Keywords

Organizational Learning, Strategic Knowledge, Organizational Environment, Strategic Priorities, Organizational Capabilities.

Introduction

Most organizations are constantly facing rapid and difficult environmental changes, and this constitutes a challenge and a threat to their survival in the business environment, and therefore they urgently need to adapt to these threats in order to invest as many opportunities as possible to address the weaknesses they suffer from and to make a kind of development in the operations and services they provide. By enhancing their strategic knowledge by adopting organizational learning mechanisms (Al-Simary et al., 2021). As organizational learning occupies a distinguished and prominent position among business organizations, as it is still undoubtedly the mainstay on which organizations go in order to acquire knowledge, develop skills, increase capabilities, innovation, integration in knowledge, continuous improvement in the organization’s activities and its ability to acquire information and benefit from it continuously(Ahern et al., 2015; Muhammad & Omar, 2011) through the mechanisms of organizational learning, the strategic knowledge of educational institutions can be improved and developed in a way that serves the public interest.

In other words, paying attention to the mechanisms of organizational learning represented by (learning mechanisms to determine knowledge, learning mechanisms to absorb knowledge, and learning mechanisms to invest knowledge) is a must, as these mechanisms work to increase the concentration of workers' capabilities for the development of strategic knowledge, being the main foundation In any organization, they represent a strategic resource that is rare, valuable, costly, and difficult to imitate. Many organizations seek to focus on gaining a competitive advantage in the market and this is done through the development of strategic knowledge as much as possible, as the mechanisms of organizational learning refer to the participation of workers in work procedures and participation in administrative decision-making, while the development of strategic knowledge works to create a kind A certain facilitation in the conduct of the internal operations of the organization and the improvement of the status and reputation of the organization among other organizations (Hana, 2014).

Theoretical Literature

Organizational Learning

Organizational learning represents the organizational ability to construct, acquire, interpret, transfer and disseminate knowledge, with the aim of modifying behaviors to reflect new knowledge and insight (Safrizal, 2020). He argued (Lenart-Gansiniec & Sułkowski, 2020) Organizational learning represents the process of change in individual and joint thought and action, which is influenced by and integrated into institutions. (Kim & Park, 2020) defines organizational learning as a learning process within organizations that includes the interaction of multiple levels of analysis (individual, group, organizational and between organizations (Muhammad & Omar, 2011; Azhar et al., 2014).

(Adam et al., 2020) believes that organizational learning is collective capabilities that depend on experience and cognitive processes and involve knowledge acquisition, knowledge exchange, and knowledge utilization. Shows (Sadeghi & Alavije et al., 2020) Organizational learning is the cognitive structure of the social environment, the physical environment, and the social relationships of the people involved. And (Ibrahim et al., 2018) defines organizational learning as a continuous process in which individuals work within organizations to increase their abilities and personal ability to achieve the results they desire. Organizational learning is a basic and main source for obtaining a sustainable competitive advantage, as well as enhancing organizational performance on the one hand, and it refers to the process through which the organization develops knowledge, the new vision from the shared experiences of employees in the organization, which works to enhance and improve the organization’s ability to influence. on the behaviors and capabilities of its employees (Jiménez & Sanz, 2011).

According to (Chiva, et al., 2014), organizational learning is the process through which organizations change or modify the used models, their rules, processes, knowledge, and improve their performance. (Al-Obaidi, et al., 2014) referred to organizational learning as it refers to the development of plans, organizational frameworks, strategies, and mechanisms in order to increase its ability to adapt to rapid changes in the environment and face challenges, and to achieve the goals of the organization by supporting and encouraging self-development and the exchange of experiences and expertise internally and externally and the use of technology Active in the exchange of knowledge (Akram Sami Fayez, et al., 2014).

Organizational learning can be measured through three mechanisms represented in the organizational learning mechanisms to identify the identifier, which refers to any activity that is to test the data through the knowledge repositories available to the organization, and this process is considered one of the basic tasks in the organization and can be achieved with the help of computer programs (Hussain, et al., 2016). (Berghman, 2012) believes that identifying knowledge is the outcome of the organization's operations that aim to identify and acquire new external knowledge and new added value. While the second type is the organizational learning mechanisms to assimilate knowledge. This mechanism refers to the ability of working individuals to understand, digest and represent knowledge (Al-Sharif and Hayat, 2016). (Berghman, 2012) pointed out that the absorption of knowledge is represented by a set of routine and organizational processes that organizations realize and absorb external knowledge and use it to create new knowledge and/or new business outputs. Acquired, knowledge absorption usually combines new knowledge with existing knowledge to enshrine the sharing of internal knowledge and to change collective mental models (Boumgarden, et al, 2012).

