Money talks: Communication Patterns as Knowledge Monetization

71 Money talks: Communicaion Paterns as Knowledge Moneizaion Karl Joachim Breunig1 and Hanno Roberts2 Abstract In this conceptual paper, we suggest that knowledge lows consitute the antecedences of value creaion by means of its communicaion component. Knowledge is increasingly being accepted as a source of value creaion and a difereniator between irms. However, to a large extent, current approaches to management and governance of knowledge resources prescribe measurements of the stock of knowledge. Therefore, we suggest a bridge that connects current knowledge sharing understanding with properies from communicaion theory, to explicate knowledge in use through a communicaion paterns perspecive. Building on the perspecive of knowledge as a low, and postulaing that value is based on knowledge use, rather than knowledge possession, this paper addresses the research quesion: How can we express knowledge in such a way that it can be moneized and made accessible to speciic managerial intervenions? We explain how communicaion is instrumental in capturing knowledge value and allows for a connecion with monetary value. Extant literature on organizaional communicaion roles emphasizes the role of boundaryspanners in the search for and combinaion of experience and tacit knowledge. Individual nodes in organizaional networks can possess knowledge. However, to be valuable, the knowledge resources need to be deployed and uilized. The use of knowledge will involve the communicaion of this knowledge through ies to other nodes. The paper proposes that boundary-spanning roles provide a focal point for such moneizaion eforts. The contribuion of this paper is six proposiions for future research on how management accouning and control systems can be brought to bear in their governable and calculable aspects if communicaion funcions are given more atenion. Keywords: boundary spanners; moneizaion; communicaion; knowledge lows; knowledge sharing. 1 Karl Joachim Breunig, Professor, Oslo Business School – Oslo and Akershus University College, PB 4 St. Olavs Pl., N-0130 Oslo, Norway, e-mail: karljoachim.breunig@hioa.no. 2 Hanno Roberts, Professor, BI Norwegian Business School, Department of Accouning Audiing and Business Analyics, Nydalsveien 37, N-0484 Oslo, Norway, e-mail: hanno.roberts@bi.no. 72 / Money Talks: Communicaion Paterns as Knowledge Moneizaion IntroduCtIon This conceptual paper combines and links insights from several diferent disciplines, including communicaion theory, strategy theory, and management accouning theory, to provide a framework for the moneizaion of knowledge resources. We suggest that knowledge lows consitute antecedents of knowledge-based value creaion and, subsequently, formulate six proposiions to expound moneizing of knowledge resources. Over the past decade, several eforts have been made to account for knowledge as a resource. Many of these atempts have emphasized the ownership of the knowledge resource and, consequently, its valuaion and reporing, rather than the dynamic processes involved in the use of knowledge (Breunig & Roberts, 2013). Meanwhile, managerial accouning endeavors to account for knowledge as a resource tend to be limited to adoping a management control perspecive, matching speciic aspects of knowledge resource management against exising management control concepts of, for example, uncertainty and one’s decision-making tool set (Diillo, 2004; 2012). In contrast, our approach is based on a relaional premise and we argue that because communicaion is the carrier of knowledge lows, it consitutes the staring point in developing an approach towards knowledge-based value creaion and, ulimately, towards moneizing the knowledge resource. We claim that the relaional deployment of knowledge maters more than how much knowledge one has ‘on inventory’. Such knowledge deployment is grounded in communicaion paterns around a problem-solving efort, possibly supported or triggered by an organizaional artefact such as an informaion item (e.g., a report, a customer query, or a design blue-print). In this paper, the organizaion is viewed as a networked patern of knowledge lows with communicaion acing in a plaform role. This perspecive allows for the ideniicaion of value creaion paterns which, in turn, allows for moneizing knowledge by looking at the structural make-up of these paterns. Building on a dynamic patern of knowledge lows and acknowledging that value creaion is based on knowledge-in-use, this paper addresses the research quesion: How can we express knowledge in such a way that it can be moneized and made accessible to speciic managerial intervenions? The paper’s core proposiion is that the communicaion paterns inherent in social networks of knowledge sharing carry the rudimentary bases for moneizing knowledge-value creaion. The later concept here adopts the postulate that the role of management accouning and control systems is a funcional technology for construcing a governable reality (Miller & O’Leary, 1987) given its instrumental capabiliies towards moneizaion. The paper contributes an extension of exising theory on intellectual Special issue: Knowledge Management - Current Trends and Challenges Małgorzata Zięba (Ed.) Karl Joachim Breunig and Hanno Roberts / 73 capital and knowledge management by bridging it with social network and communicaion theory. Indeed, this ambiion relates directly to unresolved issues, and recent calls for research, in the knowledge management ield (Cuozzo, Dumay, Palmaccio & Lombardi, 2017; Dwivedi, Venkitachalam, Sharif, Al-Karaghouli & Weerakkody, 2011). Knowledge management research encompasses diverse topics. A recent review aricle aimed at idenifying current themes and future trends could neither conclude that the ield was fragmening nor that a future dominant theme was emerging (Lee & Chen, 2012). However, it remains to be resolved how knowledge management, and indeed knowledge applicaion, is related to value-in-use. Recently, the relevance of resolving this issue has been emphasized by the digitalizaion trend threatening to disrupt the way knowledge workers make their living (Christensen, Wang & van Bever, 2013). Indeed, a recent review aricle idenifying four potenial future direcions for knowledge management research point towards specifying the knowledge process as a paricularly promising future direcion (Mariano & Awazu, 2016) that relates to the complex combinaion of three disinct phenomena: social capital, networks, and knowledge transfer (Inkpen, 1996; Inkpen & Tsang, 2005; 2016). This paper relates directly to this discourse in that it aims to explain how speciic communicaion roles are instrumental in capturing knowledge value creaion and its subsequent moneizaion. The implicaion of this extension is paricularly relevant for management control systems, based as it is on a decomposiion logic of breaking down strategies into objecives, targets, and performance metrics. Applied within the context of knowledgebased irms, this decomposiion logic reduces knowledge management to a strategy implementaion problem, involving selecion of appropriate responsibiliies, budget allocaions and performance measurement models. The later (performance measurement modeling) has been a key tenant of intellectual capital approaches in which it is treated similarly to the inancial resource in terms of how it can be exploited or governed through a regime of transacionable property rights and accompanying measurements and reporing systems. Rather, we approach the issue diferently by taking a close look at ‘knowledge-in-use’, focusing on the knowledge sharing phenomenon, idenifying its relaional, networked, and communicaion aspects, and then atemping to work towards moneizaion opportuniies. The paper is built up as follows. First, we address diferent ontologies when addressing assets, and how these ontological diferences afect the ability to surmise knowledge lows. Second, we address knowledge value creaion as knowledge lows and integrate theory on communicaion networks into our line of argument, indicaing how the concept of boundary spanners can ofer Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovaion (JEMI), Volume 13, Issue 3, 2017: 71-94 74 / Money Talks: Communicaion Paterns as Knowledge Moneizaion a suitable vantage point for managerial intervenion. Third, the moneizaion opportuniies related to the networked communicaion lows are discussed. We conclude by discussing both the theoreical and pracical contribuions of this paper, and the perspecives it develops for future research. MethodologICal