ohmae New York: McGraw-Hill, 1982 , 1983 .

[15]  B. Kogut.  The network as knowledge : Generative rules and the emergence of structure , 2000 .

[16]  Joseph T. Mahoney,et al.  The Evolution of a Manufacturing System at Toyota , 1999 .

[17]  Alexandre Beaudet,et al.  The Toyota Group and the Aisin Fire , 1998 .

[18]  Globalization of Firms and the Competitiveness of Nations , 1991 .

[19]  Morten T. Hansen,et al.  The Search-Transfer Problem: The Role of Weak Ties in Sharing Knowledge across Organization Subunits , 1999 .

[20]  B. Kogut,et al.  The Small World of Germany and the Durability of National Networks , 2001, American Sociological Review.

[21]  Gordon Walker,et al.  Emergent Properties of a New Financial Market: American Venture Capital Syndication, 1960 - 2005 , 2007, Manag. Sci..

[22]  Roberto A. Weber.  Managing Growth to Achieve Efficient Coordination in Large Groups , 2002 .

[23]  I. Nonaka.  A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation , 1994 .

[24]  Linda Argote,et al.  Organizational Learning and Forgetting: The Effects of Turnover and Structure , 2006 .

[25]  J. Brown,et al.  Bridging epistemologies: The generative dance between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing , 1999, STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI.