Knowledge Tradition Is the Symptom, Not the Answer

Knowledge tradition and knowledge governance are more and more cited as conditions for constructing data-driven organizations. Each are seen as important for turning investments in Enterprise Intelligence and Synthetic Intelligence (AI) into enterprise worth. However right here is the catch: knowledge governance might be actively designed — knowledge tradition can not.

This text is an in depth deep-dive of the administration abstract printed on CIO.com. It explores the true function of information tradition when a corporation units out to turn into data-driven — a job that could be fairly totally different from what you count on. Drawing on fashionable organizational principle, I provide a sensible strategy to maneuver past failed ‘knowledge tradition’ initiatives and suggest a mind-set that lastly unlocks the worth of your knowledge and AI investments. 

An appendix supplies a Knowledge Tradition Cheat Sheet that distills the important thing factors for speedy use.

I’m Jens, a business-minded knowledge skilled with twenty years of expertise serving to enterprise leaders throughout industries unlock the complete potential of information and algorithms.

tl;dr

• Many knowledge initiatives keep behind expectations not due to expertise, however as a result of leaders misunderstand tradition.
• Tradition is an emergent property of a corporation, not an object of design. It may be identified and influenced not directly, however by no means immediately formed or engineered right into a desired kind.
• Subsequently, not like knowledge governance, knowledge tradition can’t be handled as a prerequisite for worth creation with knowledge and synthetic intelligence. It’s impact not trigger.
• The true use of information tradition is diagnostic: like a sensor, it helps to disclose the hidden obstacles to leveraging knowledge as an asset.
• As soon as the basis causes of those obstacles are recognized, leaders can design focused interventions that enhance knowledge worth creation. When interventions have an impact, this not directly shifts knowledge tradition as a facet impact.
• True knowledge worth creation is feasible when each are thought-about collectively: governance offering the dependable basis, and tradition enabling its efficient software.

Desk of Contents

1 Why do organizations try for knowledge tradition?
2 Organizational tradition
  2.1 Limitations of mainstream approaches
  2.2 Definition of organizational tradition
  2.3 Implications for cultural work
3 Knowledge tradition
  3.1 Definition and worth of information tradition
  3.2 Fields of research for figuring out data-cultural obstacles
4 Knowledge governance vs. knowledge tradition
  4.1 Knowledge worth creation
  4.2 Distinguishing knowledge governance and knowledge tradition
  4.3 The interaction: A virtuous cycle
5 A device to design and probe cultural interventions
6 Sensible instance — how a better strategy to knowledge tradition can save lives
7 Conclusion
Appendix: The Knowledge Tradition Cheat Sheet
References

1 Why do organizations try for knowledge tradition?

Most organizations purpose to turn into data-driven as a way to harvest the promised potentials of information being an organizational asset. They purpose to use strategies equivalent to Enterprise Intelligence (BI) or Synthetic Intelligence (AI) to re-use operational knowledge for analytical functions. Functions embrace:

• Management: Studies or BI dashboards are used for monitoring and oversight
• Automation: Duties to deal with difficult enterprise challenges might be automated
• Choice making: Insights derived from knowledge can generally assist (not substitute!) human instinct required for decision-making to deal with complex enterprise issues
• Innovation: Creating insights that assist ask (and reply) the appropriate questions on prospects, opponents, expertise, and trade tendencies

Regardless of the promised advantages many companies battle to unlock the worth of their knowledge [1]. And this isn’t a brand new drawback. BI, Analytics and AI — not simply massive language fashions, but additionally Knowledge Science and Machine Studying — have been round for a lot of many years. But, turning knowledge into measurable outcomes stays a problem for a lot of organizations.

Because of this, along with strategic readability [2], the time period knowledge culture is more and more cited as a key success issue for organizations to turn into data-driven [3].

However what precisely is knowledge tradition? Is it actually the precondition for turning knowledge into enterprise worth? And is it potential to actively form it right into a desired kind, such that worth creation with knowledge succeeds?

Since knowledge tradition is finally a perspective on the general organizational tradition, it’s essential to first align on what organizational tradition is and the way it needs to be approached.

2 Organizational tradition

2.1 Limitations of mainstream approaches

Organizational tradition has been a well-established discipline of research in sociology [4, 5, 6] for a lot of many years. But many executives report that cultural change and transformation efforts are nonetheless among the many most tough challenges organizations face. Though the famously quoted failure charge about 70% [7] is topic to debate [8], there’s broad consensus on one level: cultural change is way from trivial and lots of initiatives keep behind expectations. Why is that this the case?

