Introduction

The nature of educational supervision is changing as modern societies evolve into the Information Age. This evolution presents schools, school systems, and their communities with significant challenges for educating children. One of these challenges is that the new knowledge-based economy (i.e., the Information Age economy) has put pressure on the school systems to achieve children academic potential. Another challenge is making them accountable for creating and enforcing high performance standards for teachers and students.

To meet the above challenges, and others not listed, schools must be transformed to become learning organizations that provide children with a high quality education, that offer teachers a satisfying and motivating work life, and that have positive and beneficial relationships with their communities (Duffy, 2007). To achieve these aims teachers and administrators should be proactive and innovative when envisioning how they transform the school systems. They must also be prepared to cope with the great changes encountered in almost all fields in the 21^st century (Perkins & Shaw, 1992; Agaoglu, 2006). A new supervision paradigm that the researchers believe can achieve the above transformation goal is Knowledge Work Supervision (KWS) (Duffy, 1995, 1997; Duffy, Rogerson, & Blick, 2000). By adapting that paradigm to fit the Omani education context, the KWS will lead to the desired transformation of the system and individual schools.

Research Problem

The main thesis of this paper is that the education system in the Sultanate of Oman requires a new paradigm for supervising teachers, a paradigm that is better aligned with the reforms currently underway in Oman as well as with the requirements of the 21^st Century Information Age.

Traditional supervision focuses on the observation of the classroom behavior of individual teachers. Knowledge Work Supervision shifts the focus of supervision off of individual teachers on to improving schooling (i.e., to improving the teaching and learning processes). Within the context of Knowledge Work Supervision teaching and learning are improved by engaging educators in structured activities that create and disseminate professional knowledge throughout an entire school system and its individual schools.

In the Sultanate of Oman, in practice, the dominant approach to supervision continues. The main goal is to help teachers improve teaching and grow professionally by focusing on the classroom behavior of individual teachers with the hope that if only enough teachers improve, the entire school or school system will improve (Duffy, 1996, p. 26). This approach, however, cannot and never will transform an entire school system into a learning organization.

The transformation can be achieved by adopting and adapting a model of supervision specifically created for schools and school systems that are learning organizations and that view teachers as knowledge workers. The Knowledge Work Supervision (KWS) model is “…an evolutionary step for the field of instructional supervision” (Duffy, 1996, p. 240) that is intended to help teachers, principals, educational supervisors to transform an entire school system into learning organizations.

This paper will describe the KWS model and outline how that model can enhance the Omani school system by transforming them into learning organizations. To explore the main thesis of the paper, the following questions will be posed and answered:

To answer the above questions, the researchers used a qualitative research design. Qualitative data derived from official documents and literature reviews were collected and analyzed.

The Main Features of Educational Supervision in Oman

With respect to The Sultanate of Oman, the Ministry of Education (MoE), stipulated the establishment of educational supervision offices in each region. These offices are in charge of reinforcing the technical as well as administrative supervision. The supervision system is organized administratively as follows:

Educational supervision in Oman has undergone many changes in recent years, culminating in the creation of a new Educational Supervision Department (ESD) in 2003. The ESD has responsibility for implementing the teaching-learning process in all schools. The rationale behind the ESD initiative lays in the fact that each school is increasingly seen as a single entity which should be allowed to be autonomous and responsible both for delivering the curriculum effectively and also for ensuring successful learning by its students. At the national level, the responsibility of supervising these reforms initiatives is within the function of the inspectorial system based at the school level. The ESD initiative represents a new move away from the generally centralized nature of the supervision system to one where the senior teacher in each school can make decisions.

Following a review of a consultancy report (MoE, 2000) on developing a system for reviewing the work of schools, the MoE introduced the School Performance Evaluation Project (SPEP). The aim of this project is to establish national criteria for school performance and to introduce a comprehensive system of school self-evaluation, which is complemented by occasional, but thorough, external evaluations. In general, the MoE uses a combination of evaluation, external inspection and school self-evaluation.

