IntroductionEuropean Framework for Knowledge Management defines knowledge as the combination of data and information, to which is added expert opinion, skills, and experience, to result in a valuable asset which can be used to aid decision making (Lee, 2000). In fact, the capability of a firm to produce outputs can be considered as value addition through knowledge (Grant M. , 1991). Knowledge is widely believed to include three domains, know-how (functional knowledge), know-what (tactical knowledge) and know-why (hypothetical knowledge) (Sanchez, 1997). Knowledge is seen as the most important strategic resource (Davenport, 1997) (Hall, 1992); (Stalk, 1992) (Drucker, 1993). We have moved to Epistemics, the scientific study edge. The value incorporated in the products and services is mainly due to the development of organisational knowledge resources (Quinn, 1992). It can be concluded that knowledge has an amplifying effect in an organization, where it adds value, mostly intangible, to the flow of capital, be it physical or intellectual. Value Knowledge Figure 1: Value addition though knowledge Knowledge can be divided into two categories, explicit and tacit based on accessibility (Nonaka, 1995). Explicit knowledge or formal knowledge can be communicated easily in a codified form but it lacks the “personal” component which emanates in tacit knowledge or informal knowledge. Tacit knowledge includes:a) Technical Expertise-Know-how and style of doing thingsb) Cognitive Processes-Schemas, ideas, mental models and, beliefs and perspectives. This can be stated as “We can know more than we can tell” (Polanyi, 1966). This accounts for the scientist’s capacity to pursue it, the approach towards solving problems and the anticipated outcomes. Tacit knowledge is not easily available as it resides at semi-insentient level and spread mostly through socialization making it difficult to articulate and record. (Janson, 2007) says that by using stories as the knowledge transporting vehicle the tacit knowledge can be combined with explicit one and shared effectively. Modern firms today rely more on explicit objectified knowledge than or the conscious knowledge and on the consequent scientific and technical training. But the mere fundamental of employee retention shows the importance of knowledge resident within the individual that expresses itself as hunches, intuitions, style of thinking/approach or in the most common way of communicating knowledge. It is now recognised that we have entered a “Knowledge Based Economy” (Foray, 2004) where knowledge is seen as the main key factor of business success and as the foundation of competitive advantage making Knowledge Management all the more important.Knowledge Management is defined as any practice that is aimed at capturing, creating, obtaining, sharing and applying knowledge (Demarest, 1997). In essence Knowledge Acquisition, Knowledge Sharing and Knowledge Utilization are the fundamental processes involved. Knowledge management (KM) can also be defined as the set of strategies, methods and tools to manage the intangible knowledge asset of a firm, in order to improve its global performance. Knowledge Management in an organization involves the following steps (Promoting e-Governance: Knowledge Management, 2016):a. Identification of the knowledge assets within the organization – explicit and tacitb. Development of these knowledge assetsc. Capturing and preservation of the knowledged. Using and sharing of the knowledge To get a better perspective of Knowledge Management, we apply the Resource Based Theory (RBT) also known as Resource Based View (RBV) to it. The Resource-Based View (RBV) is a managerial framework used to determine the strategic resources with the potential to deliver competitive advantage to a firm. These resources can be exploited by the firm in order to achieve sustainable competitive advantage (Barney, 1991). Resource Based View (RBV) treats knowledge as an objective transferable commodity and that the competitive advantage of the firm lies in having knowledge which is Valuable, Rare, Inimitable and Non-substitutable, popularly called as VRIN. Knowledge Management in this context aims at identifying and sustaining the VRIN knowledge sources. Sustainability of competitive advantage is therefore critical to Resource Based Theory (RBT) particularly to knowledge as a strategic resource (Barney, 1991) (Grant R. M., 1996). To sustain competitive advantage organizations mostly protect the knowledge. This is defined as Protective capacity which is the capacity to sustain or to reduce the depreciation of knowledge based resources by preventing knowledge from being identified, imitated or acquired by direct or indirect competitors (Andersen, 2012). Thus, tacit knowledge is likely to give more competitive advantage than explicit knowledge. Absorptive Capacity (AC) on the other hand refers to organizational openness to diverse and complementary sources of knowledge. It is inherent that knowledge sharing in absorptive capacity is reciprocative. RBV in case of Scientific R organizations puts knowledge at the epicenter of all activities. In contrast to normal business organizations which aim at monetary profits, R organizations aim at knowledge based products and intellectual property as the goal. Consequently, such organizations cannot work in isolation and have to be open to learn from external environment but then at the same time they have to protect their knowledge from others lest it may lose its competitive advantage and significance in its knowledge ecosystem. Thus an AC-PC approach is relevant to such organizations from RBV that should aim at maximising inward flow of knowledge and minimizing the outward flow of knowledge. In a knowledge ecosystem, it is not just necessity but adversity also that may help in fostering knowledge generation indigenously and on a larger scale, innovations. This is a unique “Denial” driven knowledge generation process. Eminent Scientist Dr. Raghunath Mashelkar puts this theory as:”Indian technology grew