Interdependence and organization design

Puranam, Phanish; Raveendran, Marlo

doi:10.4337/9781782548225.00020

Cited by 16 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our theoretical model complements and extends these findings in the context of cross-disciplinary knowledge creation by showing that structural adaptation does not necessitate an "omniscient designer" (Puranam & Raveendran, 2013) "inscribing" his or her intentions on a team by structuring it (Orlikowski, 2008). Our theoretical model complements and extends these findings in the context of cross-disciplinary knowledge creation by showing that structural adaptation does not necessitate an "omniscient designer" (Puranam & Raveendran, 2013) "inscribing" his or her intentions on a team by structuring it (Orlikowski, 2008).…”

Section: Implications For Research On Organizational Designsupporting

confidence: 61%

“…Furthermore, we show that such collective information processing efforts have important implications for overcoming obstacles in team knowledge creation (Schippers, Edmondson, & West, 2014) by increasing members' understanding of not only the nature and intensity (Knudsen & Srikanth, 2014;Puranam & Raveendran, 2013;Sherman & Keller, 2011) but also the scope of latent interdependencies that shape formal structures.…”

Section: Implications For Research On Organizational Designmentioning

confidence: 86%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Coordinating Knowledge Creation in Multidisciplinary Teams: Evidence from Early-Stage Drug Discovery

Ben-Menahem

Krogh

Erden

et al. 2016

AMJ

114

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Based on a multi-year field study of early-stage drug discovery project teams at a global pharmaceutical company, this paper examines how multidisciplinary teams engaged in knowledge creation combine formal and informal coordination mechanisms when faced with unpredictable interdependencies among specialists' knowledge domains. While multidisciplinary teams are critical for knowledge creation in increasingly specialized work environments, the coordination literature has been divided with respect to the extent to which such teams rely on formal coordination structures and informal coordination practices. Our findings show that when interdependencies among knowledge domains are dynamic and unpredictable, specialists design self-managed (sub-)teams around collectively held assumptions about interdependencies based on incomplete information (conjectural interdependencies). These team structures establish the grounds for informal coordination practices that enable specialists to both manage known interdependencies and reveal new interdependencies. Newly revealed interdependencies among knowledge domains, in turn, promote structural adaptation. Drawing on these findings, we advance an integrative model explaining how team-based knowledge creation relies on the mutual constitution of formal coordination structures and informal coordination practices. The model contributes to theory on organizational design and practice-based research on coordination in cross-disciplinary knowledge creation.

show abstract

Section: Implications For Research On Organizational Designsupporting

confidence: 61%

Section: Implications For Research On Organizational Designmentioning

confidence: 86%

Coordinating Knowledge Creation in Multidisciplinary Teams: Evidence from Early-Stage Drug Discovery

Ben-Menahem

Krogh

Erden

et al. 2016

AMJ

114

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While our primary focus will be on Dutch component audits performed on behalf of group auditors in the United Kingdom and Germany, in a later stage, we will also compare Dutch component audits to Indian and Australian component audits to provide greater insight on the potential impact of culture. We expect that certain client factors and engagement characteristics make it more difficult for group and component auditors to anticipate each other's actions (e.g., larger, more complex engagements) and therefore will be associated with more challenges and lower performance (Srikanth & Puranam, 2011;Puranam & Raveendran, 2012). As discussed in the previous section, Downey and Bedard (2017) suggest that firms seek to mitigate these effects using three types of coordination and communication strategies, with varying levels of success.…”

Section: Introduction To Our Research Questionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

FAR Research Project: What do we know about group audits?

Downey¹,

Gold

2017

MAB

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite concerns about the quality of group audits, recently raised by practice, inspectors, regulators, and standard setters, only a limited number of academic studies have specifically examined these engagements to date. This paper first describes some of the concerns about group audits to explain why research in this area is important and has the potential of providing a valuable contribution to practice. Then, we review the limited extant research available on group audits. Following, we present an overview of our own ongoing research project Coordination and Communication Challenges in Global Group Audits: Evidence from Component Audit Leaders, in which we examine (1) the determinants of coordination and communication challenges, (2) the degree to which the strategies described mitigate such challenges, and (3) how, ultimately, component auditors' perceptions of engagement performance are affected. We finalize the paper with a discussion of possible implications of our research for practice.