A major concern of most supervisors at the MoE level in connection with the supervisors’ performance at the school level is that the school-based supervisors lack theoretical and practical knowledge and skills for supervising. They also lack the knowledge and skills for using inspectorial strategies such as professional development, quality assurance, teacher professionalism, research that would enhance performance of schools as learning organizations. Given the recent reforms initiated in Oman to improve the education system and given the shortfalls of the current inspectorial approach to supervising teachers, the researchers recommend the adoption and adaptation of the KWS paradigm that offers a solution to overcome the negative supervisory practices.

Knowledge Created Within an Organization

Teachers are knowledge workers. A term was first coined by Drucker (1991), knowledge work is “white collar” work with knowledge as the foundation of job performance. The tools of knowledge work are metaphors, analogies, concepts, principles, and information. These tools are inside the heads of educators.

There are two kinds of work processes in knowledge organizations: linear and non-linear. Linear work in a school system is the instructional program that children participate in from the time they enter school to the time they leave schools. The instructional program is composed of a linear sequence of learning activities organized as curricula, courses, and grade-levels. Knowledge work is non-linear, and teaching is knowledge work and therefore, is non-linear. Ward (1994) asserts that knowledge takes two forms: rules-based and context-based knowledge. Most knowledge, according to Ward, is context-based. Because effective teaching varies with the context of a particular classroom, teachers are knowledge workers using context-based knowledge.

Polanyi (1967) identified two kinds of knowledge, namely tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge. Tacit knowledge belongs to individuals, it is not verbal, nor intuitive, and it is not crystallized in a written way. Rather, tacit knowledge is developed from direct experience and action and usually shared through highly interactive conversation (Nonaka, et al., 2000; Lam, 2000; & Zack, 1999). The forms of tacit knowledge include negotiating contracts, reconciling personal differences, and evaluating staff (Wong & Radcliffe, 2000).

By contrast, explicit knowledge, according to Polanyi (1967), is formally articulated and it is more precise. It can be transmitted or communicated because it can be expressed in a formal way using a set of symbols (Choo, 2000). Most explicit knowledge exists in school systems and schools in the form of documents that contain the work experience of the school staff; e.g., portfolios, text books, databases, reports, and observation forms.

The KWS paradigm is built on the theory and practice of knowledge creation and its tools and processes are designed to transform tacit professional knowledge into explicit professional knowledge that can be shared. Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) conceptualized a knowledge creation model they called the SCEI model (see Figure 1 below). Their model has four stages: Socialization, Externalization, Combination and Internalization (SECI).

Figure (1): The SCEI Model of Knowledge Creation

The Learning Organization and Knowledge Creation in the School Context

Garvin (1993) describes a learning organization as “an organization skilled at creating, acquiring, and transferring knowledge, and at modifying its behavior to reflect new knowledge and insights.” The hallmarks of a learning organization, according to Senge (1990a), are (1) systematic problem solving, (2) experimenting with new approaches, (3) learning from experience, (4) learning from the experiences of others, and (5) transferring knowledge quickly and efficiently throughout the organization. The researchers believe that a school system and its individual schools can create the above characteristics of a learning organization by using Knowledge Work Supervision.

In recent years, since the emergence of Peter Senge’s work (1990b),a number of educators have advocated that schools should transform to become learning organizations (e.g., Fullan, 2003; Leithwood & Louis, 1998; Reeves & Boreham, 2006). Historically, Argyris and SchÖn (1978) building on the work of Ashby (1952), developed the idea of a learning organization in the context of management theory. Then, Peter Senge (1990b) made the learning organization concept popular. Definitions of the term have proliferated in the literature (e.g., Kontoghiorghes, et al., 2005; Loermans, 2002; Calvert, Mobley, & Marshall, 1994; Sankar, 2003, Coppieters, 2005).

Senge (1990b) defined a learning organization as “one where collective aspiration is set free, and where people are continually learning how to learn together” (p. 3). Pedler et al. (1991) defined it as “one that facilitates the learning of all its members and continuously transforms itself” (p. 5). Field and Ford (1995) stated that a learning organization is “An organization with a well developed capacity for double-loop learning” (p. 15). Generally, the literature characterizes a learning organization as one that learns, reflects, adapts to change, shares experiences, creates knowledge and continuously improves (Sarkar Arani, et al, 2007; Silins & Mulford, 2002; Senge et al., 2000, Senge, 1990b).