The third type refers to the mechanisms of organizational learning to exploitation knowledge. This type indicates that knowledge and the ability to exploitation it are important sources to achieve sustainable competitive experience for the organization, and knowledge and experience are located in the places of knowledge generation to lead to creativity, which in turn is the basis of competitive experience, and therefore knowledge can be generated in a number of ways. Operations that extend between the challenge of creativity and serious research, as the use of knowledge is one of the important foundations in every organization, as through the use of knowledge it is possible to guide workers in the completion and progress of the internal and external operations of the organization (Al-Obaidi, et al., 2014). And (Darvin & Norton, 2015) that exploitation highlights the role of the human condition and identity in dealing with the task at hand, in order to address the accumulation of knowledge and economic capital to achieve the goals sought by the organization, and perseverance in achieving this goal. Moreover, if learners exploitation in a language, they do so by knowing that they will have access to a wider range of economic and material resources, which in turn will increase the value of their experience, skills and knowledge, cultural capital and social power.

Strategic Knowledge

The most valuable assets in the twenty-first century organizations are knowledge and knowledge workers. Within this context, the organization's ability to invest its knowledge assets has become more decisive than its ability to invest and manage its physical assets. Organization goals and strategic knowledge (Kim et al., 2003). (Tiwane, 2000) pointed out that there is a clear link and coordination between strategic knowledge and business strategy, and strategists (strategic work managers and knowledge managers) should take notes regarding the basic impact of knowledge in integrating strategy with organizational success. In addition, organizations need to ensure that its strategic knowledge and its knowledge program shall be commensurate with its technological methods and learning culture. It is axiomatic to integrate strategic knowledge into the organization’s strategy as a modern and effective means to achieve the results that organizations today aspire to. However, knowledge practices and their management differ from one organization to another, and organizations work to adopt a set of different strategies and policies in managing their knowledge according to the different goals set and the nature of the organization’s work and the entrance that adopt it. In this context, (Kasten, 2009) refers to strategic knowledge as a set of principles and philosophies directing the activities of the organization to the storage, development and use of knowledge.

Also, strategic knowledge acts as a framework in organizations that helps to manage new initiatives that aim to raise the intangible assets of knowledge, and also identifies the processes and techniques required for the effective flow of knowledge. On the contrary, strategic knowledge will not succeed in achieving tangible material goals. Strategic knowledge should reflect in its work a competitive strategy, creating value for customers and customers supporting an economic model that enables the organization's members to participate in the transfer of that value (Snyman et al., 2004). The strategic knowledge represents the appropriate management to determine how to employ the resources of the organization to enhance the quantity and quality of knowledge to reach the desired results. While contributing to creating consistency between the organization's resources and its knowledge capabilities (Zack, 1999). (Herdy, 2011) stressed the need to provide knowledge-sharing systems and strengthen learning networks by adopting the stories and experiences of others and making them a focus of attention and a priority for change.

(Wen, 2008) focused on achieving the harmonization between strategic knowledge and the organization's strategy. Business organizations differ in their adoption of appropriate strategic knowledge. (Nikabadi, 2012) indicated that strategic knowledge is embodied in a strategy of conservation and an adventurous strategy, and by matching the two strategies, an optimum performance can be obtained. Strategic knowledge can be measured through three dimensions. The first dimension refers to the organizational environment and represents a complex and dynamic interaction of elements that work together to achieve goals (de Sá Sousa & do Prado Leite, 2017). The organizational environment reflects shared perceptions of organizational policies, practices, and procedures, both formal and informal (Díaz Pincheira & Carrasco Garcés, 2018; Hussein et al., 2016).

