{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014036786060019362, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 6.054607508532423, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Transformation towards the Knowledge Economy: An Interpretive Case Study of Policy Formation in an Asian Country

Various Asian governments are launching strategic blueprints to transform their countries from a production economy to a knowledge-based economy whereby the production, distribution and utilization of knowledge constitute the primary bases for economic growth and wealth creation. These initiatives are seen as crucial to maintaining national competitiveness as new information communications technologies and globalization rapidly erode traditional advantages. The processes by which these k-economy initiatives are developed and implemented are complex social political decisions but sparsely documented. In this paper we describe the context, content and process of developing a knowledge-based economy blueprint in an Asian country. In the formulation and implementation of that blueprint, we were simultaneously action researcher and reflexive practitioner, generally guided by an interpretative methodology. From the analysis, we draw implications regarding the concept of strategy, the practice of strategy and aspects of reflexive methodology in an Asian context. We re-conceptualize strategy formation as a complex process whereby a reflexive practitioner constantly revises, modifies and adapts policy propositions in the light of incoming knowledge and new information from various actors and consequences, intended and unintended; consciously evaluates the sources of authority and individual perspectives; consciously leveraging on mindsets, power relations and divergent organizational values; and accommodates as many knowledge domains and influential stakeholder interests as feasible. We propose that the effectiveness of the strategy formation process can be enhanced with an approach based on structuration theory. From a methodological perspective, a key implication is the need to distinguish between the espoused theoretical framework and the theory-in-use as the action researcher interprets the reality of the problem situation.