A review of the literature yielded five main characteristics and management practices considered to be the key conditions for creating a learning organization. These are: clarity of mission and vision, leadership commitment and empowerment, experimentation and rewards, effective transfer of knowledge, and teamwork and group problem solving (Goh, 2003, p. 218).

It includes designing activities to capture knowledge, to create knowledge, and to empower staff to internalize and transfer knowledge. This level of insight and understanding becomes the school system’s path to change and success (Mitchell & Sackney, 2000).

However, given what we know about creating learning organizations, it is clear that educational supervision that follows the traditional inspectorial model of supervising teachers cannot and will not transform school systems into learning organizations.

The Knowledge Work Supervision Paradigm

Knowledge Work Supervision is an approach that shifts the focus of supervision off individual teachers and places it on helping school systems and the schools within, to transform into learning organizations. Duffy (1997, 2006, 2007) argues that transformational change must create and sustain simultaneous changes along three change paths:

The creation and use of professional knowledge is at the centre of the KWS paradigm. KWS is also based on the premise that school systems and the individual schools within, are knowledge organizations and that teaching is knowledge work. Although teachers use computers, follow predesigned curricula, and use intricately designed lesson plans, their primary tool is the knowledge inside their heads.

Finally, the KWS paradigm is derived from socio-technical systems design theory (e.g., Pasmore, 1988; Pava, 1983. The KWS structure and processes are also informed by complexity and chaos theory (e.g., Reigeluth, 2010), knowledge management theory (e.g., Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995), organization theory and design (e.g., Daft, 2006), and principles of organization development (e.g., Cummings & Worley, 2001).

Duffy constructed and developed his paradigm by reviewing the practices of several interrelated areas: socio-technical system design, knowledge work, knowledge creation, quality improvement, learning organizations, business process reengineering, and organization development. The paradigm is designed to help educators to transform their school systems by making simultaneous improvements along the three change-paths.

To engage the system in transformation activities, the system is organized into clusters of schools. Duffy recommends that the KWS process begin with a small number of carefully selected academic clusters to ensure that the first round of KWS is successful.

The KWS paradigm is powered by three key players (Duffy, 1997, p. 27):

The KWS paradigm has four phases (shown in Figure 2), each of which has multiple steps (identified in Figure 3).

Figure (2): The Structure of the KWS Model

Figure (3): Steps in the Four KWS Phases

The Knowledge Work Supervision Paradigm in the Context of Omani Schools

The researchers believe and are advocating that by adopting and adapting the KWS paradigm, it will lead to a significant increase in student achievement, in teaching effectiveness within the Omani schools. In addition the creation of strong professional learning communities (e.g., as described by Hord, 1997 and Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999).

To adopt the KWS paradigm will require significant knowledge and skill-development for teachers and administrators through carefully designed training activities. Furthermore, teachers and administrators must become aware of their responsibility towards creating and sharing knowledge within their schools and that their individual learning, as well as their school’s organizational learning, is a lifelong journey. Therefore, the researchers are recommending that Duffy’s KWS paradigm be adapted by adding an introductory phase that will become a new Phase 1 in that model. See Figure 4.

Figure (4): The KWS Paradigm Adapted to Fit the Omani School Context

The model suggested will achieve the following objectives:

The Structure of the Modified KWS Process

The researchers are proposing modifications to the original KWS process so that it fits within the Omani education context. The modified KWS model has five phases.

Phase 1: Training

Phase 1 of the modified KWS model will concentrate on training of school teachers, senior teachers, and administrators to develop the capacity to use the KWS model effectively. Capacity-building will focus on developing new knowledge and skills for transforming the Omani school system and its schools. Highly effective training programs are needed to prepare members of the school community and coach them on the application of the model’s principles and procedures. The training program objectives are to familiarize teachers and administrators with the theoretical and practical application of the KWS. Training content should cover techniques of systems thinking, systemic change, knowledge creation, knowledge management, schools as learning organizations, strategic management, empowerment, strategic leadership, schools as social organizations, teaching/learning strategies that provide Omani children with a superior education, coaching techniques, performance assessment tools, models of supervision, and emotional intelligence. Duffy (2009) created a framework of professional standards for change leadership. These standards also can be used to design the training workshops for Omani educators.