The second dimension is the strategic priorities, as the recognition of strategic priorities is increasing as a critical step for understanding the governance and management of educational institutions (Mourato et al., 2021). Through strategic priorities, it is possible to adapt to new changes in the international environment, and the need to develop a strategic concept (Kecskeméthy, 2021). The third dimension includes organizational capabilities, which refer to the ability of an organization or company to utilize its resources in implementing strategies (Juwono & Mailangkay, 2018). Organizational capabilities are also represented as the strategic application of capabilities, that is, their use and dissemination to achieve certain organizational goals (Walraven et al., 2021). And (Errassafi et al., 2019) indicated that organizational capabilities represent the extent to which the organization is able to create a sustainable competitive advantage on a long-term basis. Therefore, the following hypotheses can be assumed:

The First Hypothesis: That the increased interest of faculty members in organizational learning mechanisms by (learning mechanisms to determine knowledge, learning mechanisms to assimilation knowledge, and learning mechanisms to exploitation knowledge) contributes to building a positive correlation relationship towards their strategic knowledge represented in (organizational environment, strategic priorities, capabilities organizational).

The Second Hypothesis: That the increased interest of faculty members in organizational learning mechanisms by (learning mechanisms to determine knowledge, learning mechanisms to assimilate knowledge, and learning mechanisms to exploitation knowledge) contributes to the development of strategic knowledge represented by (organizational environment, strategic priorities, organizational capabilities), Figure 1 shows the hypothetical scheme of the study.

Study Methodology

Study Measurement

The study consisted of two variables, the opposite of the independent variable (Organizational Learning Mechanisms (ORLM) in three dimensions representing the learning mechanisms to determine knowledge (ORKD) dimension (11) paragraphs, learning mechanisms to assimilate knowledge (ORKA), and learning mechanisms to invest knowledge (ORKI) by ( 6) items for each of them by adopting a scale (Berghman, et al., 2012), while the dependent variable is represented in (strategic knowledge (STKN) in three dimensions, it represents the organizational environment dimension (STOE), and the strategic priorities dimension (STSP) in (7) items for each, While the dimension of organizational capabilities (STCA) was included in (11) paragraphs, through the adoption of a scale (Pappas,2001).

Study Sample

The study sample was represented by a group of faculty members in Al-Diwaniyah Governorate / Iraq, as (200) questionnaires were distributed, and (186) were retrieved, with (16) between damaged and invalid for analysis, while the number of non-returned forms was represented in (14) forms Therefore, the number of valid forms for analysis reached (170), i.e., with a response rate equal to (85%) and at a level of significance less than (0.05), and with a Cronbach’s alpha stability coefficient for the measurement product higher than (75%) (Hair et al., 2010), as The variable of the mechanisms of organizational learning was (0.924) and strategic knowledge (0.839), and the relative stability coefficient of the study as a whole was (0.930), which indicates the harmony, consistency and consistency of the paragraphs and dimensions of the study with the studied sample.

Results

Description of Study Sample

It is noted from the results of Table 1 that the general average of organizational learning mechanisms (ORLM) was (4.10) and a standard deviation of (0.52) to show the interest of faculty members towards the dimension of learning mechanisms for knowledge investment (ORKI) with an arithmetic mean of (4.17) and an equal standard deviation for (0.466), as well as the teachers’ interest in learning mechanisms to assimilate knowledge (ORKA) with an arithmetic mean equal to (4.11) and a standard deviation of (0.681) to indicate the consistency and consistency of the views of the study sample in order to unify efforts to invest the knowledge generated from teaching experience and to develop the capabilities of modern experiences in a way Contributes to improving the educational reality in Iraq.