Fashionable organizational principle primarily based on Luhmann’s system principle [9, 10, 11] presents a solution: While many enterprise leaders implicitly assume that tradition is one thing that may be deliberately formed, from a systems-theoretic perspective this isn’t potential. Consequently, the excessive failure charges of cultural change initiatives are usually not shocking, as many initiatives are designed primarily based on a flawed assumption when taking up a systems-theoretic perspective.

Luhmann conceptualized organizations as self-reproducing, advanced social methods of resolution communication. Tradition, on this view, is not an object that may be immediately designed, however a latent construction of which means that guides and constrains selections.

Tradition is an emergent product of organizational communication. It may be noticed, perturbed, or nudged, however can by no means be engineered.

Making use of these insights can enhance the success charge for change and transformation initiatives in apply, justifying the growing curiosity in methods principle for researchers and practitioners alike [12, 13, 14].

2.2 Definition of organizational tradition

Adopting a systems-theoretic perspective right here, organizational tradition might be loosely outlined because the largely unstated and partly unconscious guidelines in a corporation, the latter being a specific sort of advanced social system. Its goal is to tell members of the group concerning the anticipated habits and thus makes sure actions extra seemingly than others.

Organizational tradition determines how issues are finished round right here.

Tradition acts as a so-called undecidable resolution premise — a filter that turns into more and more essential in advanced contexts, the place people should resolve and act increasingly more autonomously [14].

Typical examples of such unstated and unconscious guidelines (tradition) embrace:

• Individuals assist one another right here
• We deal overtly with errors
• In conferences, the highest-ranking individual speaks first

2.3 Implications for cultural work

Adopting the systems-theoretic viewpoint supplies new insights for cultural work in a corporation:

Tradition isn’t the trigger however the impact of prevailing situations.

Thus, the belief {that a} ‘good tradition’ is a precondition for profitable worth creation doesn’t maintain [14]. Tradition is healthier understood as a symptom of underlying issues (or successes) in worth creation.

A number of sensible penalties observe from the systems-theoretic basis for work with organizational tradition:

• Change context, not folks: Leaders ought to shift focus from altering folks or their ‘mindset’ to altering context, as that is the larger lever for attaining behavioral change.
• Keep away from culture-design initiatives: Makes an attempt to engineer an ‘optimum’ goal tradition have inherently low success charges and needs to be prevented.
• Use tradition as a diagnostic device: Deal with tradition as a sensor for hidden obstacles to worth creation, quite than a variable that may be immediately formed. Use it to uncover the basis causes that specify seemingly irrational habits blocking worth creation.
• Work by means of small interventions and suggestions loops: Design and probe interventions that change the context folks work in and observe the suggestions, such that the obstacles are resolved. Doable interventions are adjustments in buildings, administration methods, the setup of interpersonal exchanges, or defending (new) methods of working.
• Watch out for blueprints: Organizations are advanced social methods. As such, you can’t count on causality. What works in a single context could fail in one other. Subsequently, studying from profitable organizations has typically restricted worth.

The true worth of tradition work subsequently lies in figuring out unseen obstacles, experimenting with small context-specific interventions, and permitting extra appropriate patterns to emerge — quite than making an attempt to engineer a desired goal image of tradition, e.g., by means of designed company values.

3 Knowledge tradition

3.1 Definition and worth of information tradition

Knowledge tradition is merely a particular perspective on organizational tradition. One potential definition is perhaps:

Knowledge tradition focuses on the shared habits, values, and casual guidelines that resolve how we use knowledge right here to create or defend enterprise worth

As a result of knowledge tradition is finally organizational tradition in motion, the ideas from Part 2 apply: you can’t engineer a desired knowledge tradition immediately, neither is it potential to outline common greatest practices to affect knowledge tradition in a desired means.

As an alternative, organizations ought to use knowledge tradition to determine obstacles that block using knowledge as an asset, after which probe small interventions which steadily take away these obstacles. When profitable, an acceptable knowledge tradition will emerge by itself, as soon as the worth creation with knowledge is functioning successfully.