ConSIderatIonS The aim of this conceptual paper is to build mid-range theory by detailing a speciic line of argument. Rather than singling out a narrowly aimed structured literature review to extract exising literature, our argument for knowledge lows, as the antecedence of value creaion draw on a broad set of disciplines and literatures. Therefore, consistency consideraions emphasize the sequence of laying out the line of argument, and underpinning it with reference to extant research. The essence of our approach is the credibility of argument in this inducive theory building ambiion. The line of argument, leading to six proposiions, is presented in the following sequence. First, we address diferent ontologies when addressing assets, and how these ontological diferences afect the ability to surmise knowledge lows. Second, we address knowledge value creaion as knowledge lows and integrate theory on communicaion networks in our line of argument, indicaing how the concept of boundary spanners can ofer a suitable vantage point for managerial intervenion. Third, the moneizaion opportuniies related to the networked communicaion lows are discussed. We conclude by discussing both the theoreical and pracical contribuions of this paper, and the perspecives it develops for future research. lIterature BaCKground and ConCePtS ontologies of “assets” afect the ability to address the low of knowledge Within the ield of strategy, knowledge and competence form a strategic asset for irms, with the term asset being used in a pluralisic way to signify muliple processes and rouines (Nelson & Winter, 1982). In paricular, the knowledge-based theory of the irm considers the irm itself to be a repository (i.e., a big warehouse) for knowledge. That is, the irm funcions as a container that bounds the various knowledge forms, types, and categories available for deployment (Grant, 1996; Spender, 1996) with the container itself being a luid enity that adapts to the content whirling within it (Teece, 2004). Issues of asset ownership are considered of less importance than “control or access to resources on a preferenial basis” (Helfat et al., 2007, p. 4) Special issue: Knowledge Management - Current Trends and Challenges Małgorzata Zięba (Ed.) Karl Joachim Breunig and Hanno Roberts / 75 Conversely, within accouning theory, the deiniion of an asset is more monisic, referring to a legal property right that can be exchanged via market transacions (Schuetze, 1993). Typically, the monist accouning perspecive of what consitutes an asset allows for an epistemology of value creaion in which assets are building blocks that can be reconigured to opimize value creaion. Meanwhile, it allows for an instrumentaion of the reconiguraion process, by adding, merging, or transforming asset categories (Venkatraman and Henderson, 1998). As such, it has the beneit of being able to address instrumental quesions on, for example, asset development, deployment, transformaion, transacion and the like, thereby opening up the conceptual treatment of knowledge assets for operaional and managerial use (Bollinger & Smith, 2001). Such use includes the ariculaion of knowledge assets into monetary terms in such a way that assets are transduced from the strategy ontology to a inancial ontology as occurs in mergers & acquisiions and in joint ventures. This transducion will equip knowledge assets with an instrumentaion that allows for moneizaion (e.g., goodwill or brand valuaion) and, simultaneously, in the transducion process itself, lex the kind of muliple epistemological muscle that is called for in deepening the development of a knowledge-based theory of the irm (Spender, 1998). One of the ontologies that monist accouning theory brings to bear on knowledge assets is that of inancial categorizaion. It disinguishes assets into ixed and current asset categories, based on a (ime of holding the) property right criterion. Other categorizaions are equally possible, such as tangible versus intangible assets, or purchased versus self-generated assets with the problemaizaion of categorizaion criteria (i.e., what and how to create relevant epistemological containers)—an important area for transducion heurisic creaion (Grojer, 2001). The asset categorizaion used for this paper is one based on (asset) stocks and lows. However, rather than applying a dichotomy of (staic) stocks and (dynamic) lows, we employ a coninuum in which (asset) stocks liquefy into (expense) lows and vice versa. The classic example of this transformaion is asset depreciaion; over ime, the asset stock decreases while the depreciaion expense increases. Typically, the accouning heurisic is supported by a further categorizaion, that of capitalizing expenses (puing them on the balance sheet as a stock item) and expensing assets (puing them on the income statement as a low item). Given that these accouning heurisics are moivated by arguments of risk and uncertainty for proper value esimaion, the principle of conservaism is applied. That is, a decision heurisic is used in cases of high uncertainty to categorize transacional events as lows (expense the item) rather than as stocks (capitalize the item). It is important to note that ‘value’ in accouning theory is singularly perceived as monetary value based Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovaion (JEMI), Volume 13, Issue 3, 2017: 71-94 76 / Money Talks: Communicaion Paterns as Knowledge Moneizaion on a market exchange transacion, while referring to principled arguments of ‘objecive’ measurement. Returning to ‘knowledge assets’, the above implies that categorizing knowledge as an asset would assume that it is of low risk and uncertainty— an assumpion that is highly dubious given the dynamic nature and much debated phenomenological status of knowledge, both of which are illustrated in the many disparate eforts to measure it (von Krogh et al., 1998; Liebowitz & Suen, 2000; King & Zeithaml, 2003). As a result, and for the purpose of this paper, we emphasize knowledge as a low between knowledge users rather than as replenishing or depleing a stock. Equally importantly, we emphasize the dynamic nature of knowledge; the knowledge itself is changed through its use each ime it lows between users. This interpretaion locates our understanding of knowledge lows within the literature on knowledge sharing, with each user having the potenial to add to the organizaion’s shared knowledge (Ipe, 2003; Cabrera & Cabrera, 2002; Riege, 2005). Stated diferently, knowledge sharing harbors an appreciaion rather than a depreciaion mechanism with an ever-increasing value based on its use (Hansen, 2002). This view resonates strongly with a learning ontology; the more it is shared and used, the more we learn and the more its value is increased (Yang, 2007; Ardichvili, 2008). As for the low process itself, we adopt a network rather than a dyadic perspecive on sharing. That is, there are muliple knowledge users who share knowledge with one another within bounded networks or clusters rather than one-on-one (Rowley, 1997; Cross et al., 2001). Users, thus, have sharing porfolios in which knowledge lows are routed among diferent users. Moreover, it implies that the level of analysis of our discussion is the network per sé, thus allowing for arguments and consituing features that pertain to networks as well as intra- and internetwork behaviors. There is an implicit assumpion that knowledge-sharing networks create more knowledge value than the simple dyadic sharing between two users. This assumpion resonates with the interpersonal network literature and the various social and behavioral assumpions that accompany it, including why such knowledge sharing networks are ulimately important (e.g., innovaion, value creaion) (Swan et al., 1999; Hildreth & Kimble, 2004). However, here, we do not disinguish between formal and informal lows (knowledge sharing) because we do not want to limit ourselves to the instrumentaion opions that are bundled with the formal versus informal knowledge sharing dichotomy. We adopt three concepts in our line of argument, all centered on the core concept of social networks: (1) relaions, (2) communicaions, and (3) sharing. Briely, to create value out of knowledge, people need to relate to one Special issue: Knowledge Management - Current Trends and Challenges Małgorzata Zięba (Ed.) Karl Joachim Breunig and Hanno Roberts / 77 another to communicate and share knowledge. Relatedness (‘connecivity’) is therefore the basic premise upon which all other subsequent stages are built. Relaional ‘capital’ and social networks thus provide the irst step in building knowledge-based