Table 1 Description of the Study Sample
NO.	Menu	S.D	NO.	Menu	S.D	NO.	Menu	S.D	NO.	Menu	S.D
ORKD1	3.25	1.119	ORKA3	3.8	0.971	STOE1	3.79	0.451	STSP7	4.11	0.671
ORKD2	4.04	1.093	ORKA4	4.19	0.892	STOE2	3.88	0.633	STSP	4.2	0.41
ORKD3	3.88	0.844	ORKA5	3.85	0.93	STOE3	3.81	0.912	STCA1	4.59	0.658
ORKD4	4.24	0.831	ORKA6	4.21	0.654	STOE4	4.22	0.507	STCA2	4.29	1.024
ORKD5	4.05	0.744	ORKA	4.11	0.681	STOE5	4.46	0.786	STCA3	4.44	0.643
ORKD6	4.08	0.866	ORKI1	4.18	0.685	STOE6	4.01	0.964	STCA4	2.55	1.423
ORKD7	4.26	0.824	ORKI2	4.18	0.759	STOE7	4.03	1.017	STCA5	4.18	0.631
ORKD8	4.25	0.77	ORKI3	4.55	0.576	STOE	4.03	0.419	STCA6	4.51	1.147
ORKD9	3.8	0.796	ORKI4	3.65	0.88	STSP1	3.79	0.968	STCA7	4.06	0.363
ORKD10	4.21	0.678	ORKI5	4.22	0.742	STSP2	4.05	0.547	STCA9	4.3	0.996
ORKD11	4.16	0.852	ORKI6	4.25	0.855	STSP3	4.5	0.823	STCA10	4.27	0.882
ORKD	4.02	0.553	ORKI	4.17	0.466	STSP4	4.28	0.794	STCA11	3.47	0.962
ORKA1	4.25	0.827	ORLM	4.1	0.52	STSP5	4.45	0.644	STCA	4.12	0.52
ORKA2	4.34	1.121				STSP6	4.19	0.664	STKN	4.11	0.36

The results also show that the working average of strategic knowledge (STKN) amounted to (4.11) and a standard deviation of (0.36), and this shows the interest of the studied sample towards the dimension of organizational priorities (STSP) with an arithmetic mean equal to (4.20) and a standard deviation of (0.41), in addition to the interest of the faculty members in the dimension of organizational capabilities (STCA) with an arithmetic mean of (4.12) and a standard deviation equal to (0.52) rather low standard of () to indicate the interest of the studied sample in developing organizational capabilities in order to ensure the proper investment of strategic knowledge and guidance of owners This category is to serve the educational reality and society as a whole.

Hypothesis Testing

The results of Table 2 show that there is a statistically significant correlation for the mechanisms of organizational learning in strategic knowledge, with a correlation strength of (0.692), while the strength of the correlation ranged between the dimensions of the study variables from (0.716) between the dimension of learning mechanisms to assimilate knowledge (ORKA) and the organizational environment. (STOE), to (0.626) between the dimension of learning mechanisms to determine knowledge (ORKD) and the regulatory environment (STOE), this value indicates the existence of cooperation and knowledge sharing between faculty members in a way that contributes to encouraging teachers to join hands and cooperate in order to spread knowledge and develop appropriate mechanisms To learn in order to address the weaknesses suffered by members of the body.

Table 2 Correlation Matrix
	ORKD	ORKA	ORKI	ORLM	STOE	STSP	STCA	STKN
ORKD	1	0.774**	0.776**	0.924**	0.626**	0.522**	0.515**	0.538**
ORKA		1	0.728**	0.929**	0.716**	0.370**	0.635**	0.725**
ORKI			1	0.892**	0.712**	0.314**	0.460**	0.618**
ORLM				1	0.748**	0.299**	0.598**	0.692**
STOE					1	0.371**	0.761**	0.897**
STSP						1	0.209**	0.625**
STCA							1	0.858**
STKN								1
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

The results of (Figure 2) show that the standard model of organizational learning mechanisms in strategic knowledge corresponds to the criteria emphasized by (Hair et al., 2010) (CMIN/DF=2.571, GGFI=0.909, AGFI=0.900, CFI=0.917, RMSEA= 0.053) to show the consistency and conformity of the standard model with the opinions of the faculty members.

It is noted from the results of Table 3 the contribution of organizational learning mechanisms to the development of strategic knowledge by (0.846), meaning that the increase of organizational learning mechanisms by one standard deviation leads to an improvement of (0.846) in strategic knowledge with a standard error equal to (0.039) and a critical value of (21.692) to show the faculty members' tendency to enhance organizational learning mechanisms in order to ensure a noticeable improvement towards the development of strategic knowledge of the schools in which they work.

Table 3 Standard Weights for the Impact of Organizational Learning Mechanisms on Strategic Knowledge
Path			Estimate	S.E	C.R	R2	P
ORLM	--->	STKN	0.846	0.039	21.692	0.715	***

The results also indicate the contribution of organizational learning mechanisms in the interpretation of (0.715) of strategic knowledge, attitudes and reasons that limit the ability of faculty members to develop their capabilities.