An orientation course introducing Omani educators to the KWS philosophy and to the nature of schools as learning organizations would be vital before launching the new Phase 1. The training activities should be integrated with each school’s professional development plan.

Phase 2: Prepare

The preparation phase is based on forming what Duffy refers to as Organization Learning Network” within each school. Organization Learning Networks (OLNs) are created using principles of Professional Learning Communities (e.g., see DuFour, Eaker & DuFour, 2008). The OLNs are designed to provide educators with the space to engage in dialogue, individual learning, and team learning.

Creating OLNs is crucial for the success of KWS and for transforming schools into learning organizations, for, as Senge observed, learning networks are “…the key to learning in organizations” (1990b: 236). Within the context of Omani schools, the researchers envision Organization Learning Networks created for existing subject-matter teams and for administrative personnel. This phase should be implemented through the following steps:

Phase 3: Redesign for High-Performance

The Omani school system is a nationwide system. Within that system, there are multiple regions and within each region, there are several individual schools. The researchers believe that these schools can be clustered whereby each academic cluster, and each school within the cluster, would become a learning organization. As more and more clusters are transformed into learning organizations, the entire Omani education system would eventually be transformed. It may be possible to organize the Omani school systems into academic clusters that contain the three levels of schooling that is, basic education grades1-10, post basic education 11-12 grades). Phase 3 includes the following steps:

Phase 4: Achieve Permanence and Diffusion:

During Phase 4 of the modified KWS model, the RMTs in the various academic clusters that were created earlier in the process will set up activities where the Nonaka and Takeuchi SECI model of knowledge creation (describe earlier) will be implemented to create and disseminate professional knowledge throughout the clusters and the Omani national education system.

Within each academic cluster, educators will create OLNs within which educators will surface their tacit knowledge, make that tacit knowledge explicit, and then design strategies for sharing the best of that explicit knowledge throughout the academic clusters. Examples of the explicit knowledge that could be created include knowledge about curriculum, teaching and learning strategies, students’ performance, formative evaluation, and parental involvement in the education of their children. The explicit knowledge will gradually be embedded into the policies, procedures, and managerial structures of each school and cluster; thereby converting the new explicit knowledge into system-wide tacit knowledge. The specific KWS activities that support Phase 4 are:

Phase 5: Continuous Improvement of Schooling

Nonaka and Toyama (2000) stressed that any changes have to be actualized through action, practice, and reflection so that it really becomes knowledge of one’s own. This phase requires on-going professional development activities to help educators acquire the knowledge and skills they need to perform effectively within their redesigned schools. Some of this on-going training could be designed by using clinical supervision (e.g., Cogan, 1973), competency modeling (e.g., American Society for Training and Development, 2009), and performance technology (e.g., Van Tiem, Moseley, & Dessinger, 2004).

Phase 5 includes the following activities:

Phase 5 would continue until the entire Omani national education system is transformed. During Phase 5, the KWS transformation process should also go beyond the boundaries of the academic clusters and their individual schools to help the clusters and the schools to improve their relationships with their external environments (Path 3 of the KWS transformation process), such as the Ministry of Education.

Conclusion

The central focus of KWS model is to transform Omani schools into learning organizations. This transformation is achieved by introducing a supervisory process that shifts the focus of supervision off of the behavior of individual teachers on to the performance of the entire Omani education system.

KWS was designed to create and sustain transformational change in school systems. The KWS paradigm views schools as learning organizations and teachers as knowledge workers. KWS has processes and tools that generate and develop professional knowledge that can be used to provide Omani children with a superior education and that can facilitate the professional development of teachers, supervisors, and administrators.

KWS focuses on transforming a school’s core and support work processes (its technical system—Path 1 in the KWS process) and on transforming its internal social infrastructure (its social system—Path 2 in the KWS process) in ways that help a school to become a learning organization. The integration between a school’s technical system and its social system is absolutely necessary for creating a high-performing learning organization. The KWS process also requires schools to improve the relationships they have with other systems outside of the schools (Path 3 in the KWS process).