in a denial driven mode in the pre-liberalized India. Foreign technologies were denied because of lack of resource as well as a closed economy in the pre-liberalized era. They were also denied due to security and strategic reasons. It was through the path of ‘techno nationalism’ that India developed self-reliance through its own technologies in both civilian sectors as well as strategic sectors such as space, defense, nuclear energy, and supercomputers. Let me illustrate. Look at space technology from indigenous development to satellites to launch vehicles, from SLV to ASLV to PSLV to GSLV. India’s first moon orbiter project Chandrayan-1, Mars Orbiter Mission or even the recent simultaneous launch of 20 satellites are brilliant examples. No wonder, India is now ranked amongst handful of nations of the world that have a credible capability in space technology. “At this juncture it is important to define concepts of Knowledge Hoarding and Knowledge Hiding, two ways by which knowledge is withheld and that creates an atmosphere conducive for denial driven knowledge generation. 1. Knowledge HoardingKnowledge hoarding is the act of accumulating knowledge which may or may not be shared in the future (Hislop, 2003); that is, it is knowledge that has not been requested by another individual. We do not necessarily assume employees have malevolent intentions or even incompatible interests with their organizations when they hoard. Employees who are hoarding knowledge may be well-intended, striving to do their best, and struggling to honor their social commitments (e.g., to the organization, to co-workers, to clients) as best they can (Sitkin & Brodt, 2006). 2. Knowledge Hiding It is an intentional attempt to withhold or conceal knowledge that has been requested by another individual (Connelly et al., 2006). That is, it captures dyadic situations in which knowledge is requested by one employee and that knowledge is hidden by another employee. Although the act of intentionally concealing knowledge from another might be considered as an example of workplace deviance (Robinson & Bennett, 1995) from the point of view of the requestor, the person concealing the knowledge may feel that doing so is justified (e.g., it’s for the other person’s good) or in the organization’s best interests (e.g., preserving confidentiality). When considering why a coworker might prefer to hoard or hide his or her knowledge from a coworker, it is crucial to note that some employees consider knowledge as the sole property of the person who holds it. The other reasons as pointed out by (Webster, 2008) are: 1. Power and politics in organizations2. Territoriality3. Interpersonal Dynamics4. Organizational Culture and Norms 5. Individual Characteristics Sharing knowledge poses a key threat to theft of expertise and IP and is hence is less visible in senior-subordinate relationships than at peer level relationships. Nonaka (1994) argued that employees’ willingness to explicate and share their knowledge is critical for a firm’s knowledge creation capability. Alternatively, experts may share their knowledge with novices in order to repay their own training and socialization or in order to reinforce their expert status by remaining in contact with those less knowledgeable (Fine, 1998). Experts may hide information in order to reinforce their status within the organization. Likewise, there is some evidence that powerless employees may attempt to gain control through deviant behaviors (Ashforth, 1989). As such, powerless employees may be more likely to engage in knowledge withholding, in order to garner what leverage they can. Knowledge Sharing, hoarding and hiding play a critical role in understanding and applying Knowledge Management practices. Organizations tend to protect their best practices, intellectual capital to maintain a competitive edge. Outsourcing and contracting makes it necessary to share some knowledge and in the process those companies can learn. It should be emphasized that knowledge requests are frequently outside the supervisor-subordinate relationship, and may include fellow organizational members, close colleagues, and members of informal networks (Martiny, 1998). As noted by Prusak and Cohen (2001: 89), “managers … need to facilitate personal conversations. That’s why cafes, chat rooms, libraries, kitchens, and other social spaces are important. Sure, they promote knowledge exchange, but they also spur the discovery of mutual interest that support communities.” Taking into account all the above perspectives, this study aims to apply Resource Based View to analyse knowledge generation within SAC/ISRO, to identify knowledge sources and analyse them for competitive advantage. The knowledge framework so developed will depict knowledge flows both within and outside the organization. We also analyse the DIKW model to map the learning process that employees go through the above knowledge flow to see the cognitive i.e. thinking processes work and how organizational capability emanates from the collective wisdom of the human capital. Literature Review There are many studies that have used the Resource Based View (RBV) to analyze Knowledge Management from the view of generating competitive advantage. (Barney, 1991), states that in analyzing competitive advantage from organization resources, RBV method follows two assumptions that enable firms to garner competitive advantage:1. Firms within an industry are heterogeneous with regards to the resources they control. 2. Resource heterogeneity will persist overtime due to resource mobility being not perfect. These are necessary but not sufficient conditions, as (Barney, 1991) states that in addition, the resources are valuable, rare, and imperfectly imitable and substitutable in order to be a source of a sustained competitive advantage. Recently, much resource-based research has focused on intangible assets, which include information (Sampler, 1998), knowledge (e.g. Spender, 1996), and dynamic capabilities (Teece, Pisano and Shuen, 1997).