As for organizational tradition on the whole, the actual worth of information cultural work lies in its diagnostic energy:

• Sensor: Reveals hidden issues in knowledge worth creation
• Lever identification: Factors to root causes as a substitute of signs
• Early indicator: Exhibits whether or not an intervention is starting to work
• Danger administration: Flags unintended side-effects throughout digital transformation

3.2 Fields of research for figuring out data-cultural obstacles

The place to begin when figuring out data-cultural obstacles? It has confirmed useful to take a look at usually related points of information tradition. One potential assortment of such points are the next six fields of research and their corresponding success patterns that always seem when cultural obstacles are being addressed efficiently. These shouldn’t be handled as goal patterns for knowledge tradition design, however as views to take a look at as a way to determine related obstacles.

1. Knowledge Consciousness: Leaders and workers perceive each the alternatives and limitations of data-driven worth creation
2. Knowledge Management: Leaders actively demand and champion data-informed methods of working — the place they add worth
3. Knowledge Literacy: All members of the group possess the related interdisciplinary competencies to make use of knowledge in a value-creating means
4. Perception-Based mostly Means of Working: Everybody within the group is keen to discover and exploit knowledge’s potential for worth creation
5. Collaborative Means of Working: Knowledge and insights are shared willingly and proactively throughout boundaries
6. Knowledge Availability: Customers can entry the information related to them — simply, securely, and in time

These patterns are indicators to observe, not targets to engineer. Their formation signifies that obstacles are being diminished and that knowledge tradition is starting to shift as a byproduct of profitable interventions.

4 Knowledge governance vs. knowledge tradition

4.1 Knowledge worth creation

Knowledge governance is one other perceived precondition for organizations to turn into data-driven. However how does it relate to knowledge tradition?

The time period knowledge governance isn’t uniquely outlined, however one ceaselessly quoted definition is that of [15]:

“Knowledge governance is outlined because the train of authority and management (planning, monitoring, and enforcement) over the administration of information belongings”

Utilizing this frequent definition, knowledge governance is principally about implementing processes, roles, and duties to allow sustainable worth creation with knowledge. It covers the formal guidelines to allow worth creation with knowledge. These formal guidelines might be enforced by administration with argument, rewards, or punishment. It subsequently enhances knowledge tradition.

Knowledge tradition and knowledge governance are two sides of the identical coin: governance brings order to the difficult, while tradition creates adaptability within the advanced.

The bottom line is to see knowledge governance and knowledge tradition not as separate initiatives, however as two important modes whose interaction contributes to knowledge worth creation: the continuing organizational course of during which knowledge is used, interpreted, and built-in into selections to generate enterprise worth.

4.2 Distinguishing knowledge governance and knowledge tradition

The interaction between knowledge governance and knowledge tradition is greatest understood by observing it by means of the lens of a robust guiding distinction utilized in organizational design [14] and administration literature [16]: the excellence between the difficult and the advanced. 

Knowledge governance is the try and grasp the difficult, whereas knowledge tradition is the emergent results of navigating the advanced. This guiding distinction manifests throughout the group in additional corresponding distinctions.

1 Context: Difficult / advanced

That is the guiding distinction from which all others observe. Difficult contexts are knowable and predictable, even when they’re tough. Their interactions observe clear cause-and-effect relationships. With a ample blueprint and experience, a desired end result might be engineered. Knowledge governance is the first device for mastering the difficult, e.g. defining who could entry knowledge or making certain that knowledge high quality is ample.

Advanced contexts are unpredictable and emergent. Trigger-and-effect relationships are usually not clear prematurely and are continually shifting. Knowledge tradition permits a corporation to successfully navigate the advanced, e.g. when workers must resolve to deal with advanced enterprise issues, they proactively share analytical insights to enhance their resolution making.

2 Major focus: The inspiration / the appliance

This distinction highlights what every mode prioritizes within the journey from knowledge to worth. Knowledge governance focuses on making a dependable basis. Its major concern is to render knowledge a steady, predictable, and manageable object — the information asset itself. That is largely a sophisticated process: it entails defining guidelines making certain high quality, and structuring entry based on clear cause-and-effect relationships.

Knowledge tradition, in distinction, permits the efficient software of that basis within the occasion of the decision-making second. It determines if and the way that steady basis is definitely utilized by folks to navigate uncertainty and create enterprise worth.

3 Administration: Command and management / dedication by selection

Knowledge governance depends on command and management — the train of formal, positional authority. In distinction, knowledge tradition can’t be dictated. It permits decision-making in advanced contexts by means of dedication by selection: an emergent phenomenon the place folks observe casual leaders primarily based on voluntarily granted belief and perceived competence [13, 14].