References

Agaoglu, E. (2006). The reflection of the learning organization concept to school of education. Turkish online Journal of DistanceEducation- TOJDE. ,7(1), 132-145. Retrieved from http//tojde.anadolu.edu.tr/tojde21/pdf/article_12.pdf.

American Society for Training and Development (2009). The ASTD WLP competency model. Retrieved from http://www.astd.org/content/research/competency/ AreasofExpertise.htm.

Appelbaum, S. H., & Goransson, L. (1997). Transformation and adaptive learning within the learning organization: A frame work for research and application. Learning Organization, 4(3), 115-128. doi: 10.1108/09696479710182803

Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Ashby, W. R. (1952). Design for a brain: The origin of adaptive behavior. London: Chapman and Hall.

Beckhard, R., & Pritchard, W. (1992). Changing the essence: The art of creating and leading fundamental change in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Calvert, G., Mobley, S., & Marshall, L. (1994). Grasping the learning organization. Training and Development, 48(6), 38-43.

Choo, C. W. (2000). Working with knowledge: How information professionals help organizations manage what they know. Library Management, 21(8), 395-403. doi: 10.1108/01435120010342770

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher learning communities. Review of Research in Education, 24, 249-305. doi: 10.3102/0091732X024001249

Cogan, M. L. (1973). Clinical supervision. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin

Coppieters, P. (2005). Turning schools into learning Organizations. European Journal of Teacher Education 28, (2), 129–139. doi: 10.1080/02619760500093131

Cummings, T. G., & Worley, C. G. (2001). Organization development and change (7th ed.). Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College Publishers.

Daft, R. L. (2006). Organizational theory and design (9^th ed.). Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College Publishers.

Drucker, P.F. (1991). The new productivity challenge. Harvard Business Review, 69(6), 69-79.

Duffy, F. M. (1995). The name assigned to the document by the author. This field may also contain sub-titles, series names, and report numbers.Supervising knowledge work: A different kind of supervision. The entity from which ERIC acquires the content, including journal, organization, and conference names, or by means of online submission from the author.NASSP Bulletin, 79(573), 56-66.

Duffy, F. M. (1996). Designing high-performance schools: A practical guide to organization reengineering. Delray Beach, FL: St. Lucie Press.

Duffy, F. M. (1997). Supervising schooling, not teachers. Educational Leadership, 54(8), 78-83.

Duffy, F. M. (1997). Knowledge work supervision: Transforming school systems into high performing learning organizations. International Journal of Educational Management, 11(1), 26-31. doi: 10.1108/09513549710693099

Duffy, F. M. (2006). Step-up-to-excellence: A change navigation protocol for transforming school Systems. Retrieved from http://cnx.org/content/m13656/latest/

Duffy, F. M. (2007). Dream! create! sustain!: Mastering the art & science of transforming school systems. Retrieved fromhttp://www.thefmduffygroup.com/ publications/ reports/Vol12_No2_DreamCreateSustain.pdf.

Duffy, F. M. (2009). National framework of professional standards for change leadership in education. Retrieved from http://cnx.org/content/col10638/latest/.

Duffy, F. M., Rogerson, L.G. & Blick, C. (2000). Redesigning America’s schools: A systems approach to improvement. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.

DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & DuFour, R. (2008). Revisiting professional learning communities at work: New insights for improving schools. Bloomington, Indiana: Solution Tree.

Field, L., & Ford, B. (1995). Managing learning organizations. Melbourne: Longman.

Fullan, M. (1993), Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform. Bristol, PA: Falmer Press.

Garvin, D. A. (1993). Building a learning organization. Harvard Business Review, 71(4), 78-91.

Glickman, C.D., & Kanawati, D.G. (1998). Future directions for school supervision, in Firth, G.R., Pajak, E.F. (Eds). Handbook of Research on School Supervision. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

Goh, S. C. (2003). Improving organizational learning capability: Lessons from two case studies. The Learning Organization, 10(4), 216-227. doi: 10.1108/09696470310476981

Hord, S. M. (1997). Evaluating educational innovation. London and New York, NY: Croom Helm.