value creaion. The actual communicaion paterns that are established within social networks then give rise to the sharing of knowledge (experience, insights, and tacit understanding). Hence, it is communicaion paterns that provide the second step. These paterns develop and evolve towards a ‘meeing of minds’ in tackling tacit, sicky, and hard to codify knowledge held by communicaion paricipants (Liyanage et al., 2009). These ‘meeings of minds’ take the shape of (re)combinaions and (re)coniguraions of new and exising knowledge and interpretaions in which paricipants arrive collecively at a new level of understanding, or a knowledge ‘innovaion’. This third step, thus, revolves around the combinaions made within communicaion paterns, bringing desperate tacit and codiied knowledge together. As such, the combinatory, sharing aspect of communicaion paterns is considered to be a ‘personalized’ approach to knowledge management (Hansen et al., 1999) that is highly reminiscent of situated cogniion and learning (Brown & Duguid, 1991; Lave & Wenger, 1991). Therefore, the combinaions of tacit knowledge are highly localized and coningent on context, but nevertheless are open to ideniicaion and intervenion. The three steps in our line of argument provide for an equal amount of analyical approaches. For example, step one focuses on the arena of knowledge-based value creaion: the ideniicaion of the primary imes and places when and where relatedness (‘connecivity’) occurs. Typically, these are meeings; including project meeings, debrief sessions, seminars, investment evaluaions, milestone assessments, and problem-solving task forces, among others. Usually, these meeings tend to be dominated by a speciic agenda (e.g., solving a problem, launching a product, a campaign kick-of) that mobilizes implicitly a wide range of formal and informal knowledge resources. From the new product development literature, we know that to be considered successful, such meeings need to comply with a series of minimal requirements related to input diversity, a semi-open agenda, and a paricipaive and collaboraive process (Houman & Balslev, 2009; Swink et al, 2006; Cooper et al., 2004). We postulate that these arenas are aligned with business aciviies and do not exist in a vacuum. That is, they are there to create value even if this value is not clearly and unequivocally considered or assessed upfront. Arenas as such are not ‘investment objects’ subject to return criteria but part of processes of value creaion with these processes created and jusiied for the aim of value creaion. That is, these meeings are not talk for talk’s sake. Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovaion (JEMI), Volume 13, Issue 3, 2017: 71-94 78 / Money Talks: Communicaion Paterns as Knowledge Moneizaion The communicaion paterns that consitute the next step in our line of argument are where the knowledge moneizaion possibility emerges. Interpreted as social network structures in which these paterns are nested or accommodated, the consituing nodes and ies and the classiicaion of each category in terms of their characterisics provide the building blocks for mapping out value creaion lows. For example, diferent nodes occupy diferent posiions within networks, each having a predominant associaion with a speciic acivity (Cross et al., 2001). A node can bind a network together owing to its centrality in the network, with communicaion lows going primarily through this central person or unit. Or a node can serve as an inter-network link, fulilling a boundary-spanning role that allows for diversity of knowledge interacion and the emergence of novel insights and conclusions. Similarly, the ies between the nodes in a network signify how loose or ightly knit a network is. Strong ies indicate an intense and frequent communicaion patern, whereas weak ies indicate an infrequent and random communicaion patern. Networks as such can be typiied according to a number of characterisics apart from the characterisics of their consituent parts. For example, the characterisics of centrality, density, and bridging address the distribuion of nodes within networks while homophily, muliplexity, and reciprocity describe connecions within networks. Hence, social network characterisics promulgate a series of drivers in communicaion paterns that can be used to diagnose the strength, cohesiveness, and focus of a knowledge value-creaion efort. Where earlier stages are ariculated in terms of communicaion paterns (i.e., who talks to whom), the third stage expresses itself in terms of combinatory criteria and, as such, allows for specifying opimizaion of who talks best with whom; certain combinatory paterns are more likely to result in successful soluions, insights, or proposals than others. This third step resonates with research on opimal team composiion vis-à-vis team performance; certain combinaions outperform others owing to their members’ coniguraional characterisics (Mathieu et al., 2014; Hollenbeck et al., 2004). In comparison with the focus on communicaion paterns in stage two, the combinatory focus provides an addiional set of criteria that can act as drivers for knowledge-value creaion, which can either predetermine or leverage communicaion patern criteria and deine their potenial for use as a metric in moneizing knowledge. However, for the purpose of this paper, we limit ourselves to looking at steps one and two in developing knowledgebased value creaion, selecion of relaional (‘connecivity’) arenas, and specifying appropriate communicaion paterns. Special issue: Knowledge Management - Current Trends and Challenges Małgorzata Zięba (Ed.) Karl Joachim Breunig and Hanno Roberts / 79 Knowledge value creaion is relaional According to Bonis (1999), knowledge originates from human capital and is combined with other knowledge resources in relaional capital, being harvested ulimately as organizaional capital in the form of new sets of rouines, procedures, and managerial processes. Breunig and Roberts (2013) surmise that knowledge value creaion is located within relaional capital, combining individual knowledge in a networked fashion and based on communicaion. Typically, eforts in managing relaional capital involve establishing such communicaion networks, making them work, direcing them, and maintaining them. Our main underlying proposiion is that the social relaions among (groups of) people consitute a irm’s knowledge value creaion process, while it is the communicaion within these people-topeople networks that provides the novel combinaion of hitherto separated knowledge of perspecives upon which new business ideas and innovaive pracices are based. In this context, we disinguish between concurrently exising “contacivity”3 (between people) and “connecivity” (between communicaion systems). Within the ield of communicaions research, several of these processes have been speciied and reined. For example, in the communicaion model developed by Tucker, Meyer, and Westerman (1996), strategic knowledge capabiliies are developed as the result of interpersonal communicaion systems at an insituional level. Their model stresses the role of organizaional rouines and managerial direcion, implicaing the importance of management intervenion in authorizing and establishing criical communicaion opportuniies and channels. Once communicaion occurs, connecivity and contacivity are created, and subsequent stages of combining knowledge can be entered, including knowledge sharing, experize leveraging, and collaboraion (Cross & Prusak, 2002; Davenport & Prusak, 1998; Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998; Tucker et al., 1996). The communicaion perspecive on knowledge value creaion revolves around the design features, procedures, and rouines that establish intra-network connecions. Some of these facets are codiied and embedded in informaion and communicaions technology systems. However, many relate to concepts and methods outside the domains of knowledge management, informaion and communicaions technology, and communicaion theory. Examples are incenive systems for knowledge sharing and work collaboraion, a project staing system that engenders contacivity between people with diverse sets of interpretaions and acion vocabularies, the meeing and debrieing methods used around reporing systems within management control, and an intervenion style that 3 The term ‘contacivity’ was coined by Leif Edvinsson, a reputed author within the Intellectual Capital ield. Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovaion (JEMI), Volume 13, Issue 3, 2017: 71-94 80 / Money Talks: Communicaion Paterns as Knowledge Moneizaion is based on openness and involvement rather than entrenchment into job descripions and other formally mandated responsibiliies. In summary, knowledge value creaion through communicaion networks requires pulling from a broad set of disinct disciplinary areas. Criteria for soliciing conceptual and instrumental inputs revolve around system connecivity and interpersonal contacivity in a sequenial, step-wise manner, iniiaing from awareness to development, oten in pracical eforts aimed at knowledge co-creaion (Kazi et al., 2007). It is perhaps ironic that academic workshops tend to claim a similar knowledge co-creaion focus (Hatcher et al., 2006). Knowledge value creaion is communicaion based Communicaion as a personalized process refers to the interpersonal transfer of knowledge. From the perspecive of the irm, however, such interpersonal exchange is understood as personal networking, with the irm’s role in communicaion revolving around encouraging, allowing, bounding, and focusing the development of such personalized communicaion networks. Both codiied and objeciied knowledge as well as non-codiied and subjecive knowledge are communicated via such networks. Thus, interpersonal communicaion networks become the focus of a deliberate efort to manage knowledge by combining diferent perspecives. But the quesion remains of how can these processes be managed and followed up with management accouning and control systems. Research has indicated that irm level networks tend to revolve around communiies, including communiies of pracice, collaboraion, interest, and innovaion (Adler, Kwon & Heckscher, 2008; Ahuja, 2000; Inkpen, 1996; Wenger & Snyder, 2000). These communiies are networks that are organized around several ground rules, one of which is that of purposeful informaion and experience sharing. Communiies of pracice can arise spontaneously but can also be encouraged to develop by management through deliberate design (Brown & Duguid, 2000). It is in the interest of management to develop communiies that can be used as vehicles for more efecive informaion and knowledge sharing, compared to the more hierarchical reporing lows of typical organizaional responsibility structures (Stevenson, 1990). The emergence of the community concept and its apparent usefulness in informaion, experience, and knowledge sharing has triggered a large array of applicaion areas, ranging from online communiies to civic communiies in urban renewal and poliics (Putnam, 2000). The community of pracice concept informs the present work in two ways: the community as a social network of communicaion; and the community as an organizing format for the structuring of communicaion lows. Special issue: Knowledge Management - Current Trends and Challenges Małgorzata Zięba (Ed.) Karl Joachim Breunig and Hanno Roberts / 81 The social aspect of these communiies (i.e., the fact that communicaion is interpersonal and personalized) provides a possibility to map communicaion low paterns. Using Social Network Analysis (SNA), these maps outline who communicates with whom, and with what frequency (Scot, 2000; Wasserman & Faust, 1994). Actors (communicators) within these “communicaies” that have high frequency counts can be classiied according to the roles they fulil. Hence, we conceive of communicaion networks as stable communiies over ime, and vice versa (i.e., communiies as communicaion networks) (Brown, Broderick & Lee, 2007; Gillani, Yasseri, Eynon & Hjorth, 2014). For communicaion networks to classify as communiies, network roles need to develop over ime. Hence, the community becomes an organizing format to group and classify communicaion. Consequently, we suggest that: Proposiion 1: Knowledge value creaion is communicaion networkbased. Knowledge value creaion by means of communicaion roles Communiies conceived of as organizing formats for communicaion lows and paterns are demarcated by the various roles that people take up within these networks (Cross & Prusak, 2002). Each role is deined as creaing a certain type of connecivity, with a disinct set of communicaion funcions. Breunig and Roberts (2013) idenify four roles (i.e., central connectors, boundary spanners, informaion brokers, peripheral specialists; Cross & Prusak, 2002) in social networks that allow for the appropriate management of each network. For example, the inclusion of the concept of boundary spanners can accelerate the implementaion of a corporate-wide communicaion system with boundary spanning individuals acing as gatekeepers to other domains within the organizaion. Similarly, the informaion brokers within a selected number of social networks can be asked to chair formal meeings, thus propelling the distribuion and accelerated disseminaion of informaion across consituencies. As these examples elucidate, idenifying the above roles within social networks is followed by a selecion of which roles and which networks are important for knowledge-based value creaion. Although these roles are stated originally vis-à-vis people, they can also be elaborated towards roles for typical organizaional formats. That is, an item on the organizaion chart or within work process lows where crossfuncional coordinaion and exchanges occur. Such ‘organizaional arenas’ can be relaively low key, such as, meeings that have been systemaically structured into worklows and occur with periodic regularity. But in contrast to being based on an agenda deined by hierarchical reporing on formal responsibility areas, these ‘arenas’ are deined by aciviies and shaped by Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovaion (JEMI), Volume 13, Issue 3, 2017: 71-94 82 / Money Talks: Communicaion Paterns as Knowledge Moneizaion a role towards (diversity of) interpretaions and requisite acions precipitated by a dynamically changing context. For example, a customer order low might be standardized as a formal acivity protocol, but with each new customer requirement, variety and diversity are introduced, requiring a response in terms of requisite knowledge deployment, such as a response based on codiied (design or installaion blueprints) and/or tacit (prior personal experiences execuing a similar job) informaion. Moreover, a combinaion is equally possible. Personal roles may be harnessed or leveraged by the roles of the organizing arenas. That is, people can fulil boundary spanner or connector roles within networks, but organizing arenas can take up these roles too. For example, a meeing sequence can have a connector role within dispersed funcional knowledge areas or it can have a boundary-spanning role across knowledge domains. Jones (2007, chapter 4) holds that these ‘integraion mechanisms’ are already known within the organizaion design discipline. However, they tend to be related to the allocaion of tasks and responsibiliies to counteract the silo-efect of funcional specializaion and, by purpose, are far less intended for the exchange and sharing of insights, tacit knowledge, and experience. Therefore, the organizing format of communiies has a diferent agenda and a diferent purpose. This disincion is also revealed in how such organizaional arenas are commonly ideniied, not on an organizaion chart, but in an acivity/work low process map. The boundaries that these roles (fulilled by people and by organizaional formats either separately or in combinaion) span determine the diversity and richness of the tacit and explicit knowledge inputs that are invoked in them. High diversity (of knowledge inputs) across all knowledge dimensions requires the involvement of boundary spanning roles, with high diversity increasing the potenial for novel knowledge creaion that, in turn, increases the potenial for value creaion. Therefore, with the aim of connecing monetary value to a irm’s knowledge resources, idenifying a irm’s boundary spanners provides a irst step towards moneizing knowledge-value based on communicaion. Though all of the aforemenioned roles are relevant for knowledge exchanges to occur, Breunig and Roberts (2013) suggest that the role of boundary spanner is paricularly important. Boundary spanners bridge diferent knowledge communicaions in which knowledge is produced and maintained, including their related interpretaive schemata. Tushman and Scanlon (1981) indicate that boundary spanners are individuals who maintain a high level of contact with both the external environment and the internal organizaion, enabling them to difuse, ilter, and translate informaion across domains. Speciically, the translaion aspect is relevant as informaion is recast in terms that can be understood and used by others (Allen, Tushman & Lee, Special issue: Knowledge Management - Current Trends and Challenges Małgorzata Zięba (Ed.) Karl Joachim Breunig and Hanno Roberts / 83 1979). Translaion of work requires a ‘common syntax, code, or heurisic’ (Zhao & Anand, 2013: 1517), such as a value creaion conceptual toolbox and accompanying constructs of value and proit drivers. Bringing this diversity of knowledge, pracice, and learning together via boundary spanners provides a high potenial to create new knowledge. Once eniies that will fulil the boundary spanner roles within an organizaion have been ideniied, the ies that connect diferent communiies and knowledge repositories can be ideniied and made available for managerial intervenions (Obsfeld, 2005). That is, idenifying and managing the boundary spanner roles fulils the irst value creaion step originaing from connecivity. This supposiion implies that there will be a boundary role ‘discovery’ process mediated through, for example, network analysis or deliberate construcion (e.g., via a purposeful organizaional design intervenion involving the establishment of ‘arenas’) that creates a similar opportunity for conversion of knowledge into monetary value. Similarly, the various ideas that are pulled together via boundary spanner roles (and combined into novel knowledge coniguraions on that speciic boundary spanning locaion) allow opportuniies for alternaive ways of coniguring the monetary value encapsulated in each knowledge input to be ideniied (e.g., in terms of business or pricing models). Consequently, we suggest that: Proposiion 2: Boundary spanner roles provide a vehicle for moneizaion. Boundary spanner individuals The concept of boundary spanners is interdisciplinary and not novel. For example, within the communicaions discipline, they are someimes referred to as “communicaion stars” (Tushman & Scanlan, 1981). Such “stars” are able not only to connect, but also to translate informaion into a format that conforms to an organizaion’s decision-making processes. Internal communicaion stars are seen by their co-workers as being technically competent and having work-related experize. These stars communicate signiicantly more oten than non-stars with other areas in their close work environment, in the organizaion as a whole, and with areas outside the organizaion. Considering the ideas of boundary spanners and communicaion together, it can be said that boundary spanners act as bridges between networks, and do so both intra-organizaionally and inter-organizaionally. This bridging acivity refers to accessing and applying local knowledge across domains of applicaion, combining it into novel understanding and insights. Boundary spanning as an acivity is not enirely removed from the formal organizaion design; people occupying a high hierarchical posiion tend to Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovaion (JEMI), Volume 13, Issue 3, 2017: 71-94 84 / Money Talks: Communicaion Paterns as Knowledge Moneizaion have more opportuniies for establishing internal and external organizaional ies and, thus, are more likely to act as boundary spanners (Manev & Stevenson, 2001). In other words, the exising organizaional hierarchy and its corresponding responsibility design can act as a proxy for the uncovering of boundary spanning roles rather than deploying a full-ledged social network analysis. As a result, the internal responsibility accouning structure and its accompanying reporing system coninues to be relevant for idenifying moneizaion opportuniies (Gupta & Govindarajan, 1991). In paricular, the communicaion and bridging aciviies of ‘bosses’ (management work), provide low denominators for knowledge value creaion. Consequently, we suggest that: Proposiion 3: Communicaion paterns at boundary spanning, hierarchical nodes in the organizaion structure, provide the irst opportunity to iniiate knowledge moneizaion. Some qualiicaions of boundary spanners include technical skills, economic skills, legal skills, network knowledge about the partner, and experienial knowledge gained through past interacions. Boundary spanners conceived as persons rather than as organizaional formats, contain social qualiicaions, such as being autonomous, being an extravert, and displaying ambiguity-tolerant behavior in social seings. Typical communicaion abiliies include conlict management, empathy, emoional stability, selfrelecion, and cooperaiveness. This list of individual characterisics can be used to idenify boundary spanners by means of quesionnaires issued within organizaions (Riter, 1999). For example, the authors of this paper used such a quesionnaire to screen for boundary spanners as part of a communicaions instrument developed for the Internaional Associaion of Business Communicators (Roberts, Simic-Brønn & Breunig, 2003). Human resource departments may possess in their skill and social proile databases informaion that can be used as a irst-stage ilter to prescreen, idenify, and target speciic individuals with the skill set and social characterisics desirable for boundary spanners for a subsequent boundary-spanning survey quesionnaire. Boundary spanner arenas Insomuch as boundary spanner roles at a personal, individual level refer to “contacivity” in social networks, organizaional formats also can fulil this role. Typically, this role encompasses deliberate informaion low intervenions concentrated at a speciic ‘stoppage point’ within an acivity sequence or protocol, such as a handover within a larger project that is accompanied Special issue: Knowledge Management - Current Trends and Challenges Małgorzata Zięba (Ed.) Karl Joachim Breunig and Hanno Roberts / 85 by a milestone assessment (meeing, reporing, measurement) or a ‘stage gate’ moment in a new product development process. This ‘stoppage point’ creates a natural organizaional arena that aggregates, combines, and reconigures diverse knowledge inputs, commonly for subsequent use in aciviies downstream of the ‘stoppage point’. Purposeful design and the regular occurrence of the boundary spanning arena with a declared agenda of knowledge sharing are key. Hence, it is not a one-of moment related to a single project or special circumstance (as in project management), but rather a regular and systemic feature of an acivity stream across projects. Thus, boundary spanning arenas should be visible on acivity low charts and embedded in organizaional rouines of knowledge work in terms of systemic debrieing and ‘what did we learn?’ agenda points and performance measures (Gasson, 2005). Although boundary spanning arenas may not be represented on an organizaional chart, they can involve speciic tasks and responsibiliies that are allocated to individuals or funcional experize areas. Their exclusion makes sense because the boundary-spanning role would break down if it were to be locked into a speciic domain, liaison role, or task force responsibility that is bounded by an agenda of coordinaion and the numerous standard operaing rules involving reporing, key performance indicators, and budget accountabiliies. These arenas tend to be located outside of exising, formal responsibility domains and at the periphery of the organizaion’s focal aciviies, an idea which resonates with exising percepions of where organizaional learning takes place (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Consequently, we suggest that: Proposiion 4: Idenifying communicaion arenas acts as a proxy for boundary spanning, communicaion paterns for the purpose of knowledgebased value creaion, and its subsequent knowledge moneizaion. Knowledge moneizaion opportuniies The moneizaion of knowledge can be conceived of as a form of capital conversion as inspired by Bourdieu (2008). Its aim is to exemplify the reciprocal interdependence between knowledge and inancial resources without geing stuck in a ‘the chicken or the egg’ primacy argument. Both knowledge and inancials are interrelated, with one driving the other and vice versa; inancial resources are needed to create originaing stocks and receptor pools as well as to make sure that knowledge actually lows. Vice versa, knowledge acively stored and mobilized within networks and ‘spun’ by boundary spanners acts as both a cost and revenue driver for a irm’s inancial success. To paraphrase a ired management slogan, people might be the organizaion’s most important resource, but one needs to be able Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovaion (JEMI), Volume 13, Issue 3, 2017: 71-94 86 / Money Talks: Communicaion Paterns as Knowledge Moneizaion to aford to convert knowledge carried by people into knowledge made inancially