show abstract

“…To avoid integration failure (Puranam and Goetting 2011), designs with high levels of designchoice interdependency (hence task interdependency in the design process) should be created by tight-knit teams with closely aligned incentives, generally lodged within a single firm (Thompson, 1967, Brooks 1973, Nickerson and Zenger 2004, Colfer and Baldwin 2010. Conversely, modular designs with low degrees of design-choice interdependency can be created by loosely coupled individuals with disparate knowledge and incentives, often lodged in different firms (Orton and Weick 1992, Langlois and Robertson 1992, Sanchez and Mahoney 1996, Fine 1998, Baldwin and Clark 2000, Colfer and Baldwin 2010, Puranam and Goetting 2011. Thus "the coordination tasks implicit in specific product designs SHARING DESIGN RIGHTS J ANUARY 2014 2 largely determine the feasible organization designs for developing and producing those products" (Sanchez and Mahoney, 1996, p. 64).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This so-called "mirroring hypothesis" suggests that technology imposes a structure on organizations that produce designs. To avoid integration failure (Puranam and Goetting 2011), designs with high levels of designchoice interdependency (hence task interdependency in the design process) should be created by tight-knit teams with closely aligned incentives, generally lodged within a single firm (Thompson, 1967, Brooks 1973, Nickerson and Zenger 2004, Colfer and Baldwin 2010. Conversely, modular designs with low degrees of design-choice interdependency can be created by loosely coupled individuals with disparate knowledge and incentives, often lodged in different firms (Orton and Weick 1992, Langlois and 4 cost of a collective good but will instead free ride.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sharing Design Rights: A Commons Approach for Developing Infrastructure

Gil¹,

Baldwin²

2014

AMPROC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study empirically investigates the relationship between design structure and organization structure in the context of new infrastructure development projects. Our research setting is a capital program to develop new school buildings in the city of Manchester, UK. Instead of creating a controlled, hierarchical organization, which would mirror the buildings' design structure, the Manchester City Council created a "commons organization," and chose to share decision-rights with local claimants. Each school's faculty was thus given rights equal to Council staff to participate in the design process and to approve the school's design. In the natural resources literature, commons theory predicts that, if a robust governance structure is created, this complex form of organizing gives claimants incentives to contribute to the enterprise whilst dampening collective action problems (Ostrom 1990). Here we extend this claim to the production of man-made artifacts. The design commons induced teachers to volunteer time and effort to communicate their practical knowledge, but created corresponding tensions over interdependent choices for the final design. Yet, none of the projects succumbed to collective action problems in the form of budget overruns, bogged-down processes, or users feeling disenfranchised. Applying Ostrom's (1990) principles of robust commons governance, we show that the Manchester design commons organization was robust by her criteria and propose that robustness contributed positively to the outcome. We also discuss design flexibility as an intervening variable that was critical in reconciling differences that governance alone could not resolve. We conclude with the rudiments of a theory describing when and why a commons organization can be advantageous for production of designs. INTRODUCTIONDoes the physical structure of a design constrain the structure of the organization that produces the design? Scholars commencing with Henderson and Clark (1990) have argued that design organizations will "come to mirror the internal structure of the product they are designing" (ibid. p. 27). This so-called "mirroring hypothesis" suggests that technology imposes a structure on organizations that produce designs. To avoid integration failure (Puranam and Goetting 2011), designs with high levels of designchoice interdependency (hence task interdependency in the design process) should be created by tight-knit teams with closely aligned incentives, generally lodged within a single firm (Thompson, 1967, Brooks 1973, Nickerson and Zenger 2004, Colfer and Baldwin 2010. Conversely, modular designs with low degrees of design-choice interdependency can be created by loosely coupled individuals with disparate knowledge and incentives, often lodged in different firms (Orton and Weick 1992, Langlois and Robertson 1992, Sanchez and Mahoney 1996, Fine 1998, Baldwin and Clark 2000, Colfer and Baldwin 2010, Puranam and Goetting 2011. Thus "the coordination tasks implicit in specific product designs SHARING DESIGN RIGHTS J ANUARY 201...

show abstract

Interdependence and organization design

Cited by 16 publications

References 0 publications

Coordinating Knowledge Creation in Multidisciplinary Teams: Evidence from Early-Stage Drug Discovery

Coordinating Knowledge Creation in Multidisciplinary Teams: Evidence from Early-Stage Drug Discovery

FAR Research Project: What do we know about group audits?

Sharing Design Rights: A Commons Approach for Developing Infrastructure

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About