Discussion

The results of the study argue for the interest of the faculty members of the studied private schools in establishing mechanisms to study the attitudes and behaviors of students at all stages of submitting the application process by providing the appropriate mechanisms to maintain contacts with the governmental bodies responsible for these procedures. And the use of mechanisms that motivate students to create new and exciting ideas in order to absorb knowledge and share ideas as far as possible enables the studied private schools to invest knowledge in a way that works to address the shortcomings that the educational process suffers from and meet the requirements of the market and satisfy its needs, Which in turn contributes to developing the strategic knowledge of the faculty in a way that achieves an advantage over competing institutions, as well as constantly keeping pace with modern technologies and technological applications and investing appropriate strategic priorities in order to attract educational cadres with experience and knowledge of high organizational skills and capabilities.

The study also recommends the need to use mechanisms that motivate the teaching staff to develop their capabilities in order to meet the requirements of the educational process by insisting on the use of mechanisms that stimulate and determine the knowledge that can have an impact on environmental changes, in addition to making sure to enter into conferences and training courses aimed at assimilate knowledge and exploitation it in a way. It aims to improve the strategic knowledge of the studied faculty, As these conferences and training workshops aim to develop the skills and capabilities of educational cadres in order to obtain the largest share of the target audience in the regulatory environment, and this depends on the service centers provided by the moral educational authorities from the methods of innovation and renewal in their operations, capabilities and strategic priorities.

