The evaluation of knowledge claims in an innovation project: A case study

Understanding how an organization determines what knowledge is valid leads to new insights about how firms cope with innovation. Although the evaluation of knowledge is a relevant topic in the field of knowledge management, the existing literature does not provide substantial contributions. Nonaka and Takeuchi's (1995) theory of justification is the only established approach. This study adopts an empirical approach for improving the understanding of knowledge claim evaluation by presenting a conceptual framework based on Toulmin's (1958) argumentation theory. We apply the framework in a small-scale study at the headquarters of a large building technology multinational. Based on the results, we reflect upon Nonaka and Takeuchi's (1995) justification theory. Our findings indicate that the justification theory explains actual knowledge claim evaluation only partially. The unexplained parts, for which we explore alternative meanings, enlighten why innovations fail or succeed from the viewpoint of knowledge claim evaluation.