4 Guidelines: Formal / casual

Knowledge governance operates by means of formal, specific, written guidelines present in insurance policies and processes. These manifest as tangible artifacts: written insurance policies, course of diagrams, function descriptions, or knowledge high quality KPIs. 

Knowledge tradition operates by means of casual, unwritten social norms and routines that dictate ‘how issues are actually finished round right here’. These manifest as invisible however decisive premises that information motion: the extent of belief in a dashboard, the perceived relevance of information, the willingness to share insights, or the psychological security to problem data-driven assumptions.

5 Selections: Work by the guide / resolve autonomously

Knowledge governance requires folks to work by the guide to make sure consistency and standardization. That is execution — no resolution required. 

Knowledge tradition helps folks to resolve autonomously within the face of uncertainty. Both by combining the obtainable knowledge with instinct, or by asking the appropriate questions on prospects, opponents, expertise, and trade tendencies, which then requires figuring out what knowledge is perhaps lacking to validate hypotheses.

6 Purpose: Stability / adaptability

Knowledge governance goals to create stability, a predictable and dependable basis the place knowledge high quality is constant, entry is managed, and processes observe outlined requirements. This stability permits reliability and compliance and permits organizations to make use of knowledge for resolution making with confidence.

Knowledge tradition goals to allow adaptability, the aptitude to reply successfully to altering enterprise calls for, rising alternatives, and sudden challenges. This adaptability permits organizations to outlive and thrive in dynamic settings and to leverage knowledge in novel methods.

7 Creation: May be enforced / must emerge

This captures the elemental distinction of their origin and emphasizes one of many key messages on this article. Knowledge governance must be designed and enforced, while knowledge tradition must emerge as an oblique results of the prevailing structural situations.

4.3 The interaction: A virtuous cycle

Whereas the first path of affect flows from knowledge governance to knowledge tradition — with governance offering the dependable basis for tradition to emerge — the interaction goes each methods. A powerful knowledge tradition brings the formal, difficult buildings of governance to life.

Some examples are:

• Knowledge high quality — Knowledge governance can outline a knowledge high quality rule, however a tradition of accountability motivates an worker to proactively report an anomaly statement. 
• Metadata administration — Knowledge governance can mandate the creation of a knowledge catalog, however solely a tradition of collaboration can guarantee its ongoing curation with the wealthy, contextual, and up-to-date metadata that makes it actually helpful.
• Knowledge acquisition — Knowledge governance can outline the processes for buying knowledge, however a tradition of inquiry continually generates new enterprise hypotheses that want testing, driving the acquisition of solely new datasets by means of these very processes.

This suggestions loop between knowledge governance and knowledge tradition creates a virtuous cycle. The designed, difficult methods of governance and the emergent, advanced behaviors of tradition constantly reinforce and enhance one another, driving knowledge worth creation far past what guidelines alone may implement. The sensible instance in Part 6 can even illustrate this impact.

5 A device to design and probe cultural interventions

How can we put the above principle into apply? How can we determine the cultural patterns that hinder worth era with knowledge and AI and design interventions that tackle their root causes?

There are actually other ways to strategy tradition work in a corporation, right here I choose an strategy, which we’ve got efficiently utilized in our consulting apply. To construction the method of uncovering cultural patterns and designing interventions, we draw inspiration from the so-called Tradition Board [17].

Ranging from a validated enterprise want, the board guides you thru figuring out data-cultural obstacles, condensing what you found, designing connectable interventions, and at last implementing and assessing them. Intimately, the 5 steps are:

• Step 1 — Enterprise Want: Body your guiding organizational drawback clearly. Then hint it to its root trigger to keep away from treating signs. Doc the enterprise want to make sure a shared understanding between stakeholders. Trace: turning into data-driven isn’t your corporation want, it is perhaps your resolution.
• Step 2 — Determine: Analyze the information tradition in mild of the enterprise want. What cultural patterns are in its means? The six fields of research from above will help to identify concrete obstacles.
• Step 3 — Sense: Distill, combine and doc the obstacles you’ve found to deal with what issues.
• Step 4 — Creating: Design connectable interventions which can be more likely to tackle the obstacles.
• Step 5 — Implement: Anchor the interventions successfully and sustainably within the group, then observe and consider their impression.