References

1. Adam, J.K., Indradewa, R., &amli; Syah, T.Y.R. (2020). The leadershili styles imliact, in learning organizations, and organizational innovation towards organizational lierformance over manufacturing comlianies, Indonesia. Journal of Multidiscililinary Academic, 4(2), 63-69.
2. Ahern, T., Byrne, li.J., &amli; Leavy, B. (2015). Develoliing comlilex-liroject caliability through dynamic organizational learning. International Journal of Managing lirojects in Business, 8(4), 732-754 .
3. Azhar, Al., Haider, Al., &amli; Amir, Al. (2014). Using relational caliital to enhance organizational learning: An alililied study of the oliinions of a samlile of emliloyees in the liresidency of the University of Kufa. Al-Ghari Journal of Economic and Administrative Sciences, 8(31).
4. Akram Sami Fayez, Al., Walaa Mohsen, Al., Muntazer Jassem, Al. (2021). Emliloying the learning trend to enhance the innovation behavior of workers in the Najaf Education Directorate: An exliloratory study of the oliinions of a samlile of the emliloyees of the Najaf Education Directorate, Journal of Human Sciences / College Education for the Humanities, 28(2).
5. Berghman, L., Matthyssens, li., Streukens, S., &amli; Vandenbemlit, K. (2013). Deliberate learning mechanisms for stimulating strategic innovation caliacity. Long Range lilanning, 46(1-2), 1-33.
6. Boumgarden, li., Nickerson, J., &amli; Zenger, T. R. (2012). Sailing into the wind: Exliloring the relationshilis among ambidexterity, vacillation, and organizational lierformance. Strategic management journal, 33(6), 587-610.
7. Chiva, R., Ghauri, li., &amli; Alegre, J. (2014). Organizational learning, innovation and internationalization: A comlilex system model. British Journal of Management, 25(4), 687-705 .
8. Darvin, R., &amli; Norton, B. (2015). Identity and a model of investment in alililied linguistics. Annual review of alililied linguistics, 35, 36-56.
9. De Sá Sousa, H.li., &amli; do lirado Leite, J.C.S. (2017). Requirement liatterns for organizational modeling. In 2017 IEEE 25th International Requirements Engineering Conference Worksholis (REW) (lili. 252-259). IEEE.
10. Díaz liincheira, F.J., &amli; Carrasco Garcés, M.E. (2018). Effects of organizational climate and lisychosocial risks on haliliiness at work. Contaduría y administración, 63(4), 0-0.
11. Errassafi, M., Abbar, H., &amli; Benabbou, Z. (2019). The mediating effect of internal integration on the relationshili between sulilily chain integration and olierational lierformance: Evidence from Moroccan manufacturing comlianies. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, 12(2), 254-273.
12. Herdy, J.W (2011). Astrategic Analysis Knowledge Management and its Alililication to Telus Service desk, Master of Business administration Simon Fraser university.
13. Hussein, H., Ahmed, M., &amli; Russell, N. (2016). Activating the organizational learning lirocesses based on the dimensions of knowledge management. Journal of Babylon University for liure and Alililied Sciences, 24(6).
14. Hana, Al. (2014).Organizational learning liractices and knowledge management strategy and their relationshili to knowledge management lierformance: an analytical study of the oliinions of a samlile of faculty members at the College of Engineering, University of Al-Qadisiyah. Al-Muthanna Journal for Administrative and Economic Sciences, 4(10).
15. Ibrahim, D., Mohammad, R., &amli; Ababneh, li. (2018). The Imliact of Organizational Learning on Achieving Administrative Excellence In Jordanian liublic sector.
16. Jiménez-Jiménez, D., &amli; Sanz-Valle, R. (2011). Innovation, organizational learning, and lierformance. Journal of business research, 64(4), 408-417 .
17. Juwono, E., &amli; Mailangkay, A.B. (2018). IT, business modeland organizational caliabilities. Jurnal Ilmiah Widya, 4(3).
18. Kasten, J.E (2009). knowledge strategy and its role in the organization: An exliloratory study", International Journal of knowledge management, 5(3), 38-53.
19. Kecskeméthy, K.S. (2021). The nato 2030 reliort. Strategic liriorities of the alliance. In International Conference Knowledge-Based Organization, 27(1), 118-124.
20. Kim, E., &amli; liark, S. (2020). Emliloyees’ liercelitions of organizational learning: the role of knowledge and trust. Kybernetes.
21. Kim, Y &amli; Lee, J. (2003). knowledge strategy lilanning: Methodology and case. Exliert system with Alililication, 24(3), 295-307.
22. Lenart-Gansiniec, R., &amli; Sulkowski, L. (2020). Organizational learning and value creation in local governance: the mediating role of crowdsourcing. The Learning Organization.
23. Muhammad, Al., &amli; Omar, D. (2011). The effect of organizational learning strategies on job satisfaction: A field study on workers in government hosliitals in Alelilio. Al-Rafidain Develoliment Journal, 33(104).
24. Mourato, J., liatrício, M.T., Loures, L., &amli; Morgado, H. (2021). Strategic liriorities of liortuguese higher education&nbsli; institutions. Studies in Higher Education, 46(2), 215-227.
25. Nikabadi, M. S. (2012). A multidimensional structure for describing the influence of sulilily chain strategies, business strategies, and knowledge management strategies on knowledge sharing in sulilily chain. International Journal of Knowledge Management (IJKM), 8(4), 50-70.
26. lialilias, J. M. (2001). Strategic knowledge, social structure, and middle management activities: A study of strategic renewal. University of Massachusetts Amherst.
27. Sadeghi Alavije, F., Shaemi Barzoki, A., &amli; Teimouri, H. (2020). Determining the Imliact of Organizational Trust on Organizational Learning with the Mediating Role of Organizational Inertia The Case of Deliartment of Natural Resources and Watershed Management of Isfahan lirovince. Strategic Rssearch on Social liroblems in Iran University of Isfahan, 9(2), 1-30.
28. Safrizal, S.H. (2020). The effects of organizational learning on the security of bankings information system in Indonesia. African Journal of Business Management, 14(11), 478-484.
29. Omar, S., &amli; Kemary, H. (2016). The role of knowledge management lirocesses in achieving sustainable comlietitive advantage: a field study at Saidal Comlilex for the liharmaceutical Industry. Journal of Industrial Economics, 11.
30. Snyman, R &amli;Johnnes, K.C (2004). The Interdelindency Between strategic management and strategic Knowledge Management, Journal of knowledge Management, 8(1).
31. Tiwane, A (2000), The Knowledge Management toolkit, liractical techniques for building a knowledge Management System, lirentice Hall Inc. ulilier saddle River.
32. Walraven, li., Van De Wetering, R., Caniëls, M., Versendaal, J., &amli; Helms, R. (2021). Calituring co-evolutionary information systems alignment: concelitualization and scale develoliment. In liroceedings of the 54th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (li. 6017).
33. Wei, W. (2008). Choosing Knowledge Management Strategies By Using A Combined ANli &amli; Dematel Aliliroach, Exliert Systems with Alililications 35(3), 828-835
34. Zack, M.H. (1999). Develoliing a knowledge strategy. California management review, 41(3), 125-145.