Kontoghiorghes, C., Awbrey, S. M., & Feurig, P. L. (2005). Examining the relationship between learning organization characteristics and change adaptation, innovation, and organizational performance. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 16(2), 185-211. Retrieved from www.learnership.co.uk/archive/39.pdf

Lam, A. (2000). Tacit knowledge, organizational learning and societal institutions: An Integrated framework. Organizational Studies, 21(3), 487-513. Retrieved from http://oss.sagepub.com

Leithwood, K., & Louis, K. S. (Eds.). (1998). Organizational learning in schools. Downmgton, PA: Swets and Zeitlinger.

Lipton, L. (1993). Transforming information into knowledge: Structured reflection in administrative practice. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/ERICoos/data/ericdocs2591/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/13/15/ab.pdf

Loermans, J. (2002). Synergizing the learning organization and knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 6(3), 285–294.

Ministry of Education (2000). The consultancy study on the reform of secondary education in Oman. S. of Oman: MoE Press.

Ministry of Education (2006). Education for all in the Sultanate of Oman 1970-2005: A contribution to the celebration on UNESCO’s 60 year anniversary. Muscat, S. of Oman. Retrieved from. http://www.moe.gov.om/portal/ SiteBuilder/Sites/EPS/English/home.aspx.

Mitchell, C., & Sackney, L. (2000). Profound improvement: Building capacity for a learning community. Downington, PA: Swets and Zeitlinger.

Nonaka, I, Toyama, R. & Konno, N.(2000). SECI, Ba and leadership: A unified model of dynamic knowledge creation. Long Range Planning , 33, 5-34.

Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge-Creating Company. New York: Oxford University Press.

Pasmore, W. A. (1988). Designing effective organizations: The socio-technical systems perspective. New York: Wiley & Sons.

Pava, C. H. P. (1983). Managing new office technology: An organizational strategy. New York: The New Press.

Pedler, M., Burgoyne, J., & Boydell, T. (1991). The Learning Company. London: McGraw-Hill.

Perkins, D. N., & Shaw, R. B. (1992). Teaching organizations to learn. Training and Development Yearbook. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc.

Polanyi, M. (1967). The Tacit dimension. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Reeves, J., & Boreham, N.(2006) What’s in a vision? Introducing an organizational learning strategy in a local authority’s education service. Oxford Review of Education, 32(4), 467–486.

Reigeluth, C. M. (2010). Chaos theory and the sciences of complexity: Foundations for transforming education in F. M. Duffy (2010). Dream! Create! Sustain!; Mastering the art & science of transforming school systems. Leading Systemic School Improvement Series. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.

Sankar, Y. (2003). Designing the learning organization as an information-processing system: Some design principles from the systems paradigm and cybernetics. International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior, 6(4), 501–521.

Sarkar Arani, M. R., Shibata, Y., & Matoba, M. (2007). Delivering Jugyou Kenkyuu for reframing schools as learning organizations: An examination of the process of Japanese school change. Nagoya Journal of Education and Human Development, 3, 25-36. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDDOCS/data/ericdocs2591/content

Senge, P. (1990a). The leader’s new work: Building learning organizations. Sloan Management Review, 32(1), 7-23.

Senge, P. M. (1990b). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York, NY: Doubleday.

Senge, P. M., Cambron-Mc Cabe, N., Lucas, T., Smith, B., Button, J., & Kleiner, A. (2000). Schools that learn: A fifth discipline fieldbook for educators, parents, and everyone who cares about education. NY: Doubleday.

Silins, H., & Mulford, B. (2002). Schools as learning organizations: The case for system, teacher and student learning. Journal of Educational Administration, 40(5), 425-446.

Van Tiem, D. M., Moseley, J. L., & Dessinger, J.C. (2004). Fundamentals of performance technology (2^nd ed.). Silver Spring, Maryland: The International Society for Performance Improvement.

Ward, A., in T. A. Stewart. (October 3, 1994). Your company’s most valuable asset: Intellectual capital. Fortune, 30(7), 68-74.

Wong, W. L. P., & Radcliffe, D. F. (2000). The tacit nature of design knowledge. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 12(4), 493-512.

Zack, M. H. (1999). Competing on knowledge, In 2000 Handbook of Business Strategy, New York, NY: Faulkner and Gary.