producive for the organizaion. Ulimately, the argument here is for the sustainability of a irm’s compeiiveness: the conversion of noninancial (knowledge) resources into inancial resources and back again is essenial for being able to compete over ime (Allee, 2008). Thus, conversion requires addressing how one can be expressed in terms of the other, showing the interdependence of the two. Knowledge networks and the role of the boundary spanner in creaing reciprocal interdependencies necessitate a requisite conceptualizaion towards the inancial domain in terms of networks and paterns. Typically, such conceptualizaion addresses the area of cost behavior in which total costs are categorized as the sum of ixed and variable costs, allowing for the computaion of proit (costs < revenues) or determinaion of breakeven status (costs = revenues). The paterns ideniied are related to the axiomaic form of the two cost categories (including (dis)proporional, progressive, regressive, and (non)linear costs or mixes thereof) following the canons of underlying microeconomic cost funcions. As a result, paterns of cost behavior are understood as independent variables in a cost funcion, but do not generate a patern beyond the domain deined (bounded) by the variables. Networked cost funcions or paterns that transcend the iniial domain of deiniion (e.g., a producion cost funcion, a logisics cost funcion, a sales cost funcion etc.) are unfamiliar territory (Boons et al., 1992). However, we argue that we can avoid this problem area by using an ideniied communicaion patern as the template for a commensurate and requisite cost behavior patern. That is, by layering two paterns, an underlying communicaion patern and an overlaying cost patern, we can atempt to moneize the knowledge that lows through the communicaion patern. Stated diferently, it is not so much the knowledge itself that gets ‘costed’ but rather the ‘pipelines’ (paterns) through which it lows. This form of structural (behavioral) equivalence implies that the characterisics of the communicaion paterns are relected by corresponding characterisics in the structure of the cost paterns. Thus, the characterisics of networked paterns in communicaion, such as centrality, density, frequency, and bridging, ought to be relected in cost behavior paterns. At this point, an efort to establish ‘patern matching’ between the communicaion domain and the inancial domain would beneit from avoiding as yet too narrow deiniions. Rather than talking about ‘cost paterns’, it would be beneicial to use a wider and more inclusive deiniion of ‘spending paterns’. The diference is that spending simply means a inancial outlay disregarding its origin as cash, a cost, or an expense. Consequently, we suggest that: Special issue: Knowledge Management - Current Trends and Challenges Małgorzata Zięba (Ed.) Karl Joachim Breunig and Hanno Roberts / 87 Proposiion 5: Moneizaion rests on patern matching and establishing deiniional equivalence between characterisics of communicaion paterns within social networks and spending paterns. Spending paterns For the purposes of this paper, we conceive of the organizaion as a network of networks in which networked relaional clusters that can connect to one another exist. We also conceive of networks as conduits for knowledge transfer, with such transfer being moivated by and aimed at value creaion (i.e., their purpose is legiimized upfront in the creaion of their ies) (Zhao & Anand, 2013, p. 1518). Similarly, the organizaion as a ‘network of networks’ can connect to its external environment, which also consists of network clusters. The boundary spanner role here is to develop connecivity between network clusters with the relaive success of its connecivity expressed in terms of membership: a well-connected organizaion has many memberships across muliple consituencies and stakeholder groups (networks). The later can be understood as a metric of the relaive success of organizaional-level knowledge sharing and its ‘situated learning’. Conversely, an organizaion (network of networks) that is not well connected will have barriers to knowledge sharing and transfer due to its distance from relevant networks and an absence of interfaces (connecions). Boundary spanners (individuals or arenas) can be deployed to overcome this relaive isolaion and bridge the distance. In social network theory, this issue is addressed in terms of ‘structural holes’: collaboraion produced by the bridging of networks with disinct, non-overlapping knowledge repositories (Burt, 2002; Ahuja, 2000). ‘Structural holes’ are not necessarily desirable. An organizaion may choose to isolate themselves, wholly or in part, for strategic reasons, such as for protecion of proprietary knowledge or unique competencies. Spending paterns can take one of two orientaions: inlows (revenues) or ouflows (costs). Revenue paterns are commonly referred to as ‘revenue streams’ with the paterns of relatedness let to the ideniicaion of ‘revenue drivers’, which can be causally interdependent in their occurrence over ime (e.g., Thrane, 2002; Douglas & Douglas, 2004). In this respect, much is made of the use of “big data” to reveal paterns among revenue drivers. Typically, the point of departure is (customer) buying behaviors available in customer relaionship management systems. Similarly, typical accouning tools, such as ‘customer proitability analysis’ and ‘customer lifeime value’, are grounded in prior knowledge of these revenue paterns. Cost behavior paterns and their ideniicaion and visualizaion have a long history given their background in microeconomics (Boons et al., Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovaion (JEMI), Volume 13, Issue 3, 2017: 71-94 88 / Money Talks: Communicaion Paterns as Knowledge Moneizaion 1992). This history also consitutes a barrier for change due to entrenchment in convenional wisdom and canonical knowledge. Spending paterns are intuiively understood in terms of their textbook meaning. However, we suggest, speciically, that a recent development in the so-called ‘driver hierarchies’ is relevant. The term cost driver was coined as part of the acivitybased cosing approach to cost allocaion, represening a link between operaional domain aciviies and inancial resource consumpion in the monetary domain (Foster & Gupta, 1990; Cooper et al., 1992). Drivers are operaional factors that cause inancials. The issue then becomes idenifying relevant cost drivers and assessing the causal relaionship between aciviies performed and inancial resources consumed, that is, what leads to what, and how far the causal chain of interdependence should be followed. Within network research, the issue of costs is used primarily as a decisionmaking criterion for the efeciveness of connecivity, thus ignoring the idea of paterns (Zhao & Anand, 2013). For example, when assessing the efeciveness of knowledge transfer by boundary spanners, Zhao and Anand argue that a ‘collecive bridge’ of boundary spanners is more efecive than a single boundary spanner. Their criterion for efeciveness is the costs for development and maintenance of network ies (i.e., connecivity), which are considered to consist of training, travel, and IT support. Typically, these costs can be viewed as interrelated; communicaion requires knowing who to connect to (IT support), to meet physically or in virtual space (IT support, travel), and to establish a common base condiion for understanding (training). Zhao and Anand’s deiniion of knowledge complexity as ‘the extent of interdependencies and interacions among diferent subareas of the totality of the knowledge’ (based on Simonin, 1999) hints at a suggesion of cost paterns as much as costs as stand-alone categories. ‘Collecive knowledge’, which combines individual knowledge on speciic subject areas with the knowledge of how to coordinate, share, distribute, and interpret the subject area knowledge, provides yet a further basis for considering paterns rather than individual cost categories or cost as a mere decision-making criterion. As a result, a consequence of focusing on cost paterns is that it enables knowledge to be considered as complex (as deined by interdependencies among the encompassed knowledge areas), implying that knowledge value should be considered as a combinatorial patern rather than a pointitem object or outcome (Tasselli, 2015). In other words, communicaion is as muliplex as its network conduit, as is its substance of exchange and its representaion as a patern. This concept preempts the quesion of whether knowledge value creaion can be circumstanial or randomly incidental; collecive