(Mata et al., 1995) states that human competence is often tacit, and dependent on other interpersonal relationships which may take years to develop. They tend to be highly local or organization specific (Choi & Lee, 2002; Sambamurthy & Zmud, 1992). Specifically, intangible firm-specific resources such as knowledge permit firms to add up value to incoming factors of production (Hitt et al., 2001). Graham and Pizzo (1996) developed a framework to help companies’ position and manage knowledge for competitive advantage. The process of applying the framework “Configuring for Knowledge” has four interdependent and dynamic elements that exit in a closed loop system:1. Identifying the strategic business drivers,2. Establishing the knowledge core and interrelationships. That knowledge core includes both tangible and intangible assets in values and culture, people, technology, and business capabilities.3. Applying just-enough-discipline (JED) which begins with a highly centralized focus on culture and a consideration of variables such as speed, or precision with which knowledge is disseminated; and4. Monitoring and rebalancing. Peter (2000) indicate through resource based view that for a firm to reap long term strategic advantage, the firms need to consider not only the technology but organization infrastructure, organizational culture and the culture and people who form the Organizational Knowledge Management System (OKMS). Gold et al. (2001) notes that technological resource, structural resource, and cultural resource are rate and firm specific and therefore likely to serve as sources of organizational capability. Lee and Choi (2003) point out that along with competent KM skills the relationships between knowledge enablers (culture, structure, people, and technology) and organizational performance. Adopting Pan and Scarbrouth (1998) classification scheme for resources, key KM resources are classified in the following order: (1) the technical KM resource comprising the physical IT infrastructure components, and its KM capability (Gold et al., 2001; Lee & Choi, 2003), (2) the social KM resource comprising the structural, cultural, and human resource, and its KM capability (Lee & Choi, 2003). Richard L. Priem1 and John E. Butler2 state that the elemental resource-based view (RBV) is not currently a theoretical structure. Moreover, RBV proponents have assumed stability in product markets and eschewed determining resources’ values. As a perspective for strategic management, imprecise definitions hinder prescription and static approaches relegate causality to a “black box.” We outline conceptual challenges for improving this situation, including rigorously formalizing the RBV, answering the causal “how” questions, incorporating the temporal component, and integrating the RBV with demand heterogeneity models.Shu-Hui Chuang states that paper develops the concept of KM as an organizational capability and empirically examines the association between KM capabilities and competitive advantage. In order to provide a better presentation of significant relationships, through resource-based view of the firm explicitly recognizes important of KM resources and capabilities.Kearns, G. S. and Lederer, A. L. (2003), our understanding of how knowledge sharing in the alignment process contributes to the creation of superior organizational strategies, provides a framework of the alignment-performance relationship, and furnishes several new constructs.Acedo, F. J., Barroso, C. and Galan, J. L. (2006), empirically analyzes the assumptions underlying the theory from an inductive perspective. The paper differs from previous works by identifying the main trends within the theory and by noting their diffusion among the leading management-oriented journals. Three main trends are shown to coexist within RBT: the resource-based view, the knowledge-based view, and the relational view Discussion With reference to a Scientific R&D organization like SAC/ISRO, the knowledge generation for a Knowledge Unit (KU) happens through different avenues. They are explained as follows:Routine: Routine work which deals with the firm’s functionality, and dynamic capabilities that enable improvement (routine modification). It contributes to functional knowledge. Routines are stable behavior patterns that characterize the organizational reactions from a variety of internal or external stimuli, generating two patterns of behavior. The first involves performing procedures previously known in order to generate income for the organization, i.e., to use the organizational capabilities. The second aims to establish changes in routines in order to increase the competitive advantage.The accumulation of experience is the process by which organizational routines are developed and established within the organization and accumulate tacit knowledge. This process of accumulation of knowledge, called cumulative, makes the organization able to develop innovations, proposing technological advances. Further, optimized routine processes at organizational level result in “best practices”. Transfer of organizational knowledge (i.e., routine or best practices) can be observed through changes in the knowledge or performance of recipient units. The transfer of organizational knowledge, such as best practices, can be quite difficult to achieve. Project: Project is a temporary endeavor undertaken to create a unique product, service or result. These are time bound activities that form a part of a larger Program. A project involves investigating, compiling, arranging, and reporting information outside the range of usual activities while routine is defined within the range of a department’s function. It increases tactical knowledge. With reference to SAC/ISRO it may be supported by the routine function due to the projects being distributed across specialized domains unless the project demands new innovation. Project Management Institute (1996) defines PM as “the application of knowledge, skills, tools and techniques to project activities in order to meet or exceed stakeholder