Bandingkan metode

	Skala Kapabilitas Manajemen Pengetahuan	Skala Ambidexterity Inovasi
Bidang	Manajemen Strategis	Manajemen Strategis
Keluarga	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Tahun asal	1995	1991
Pencetus	Ikujiro Nonaka and Hirotaka Takeuchi (SECI model); adapted by organizational scholars	James G. March
Tipe	Organizational self-report questionnaire	Organizational self-report questionnaire
Sumber perintis	Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford University Press.	March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87.
Alias	KM Capability Scale, Knowledge Management Maturity Scale	Ambidexterity Scale, Exploration-Exploitation Scale
Terkait	5	5
Ringkasan	Knowledge Management (KM) refers to the organizational capacity to create, capture, organize, and apply knowledge to improve organizational effectiveness, innovation, and decision-making. Nonaka and Takeuchi's (1995) knowledge-creating company framework conceptualized knowledge as moving through four conversion modes: socialization (tacit to tacit knowledge transfer through experience), externalization (tacit knowledge articulation into explicit forms), combination (explicit knowledge assembly into systems), and internalization (explicit knowledge absorption into tacit understanding). This scale measures organizational capability across the four KM processes—knowledge creation, capture, sharing, and application—revealing where organizations excel or struggle in converting information into competitive advantage.	Innovation Ambidexterity—the organizational capacity to simultaneously engage in exploration (pursuing radical, novel innovations) and exploitation (improving and extending existing products and processes)—is fundamental to sustained competitive advantage. March (1991) formalized this trade-off in Organization Science, arguing that organizations must balance the two to survive and thrive. Exploration alone leads to variety but insufficient returns; exploitation alone leads to competence traps and vulnerability to disruption. This scale, operationalized by He and Wong (2004) and extended by Jansen et al. (2006), measures organizational capability in both domains and the degree to which firms balance competing innovation imperatives.