knowledge deined as interdependencies already includes an assumpion of contextual value-in-use. Special issue: Knowledge Management - Current Trends and Challenges Małgorzata Zięba (Ed.) Karl Joachim Breunig and Hanno Roberts / 89 Moneizaion can be reduced into an efort to idenify drivers within spending paterns, with the spending paterns in turn being driven by the characterisics of the communicaion networks in which they operate. For example, if the network is of high centrality (revolves around one or a few individuals or arenas), high density (all communicaing paricipants are closely related in ime and space), and high frequency (communicaion occurs oten), then there are three spending drivers. Moreover, if the communicaion ies between the paricipants are strong, a fourth spending driver is ideniied. The spending patern that is the result of these four drivers is a muliplicit bundle of four inancial origins that make up the structure of the communicaion acivity: the central actors that iniiate, the paricipants that are structurally near, the communicaion that is frequent, and the historical tenure of the communicaion. Each communicaion driver has its own associated variable, commited, and infrastructural spending levels that combine into an overall spending patern that is a corollary of exising network characterisics. Furthermore, in terms of spending paterns, moneizaion would follow a network dynamic in that it has no hierarchy (top or botom), but rather a center and a periphery. Dynamics are thus deined in terms of centrifugal or centripetal forces (outward or inward). Spending paterns have a corresponding dynamic in that the paterns muliply (grow) outward or contract (shrink) inwardly. Obviously, a longitudinal perspecive is needed to observe this dynamic with the spending paterns signaling knowledge sharing and value creaion aciviies’ increasing or diminishing returns to scale. Consequently, we suggest the following: Proposiion 6: Spending paterns are proxies for knowledge sharing and knowledge-based value creaion with communicaion network characterisics acing as drivers and providing its longitudinal dynamics. ConCluSIon In this conceptual paper, we have addressed the research quesion: “How can we express knowledge in such a way that it can be moneized and made accessible to speciic managerial intervenions?” and disilled six proposiions for future research on how accouning can be brought to bear onto the governable and calculable aspects of knowledge management. The contribuion of this paper is its addressing knowledge value creaion at the level of communicaion lows within social networks. Networks represent a meso-level between individual actors and the organizaion, where the ideniicaion, visualizaion, and management of knowledge value creaion can be operaionalized. Communicaion lows use the organizaional Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovaion (JEMI), Volume 13, Issue 3, 2017: 71-94 90 / Money Talks: Communicaion Paterns as Knowledge Moneizaion format of communiies of pracice, so-called “communicaies”, emphasizing boundary spanners and other connecivity roles held within a communicaion network (Hildreth & Kimble, 2004). The moneizaion of knowledge value revolves around idenifying communicaion roles, each of which acts as a point of origin of expense paterns that relect the knowledge value-creaion process. Boundary-spanner expenses are expressed in inancial terms, with expenditure paterns acing as mulipliers (not aggregaions) driven by the communicaion paterns iniiated by a boundary spanner (role) within the network. The fact that communicaion is a commonly exising funcion within organizaions—supported by both technology and speciic human experize, each with an accompanying set of databases— makes it a useful staring point for operaionalizing knowledge value creaion. In this paper, we propose that the boundary-spanning role brings together diverse knowledge and provides a focal point for moneizaion eforts. Extant literature on organizaional communicaion emphasizes the boundary-spanner role in the search for and combinaion of tacit knowledge and user experience (Tushman & Scanlon, 1981; Cross & Cummings, 2004; Levian & Vaast, 2005). We address how the boundary-spanner role is fundamental for this combinatory efort to occur. In addiion, we address how these combinatory eforts within boundary-spanning roles can be extended to communicaion-enhancing regimes at the organizaional level. Moreover, we show how moneizaion itself relects a networked characterisic as a combinatory perspecive (rather than convenional pointitem aggregaion) of lows. Therefore, we suggest that the argument starts from the resource consumpion perspecive (i.e., cosing) rather than from the commonly used valuaion or pricing perspecive. The visualizaion of knowledge communicaion aciviies is important because it shows how the knowledge resources of a irm actually low. The moneizaion aspect here falls back on the ideniicaion of the various communicaion roles, among which the boundary spanner role acts as a focal point for moneizaion. Consequently, we do not claim to provide an instrumental algorithm that converts knowledge into money. Rather, we intend to direct atenion toward where to focus the conversion efort (boundary spanners), and how to build an argument of primarily what to convert (communicaion) as well as indicaing which form such a conversion might take (muliplying paterns). In doing so, this work aims to bring the research and praciioner communiies within the knowledge management ield closer together (Metaxiois, Ergazakis & Psarras, 2005). The pracical beneits of visualizing knowledge value creaion by means of communicaion networks are twofold. First, the insight gained can be used to improve accountability. Visualizing the exchange of knowledge Special issue: Knowledge Management - Current Trends and Challenges Małgorzata Zięba (Ed.) Karl Joachim Breunig and Hanno Roberts / 91 within communicaion networks shows what one actually does, not what one says they do or what instrucions/contracts/task descripions say one’s role is nominally. This transparency allows for an immediate allocaion of accountability with a subsequent ‘reality capture’ in terms of localized metrics and relevant costs. The pracical beneit, thus, is not in suggesing that spending on communicaion networks is equivalent to the creaion of value. Rather, that value originates from looking at communicaion network roles and spending paterns in relaionship to each other, with the implicaion that close matches are preferable. This statement is open to empirical validaion by future research. Second, communicaing the knowledge lows within an organizaion to its external consituencies has an external and immediate usefulness. It is a form of “turning the irm inside out” towards, for example, customers and suppliers (notably in industrial and B2B markets), showing how experize and knowledge resources are internally connected and made producive, including how management coordinates, enhances, and directs knowledge resource lows. references Adler, P., Kwon, S. W., & Heckscher, C. (2008). Professional work: The emergence of professional community. Organizaion Science, 19(2), 359376. Ahuja, G. (2000). Collaboraion networks, structural holes and innovaion: A longitudinal study. Administraive Science Quarterly, 45(2), 425-455. Allee, V. (2008). Value network analysis and value conversion of tangible and intangible assets. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 9(1), 5-24. Allen, T. J., Tushman, M. L., & Lee, D. M. (1979). Technology transfer as a funcion of posiion in the spectrum from research through development to technical services. Academy of Management Journal, 22(4), 694-708. Bonis, N. (1999). Managing organizaional knowledge by diagnosing intellectual capital: Framing and advancing the state of the ield. Internaional Journal of Technology Management, 18(5/6/7/8), 433-462. Bourdieu, P. (2008). The forms of capital. In N. Woolsey Biggart (Ed.), Readings in Economic Sociology (pp. 280-291). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Inc. Breunig, K. J., & Roberts, H. (2013). Caught of balance: Managing knowledge value creaion through boundary spanning roles. Internaional Journal of Learning and Intellectual Capital, 10(3/4), 258–275. Brown, J., Broderick, A. J., & Lee, N. (2007). Word of mouth communicaion within online communiies: Conceptualizing the online social network. Journal of Interacive Markeing, 21(3), 2-20. Brown, J. S., & Duguid, J. (2000). Balancing Act: How to capture knowledge without killing it. Harvard Business Review, 78(5), 73-80. Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovaion (JEMI), Volume 13, Issue 3, 2017: 71-94 92 / Money Talks: Communicaion Paterns as Knowledge Moneizaion Christensen, C. M., Wang, D., & van Bever, D. (2013). Consuling on the cusp of disrupion. Harvard Business Review (October), 3-10. Cross, R., & Prusak, L. (2002). The people who make organizaions go - or stop. Harvard Business Review, 80(6), 105-112. Cuozzo, B., Dumay, J., Palmaccio, M., & Lombardi, R. (2017). Intellectual capital disclosure: a structured literature review. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 18(1), 9-28. Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working Knowledge: How Organizaions Manage What They Know. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Diillo, A. (2004). Dealing with uncertainty in knowledge-intensive irms: The role of management control systems as knowledge integraion mechanisms. Accouning, Organisaions and Society, 29(3/4), 401-421. Diillo, A. (2012). Designing management control systems to foster knowledge transfer in knowledge-intensive irms: A network-based approach. European Accouning Review, 21(3), 425-450. Dwivedi, Y. K., Venkitachalam, K., Sharif, A. M., Al-Karaghouli, W., & Weerakkody, V. (2011). Research trends in knowledge management: Analyzing the past and predicing the future. Informaion Systems Management, 28(1), 43-56. Gasson, S. (2005). The dynamics of sensemaking, knowledge, and experize in collaboraive, boundary-spanning design. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communicaion, 10(4), 00-00. Gillani, N., Yasseri, T., Eynon, R., & Hjorth, I. (2014). Structural limitaions of learning in a crowd: Communicaion vulnerability and informaion difusion in MOOCs. 4, 6447. Hatcher, T., Aalsburg Wiessner, C., Storberg-Walker, J., & Chapman, D. (2006). How a research conference created new learning: A case study. Journal of European Industrial Training, 30(4), 256-271. Helfat, C. E., Finkelstein, S., Mitchell, W., Peteraf, M. A., Singh, H., Teece, D., & Winter, S. G. (Eds.). (2007). Dynamic Capabiliies: Understanding Strategic Change in Organizaions. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Inkpen, A. C. (1996). Creaing knowledge through collaboraion. California Management Review, 39(1), 123-140. Inkpen, A. C., & Tsang, E. W. K. (2005). Social capital, networks, and knowledge transfer. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 146-165. Inkpen, A. C., & Tsang, E. W. K. (2016). Relecions on the 2015-decade award. Social capital, networks, and knowledge transfer: An emergent stream of research. Academy of Management Review, 41(4), 573-588. Jones, G. R. (2007). Organizaional Theory, Design, and Change (5th ed). New Jersey Pearson Educaion, Inc. Kazi, A. S., Wohlfart, L., & Wolf, P. (Eds.). (2007). Hands-on Knowledge Co-creaion and Sharing: Pracical Methods & Techniques. London: Knowledge Board. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legiimate peripheral paricipaion. Cambridge, UK: University of Cambridge Press. Special issue: Knowledge Management - Current Trends and Challenges Małgorzata Zięba (Ed.) Karl Joachim Breunig and Hanno Roberts / 93 Lee, M. R., & Chen, T. T. (2012). Revealing research themes and trends in knowledge management: From 1995 to 2010. Knowledge-Based Systems, 28, 47-58. Mariano, S., & Awazu, Y. (2016). Arifacts in knowledge management research: A systemaic literature review and future research direcions. Journal of Knowledge Management, 20(6), 1333-1352. Metaxiois, K., Ergazakis, K., & Psarras, J. (2005). Exploring the world of knowledge management: Agreements and disagreements in the academic/praciioner community. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(2), 6-18. Miller, P., & O’Leary, T. (1987). Accouning and the construcion of the governable person. Accouning, Organisaions and Society, 12(3), 235265. Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital and the organizaional advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242-266. Nelson, R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An Evoluionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge, MA: Belknap. Obsfeld, D. (2005). Social networks, the terius lungens orientaion, and involvement in innovaion. Administraive Science Quarterly, 50(2), 130-150. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster. Riter, T. (1999). The networking company: Antecedents for coping with relaionships and networks efecively. Industrial Markeing Management,, 28(5), 467-479. Roberts, H., Simic-Brønn, P., & Breunig, K. J. (2003). Intangible Assets and Communicaion. San Fransisco: IABC Research Foundaion. Scot, J. (2000). Social Network Analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publicaions. Stevenson, W. (1990). Formal structure and networks of interacion within organizaions. Social Science Research, 19(2), 113-131. Tasselli, S. (2015). Social networks and inter-professional knowledge transfer: The case of healthcare professionals. Organizaion Studies, 36(7), 841-872. Tucker, M. L., Meyer, G. D., & Westerman, J. W. (1996). Organizaional communicaion: Development of internal strategic compeiive advantage. The Journal of Business Communicaion, 33(1), 51-69. Tushman, M. L., & Scanlan, T. J. (1981). Characterisics and external orientaions of boundary spanning individuals. Academy of Management Journal, 24(1), 83-98. Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applicaions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wenger, E. C., & Snyder, W. M. (2000). Communiies of pracice: The organizaional fronier. Harvard Business Review, 78(1), 139-145. Zhao, Z. J., & Anand, J. (2013). Beyond boundary spanners: The ‘collecive bridge’ as an eicient interunit structure for transferring collecive knowledge. Strategic Management Journal, 34(13), 1513-1530. Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovaion (JEMI), Volume 13, Issue 3, 2017: 71-94 94 / Money Talks: Communicaion Paterns as Knowledge Moneizaion Abstract (in Polish) W niniejszym, koncepcyjnym, artykule sugerujemy, że przepływ wiedzy jest prekursorem tworzenia wartości poprzez swój komponent komunikacyjny. Wiedza staje się coraz bardziej akceptowana jako źródło tworzenia wartości i różnicowania między irmami. Jednak w znacznym stopniu obecne podejścia do zarządzania i zarządzania zasobami wiedzy wskazują na pomiary zasobów wiedzy. Dlatego postulujemy, że aby zrozumieć dzielenie się wiedzą, trzeba zaczerpnąć z teorii komunikacji w celu wypromowania słownictwa używanego we wzorcach komunikacji. Opierając się na wiedzy jako przepływie, a postulując że wartość opiera się na wykorzystaniu wiedzy, a nie na posiadaniu wiedzy, niniejszy artykuł opowiada na pytanie badawcze: „Jak możemy wyrazić wiedzę w taki sposób, aby mogła być zmonetyzowana i dostępna do konkretnych celów kierowniczych? Wyjaśniamy, w jaki sposób komunikacja ma zasadnicze znaczenie w zdobywaniu wiedzy i pozwala na połączenie z wartością pieniężną. Dalsza literatura na temat znaczenia komunikacji w organizacji podkreśla rolę, jaką odgrywają pracownicy przekraczający granice organizacji w poszukiwaniu i połączeniu doświadczeń z wiedzą milczącą. Poszczególne węzły w sieciach organizacyjnych mogą posiadać wiedzę. Jednakże, aby być cennym, zasoby wiedzy muszą być rozmieszczone i wykorzystane. Wykorzystanie wiedzy obejmie przekazanie tej wiedzy poprzez powiązania z innymi węzłami. W artykule proponuje się, aby role rozciągające granice stały się centralnym punktem dla takich działań w zakresie monetyzacji. Słowa kluczowe: pracownicy przekraczający granice organizacji; monetyzacja; komunikacja; przepływ wiedzy; dzielenie się wiedzą. Biographical notes Karl Joachim Breunig is a full Professor of Strategic Management at Oslo Business School, Oslo and Akershus University College. He received his PhD from BI Norwegian Business School, and holds an MSc from the London School of Economics. Prof. Breunig’s research focuses on knowledge based value creaion, in paricular related to innovaion, management control, and internaionalizaion of knowledge work. Contact: karl.joachim.breunig@ hioa.no. hanno roberts is a full Professor in Management Accouning & Control at BI Norwegian Business School. His research interests are in intellectual capital, local informaion systems, and management accouning and control of the knowledge intensive irm. Prof. Roberts serves on the editorial board of several journals and teaches execuive and MBA courses internaionally. Contact: hanno.roberts@bi.no. Special issue: Knowledge Management - Current Trends and Challenges Małgorzata Zięba (Ed.)