needs and expectations from a project”.Research: Research comprises “creative and systematic work undertaken to increase the stock of knowledge, including knowledge of humans, culture and society, and the use of this stock of knowledge to devise new applications. It is used to establish or confirm facts, reaffirm the results of previous work, solve new or existing problems, support theorems, or develop new theories. It increases hypothetical knowledge. A research project may also be an expansion on past work in the field. Research projects can be used to develop further knowledge on a topic, or in the example of a school research project, they can be used to further a student’s research prowess to prepare them for future jobs or reports. Training and Development: Organizations do not work in isolation and have to stay in lead or match the competitors. The widely used technique is Training and Development (T&D) where human capital is generated. It supports both routine and project tasks. Training and development activities are mostly structured towards enhancing specific capabilities of the organization, hence it can be said to provide targeted o structured knowledge form the view of organizational requirements. Internal training programs vs external training programs. A KU leans through the above knowledge sources within the organization utilizing its experience, opinion/cognitive patterns, skills, and expertise/competence. The cognitive component refers to an individual’s mental models, maps, beliefs, paradigms and viewpoints. It contributes in a major way to a KU’s processing of information into knowledge. The knowledge than emanates in form of explicit and tacit knowledge as defined earlier in the study. Explicit Knowledge refers to the codifiable component that can be disembodied and transmitted (Alavi and Leidner, 1999). It is the know-what which can be extracted fromthe knowledge holder and shared with other individuals (Nonaka & Takeushi, 1995). Tacit Knowledge can be said to be the knowing or the deeply rooted know-how that emerges from action in a particular context. The tacit dimension is based on experience, thinking, and feelings in a specific context, and is comprised of both cognitive and technical components. The knowledge transmission between explicit and tacit knowledge has been very well put forward by Ikujiro Nonaka as the SECI model, popularly called as Knowledge Spiral. The SECI model of knowledge dimensions is a model of knowledge creation that explains how tacit and explicit knowledge are converted into organizational knowledge. The SECI model distinguishes four knowledge dimensions – socialization, externalization, combination, and internalization – which together form the acronym “SECI”. The SECI model was originally developed by Ikujiro Nonaka in 1990and later further refined by Hirotaka Takeuchi1. Tacit to Tacit (Socialization) – This dimension explains Social interaction as tacit to tacit knowledge transfer, sharing tacit knowledge face-to-face or through experiences. For example, meetings and brainstorm can support this kind of interaction. Since tacit knowledge is difficult to formalize and often time and space specific, tacit knowledge can be acquired only through shared experience, such as spending time together or living in the same environment. Means: Apprenticeship, Mentoring, Workshops, Coffee table discussions, Lectures, Story telling2. Tacit to Explicit (Externalization) – Codification of knowledge into explicit form which may embed tacit knowledge. When tacit knowledge is made explicit, knowledge is crystallized, thus allowing it to be shared by others, and it becomes the basis of new knowledge. Concept creation in new product development is an example of this conversion processMeans: Articles, Meetings, Strategic Plan Reports, Blogs and forums3. Explicit to Explicit (Combination) – It happens by combination. Combining different types of explicit knowledge, for example building prototypes. The creative use of computerized communication networks and large-scale databases can support this mode of knowledge conversion. Explicit knowledge is collected from inside or outside the organisation and then combined, edited or processed to form new knowledge. The new explicit knowledge is then disseminated among the members of the organizationMeans: Project and Research Reports 4. Explicit to Tacit (Internalization) – Explicit to tacit by Internalization (knowledge receiving and application by an individual), enclosed by learning by doing; on the other hand, explicit knowledge becomes part of an individual’s knowledge and will be assets for an organization. Internalization is also a process of continuous individual and collective reflection and the ability to see connections and recognize patterns and the capacity to make sense between fields, ideas, and concepts. Means: Education, Training (On the job), Learning by doing The sum total of knowledge generated by KUs at different levels of organization translates into organizational knowledge. In the context of SAC/ISRO, the organizations main interaction in the external environment happens with:1. Academia- Through Sponsored Research and MoUs for development of technology to support present or future missions. 2. Other Space Agencies- Collaborative projects for synergy, for example Chandayaan-1 etc.3. Industry- For developing competence amongst industrial partners 4. General- Through data/knowledge access platforms like MOSDAC, VEDAS, Announcement of Opportunity, Conferences, Publications etc. Not all the knowledge is shared and the knowledge deemed “Confidential” is kept within the organization in form of Internal Publications, Reports, control mechanisms for sharing knowledge etc. Thus it can be seen SAC/ISRO maintains an adequate AC-PC relationship with AC being more adopted. A timestamp view of Knowledge Unit from the Resource based View of Knowledge Management can be given by the following schematic representation. Timestamp view represents the knowledge view of a KU at any instant of time.