As a result of success of interventions is rarely assured in advanced social methods — like organizations — , the tradition board is used iteratively: loop as typically as wanted till the the obstacles are resolved.

Notice that making use of the tradition board is in itself already an intervention: it exposes workers to beforehand unseen cultural patterns. These insights alone can already set off change and have a optimistic impression on worth creation with knowledge.

The next instance from healthcare illustrates how the tradition board helps put this strategy into apply.

6 Sensible instance — how a better strategy to knowledge tradition can save lives

A hospital faces a excessive charge of remedy errors threatening affected person security, regulatory compliance in addition to its strategic ambition to be a pacesetter in high quality of care. A so-called Vital Incident Reporting System (CIRS) is in place to seize and be taught from near-misses and errors. Nonetheless, it stays largely unused. The few reviews submitted are sometimes too obscure for significant evaluation.

Step 1: Enterprise Want

To meet its strategic ambition and meet regulatory necessities, the hospital should scale back its error charge. This requires a scientific approach to be taught from incidents. The enterprise want isn’t just to extend the quantity and high quality of reviews, however to create a dependable suggestions loop that measurably improves affected person security. That is the place strong technique work [2] performs out, offering prioritization, administration consideration and the motivation for designing a data-driven group.

Step 2: Determine

Utilizing the present tradition as a diagnostic device, interviews with medical workers reveal a number of highly effective, unstated guidelines that block using the CIRS:

• Worry: “Reporting an error is an act of contrition. It begins a seek for a offender, not a trigger.” This factors to a tradition of blame, the place reporting appears like a private threat.
• Effort: “We’re overloaded as it’s. Taking 20 minutes to doc one thing for a system that offers nothing again is a waste of time.” This reveals a battle with the core worth of effectivity.
• Futility: “These reviews go right into a black field. We by no means hear what occurs with them, so why hassle?” This reveals a scarcity of a visual suggestions loop, making the trouble appear pointless.

Step 3: Sense

Distilling these findings makes the core drawback seen: The group’s context is incompatible with the specified studying ambition. Whereas administration formally asks for studying from incidents, the system’s buildings, incentives, and routines truly punish the required habits. The issue isn’t the mindset of the workers; it’s the context during which they work.

Step 4: Creating

As an alternative of making an attempt to drive docs to higher doc incidents or initiating a ‘tradition change program’, three exact, structural interventions are designed to deal with the recognized obstacles:

• To counter concern, a knowledge governance intervention: Clear, binding guidelines for a totally anonymized and guarded reporting course of are established. The method is explicitly designed to be ‘blame-free’, a proper assure protected by administration.
• To counter effort, a expertise intervention: The incident reporting platform is redesigned for minimal friction, making documentation as fast and simple as potential.
• To counter futility, a knowledge management intervention: A protected, interdisciplinary studying group is created, sponsored by a senior supervisor. This group is shielded from the every day effectivity pressures and has the mandate to investigate the reviews, develop concrete enhancements (like new checklists), and, crucially, talk successes and learnings again to the group.

Step 5: Implement

The interventions create a optimistic suggestions loop. Time to doc incidents reduces considerably. As the primary reviews are dealt with beneath the brand new, protected course of, workers see that it’s secure and begin offering detailed incident reviews. The training group can develop and optimize a surgical guidelines primarily based on early reviews, which demonstrably reduces a particular class of error. This tangible success is broadly communicated, proving the CIRS’s worth, reinforcing report documentation additional.

Because of this, the amount and high quality of reviews enhance considerably. A brand new tradition of psychological security and data-based studying begins to emerge — not as a deliberate purpose, however as a facet impact of the tailor-made change in structural situations.

7 Conclusion

Knowledge tradition isn’t a set of values to be designed and rolled out, however an emergent property of the group. It’s the impact, not the trigger, of profitable worth creation with knowledge and AI. In distinction to knowledge governance, it can’t be engineered or demanded.

Keep important of one-size-fits-them-all greatest practices for designing a ‘good knowledge tradition’. Every group is a posh social system and reacts otherwise to interventions. It’s emergent — you by no means know what outcomes you’re going to get when following such recipes. What works in a single group would possibly fail in one other.

As an alternative, use knowledge tradition as a sensor. Let it reveal the essential obstacles that stop your knowledge basis from being translated into higher enterprise selections. As soon as these root causes are seen, design small, tailor-made interventions to bridge this hole, observe the impression, and permit a simpler knowledge tradition to take form consequently.

