Designing workspaces for cross-functional knowledge-sharing in R & D: the “co-location pilot” of Novartis

Abstract

Purpose – This paper examines co-location as an important solution to design workspaces in research and development (R & D). It argues that co-locating R & D units in multi-space environments serves knowledge creation by leveraging knowledge sharing across boundaries. Design/methodology/approach – This study is based on a co-location project of the knowledge-intensive, multi-national company Novartis. To compare communication and collaboration patterns, we interviewed and observed employees before and after co-location into the “co-location pilot” and investigated a control group that was not co-located. The use of data and method triangulation as a research approach underlines the inherent dynamics of the co-location in this study. Findings – The study suggests findings leveraging knowledge sharing in two different ways. Co-location of dispersed project team members increases unplanned face-to-face communication leading to faster and more precise flows of knowledge by transcending knowledge boundaries. Co-location to an open multi-space environment stimulates knowledge creation by enabling socialization, externalization and combination of knowledge. Practical implications – This study provides managerial implications for implementing co-location to achieve greater knowledge sharing across functions. The design of the work environment provides the framework for successful co-location. Originality/value – This paper reports the findings of an empirical case study conducted within the “co-location pilot” of the pharmaceutical company Novartis. This study contributes to an in-depth understanding of the phenomena on a qualitative and micro-level.

Collaborative workplaces for innovation in service companies: barriers and enablers for supporting new ways of working

“…It crosses distance and organizational structures, resulting in dynamic teams whose members are selected from different workgroups both inside and outside of the company (Pentland 2012;Chen and McDonald 2015). Changes in the communication patterns affect knowledge sharing and innovation processes by leading to the emergence of cross-pollination of ideas between workgroups and to the need for continuous coordination across functions (Hill and Gareth 2009;Fleming 2004;Coradi et al 2015b).…”

Knowledge sharing behaviour within organisations; a diary-based study of unplanned meetings between researchers

“…As Yeo and Marquardt (2015) state, it is a cognitive and behavioural process involving individuals. To be able to stimulate tacit KS, organisations need to understand how knowledge is shared between employees (Coradi et al, 2015) and thus how to measure behaviour that ensures that knowledge is shared. With regard to the cognitive element of the process, involvement is mentioned as an important aspect (e.g., Hau et al, 2016;Mascitelli, 2000).…”

“…Knowledge flows within organisations are important for successful innovation (Coradi, Heinzen, & Boutellier, 2015) and competitive advantage (Carlucci & Schiuma, 2006). Increased knowledge sharing (KS) is highly associated with success of new product development (NPD) programmes (Markham & Lee, 2014).…”

Antecedents and outcomes of breadth and depth of absorptive capacity: An empirical study

“…For example, Granovetter (1973) maintains that weak tie sources are often more important in spreading information or resources because they tend to serve as a bridge between otherwise disconnected social groups. Following that line of thought, Coradi, Heinzen, and Boutellier (2015) points out that as weak tie sources have a low degree of connectivity, they do not provide the deep social support of dense networks; thus such sources provide more opportunities to secure new information and diverse perspectives that can facilitate ideas (Fleming, Mingo, & Chen, 2007). Previous research has also found that weak tie sources transfer and secure codified knowledge efficiently and easily (Hansen, 1999).…”

“…Our results are consistent with previous studies. Prior related knowledge is the most important antecedent to absorptive capacity (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990;Van Den Bosch, Volberda, & De Boer, 1999) and weak tie sources contain the breadth of knowledge resources (Coradi, Heinzen, & Boutellier, 2015); therefore, a larger knowledge breadth and network of weak ties will have more nodes and provide broader sources of knowledge to breadth of absorptive capacity. Many studies have shown that prior related knowledge is important to absorptive capacity (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990;Van Den Bosch, Volberda, & De Boer, 1999) and that strong tie sources are greatly beneficial in the acquisition of useful (tacit and specialized) knowledge (Szulanski, 1996;Uzzi, 1997;Hansen, 1999).…”