The tradition board is a sensible device for this data-cultural work. It helps leaders floor obstacles, design focused interventions, and iterate till the enterprise want is met and, consequently, new cultural patterns have emerged.

Editorial assist (spelling, grammar, wording, literature analysis) was supplied with the help of generative AI. The concepts, construction, and arguments on this article are solely created by the writer.

Appendix: The Knowledge Tradition Cheat Sheet

References

[1] R. Bean, “Why Changing into a Knowledge-Pushed Group Is So Arduous,” Harvard Enterprise Evaluation, Feb. 24, 2022. [Online]. Obtainable: https://hbr.org/2022/02/why-becoming-a-data-driven-organization-is-so-hard

[2] J. Linden, “How Most Organizations Get Knowledge Technique Unsuitable — and How you can Repair It,” In direction of Knowledge Science. [Online]. Obtainable: https://medium.com/data-science/how-most-organizations-get-data-strategy-wrong-and-how-to-fix-it-b8afa59f1533

[3] G. Kesari, “Constructing a Knowledge-Pushed Tradition: 4 Key Parts,” MIT Sloan Administration Evaluation, Jan. 23, 2025. [Online]. Obtainable: https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/building-a-data-driven-culture-four-key-elements/

[4] G. Burrell and G. Morgan, Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Evaluation, 1st Version. London: Routledge, 1979. doi: 10.4324/9781315242804.

[5] G. Morgan, Photos of group, Up to date ed., [Nachdruck]. Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage Publications, 2011.

[6] E. H. Schein, Organizational tradition and management, 1. ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publ, 1985.

[7] N. Nohria and M. Beer, “Cracking the Code of Change,” Harvard Enterprise Evaluation. [Online]. Obtainable: https://hbr.org/2000/05/cracking-the-code-of-change

[8] M. Hughes, “Do 70 Per Cent of All Organizational Change Initiatives Actually Fail?,” J. Change Manag., vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 451–464, Dec. 2011, doi: 10.1080/14697017.2011.630506.

[9] C. Baraldi, G. Corsi, E. Esposito, and Okay. Walker, Unlocking Luhmann: A Key phrase Introduction to Programs Principle. Bielefeld: Bielefeld College Press, 2021. [Online]. Obtainable: https://www.transcript-verlag.de/978-3-8376-5674-9/unlocking-luhmann/?quantity=978-3-8394-5674-3

[10] N. Luhmann, Group and resolution. Cambridge: Cambridge College Press, 2018. doi: 10.1017/9781108560672.

[11] J. Tække, “Luhmann and Group Tradition -A Programs Theoretical Analytical Technique Luhmann and Group Tradition -A Programs Theoretical Analytical Technique,” June 2025. [Online]. Obtainable: https://www.researchgate.web/publication/392760245_Luhmann_and_Organization_Culture_-A_Systems_Theoretical_Analytical_Strategy_Luhmann_and_Organization_Culture_-A_Systems_Theoretical_Analytical_Strategy

[12] D. Seidl and Okay. H. Becker, “Organizations as Distinction Producing and Processing Programs: Niklas Luhmann’s Contribution to Group Research,” Group, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 9–35, Jan. 2006, doi: 10.1177/1350508406059635.

[13] M. Poppenborg, Wir führen anders: 24 ½ befreiende Impulse für Supervisor, 1. Auflage. Berlin: intrinsify.me GmbH, 2021.

[14] G. Wohland and M. Wiemeyer, Denkwerkzeuge der Höchstleister: Warum Dynamikrobuste Unternehmen Marktdruck Erzeugen, 1st ed. UNIBUCH VERLAG, 2014.

[15] D. Henderson, S. Earley, C. Bradley, and Knowledge Administration Administration Affiliation, Eds., DAMA-DMBOK: knowledge administration physique of data, Second

[16] D. J. Snowden and M. E. Boone, “A Chief’s Framework for Choice Making,” Harvard Enterprise Evaluation, Nov. 2007. [Online]. Obtainable: https://hbr.org/2007/11/a-leaders-framework-for-decision-making

[17] F. Heuer and O. Kruggel, Der Kulturarchitekt: mit dem Tradition Board Unternehmenskultur analysieren und verändern, 1. Auflage. Düsseldorf: Fachmedien Otto Schmidt KG, 2022.