Knowledge production in consulting teams

Reihlen, Markus; Nikolova, Natalia

doi:10.1016/j.scaman.2010.05.004

Cited by 27 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 64 publications

(88 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In particular, we focus on how a client portfolio becomes a source of ambidexterity through a process of attaining and using knowledge across the portfolio. This also advances the understanding of client portfolio management in the KIF literature, which has previously focused on the selection of appropriate clients (Bettencourt et al, 2002;Fosstenløkken et al, 2003;Skjolsvik et al, 2007) and the activities that generate knowledge (Nikolova et al, 2009;Reihlen and Nikolova, 2010), or sharing knowledge internally (Haas and Hansen, 2007;Hansen et al, 1999;Morris, 2001;Werr and Stjernberg, 2003). Our model provides a more complete image of these activities in KIFs, bringing them together as a process of attaining knowledge through a client portfolio and exploring and exploiting within and across those individual relationships and then adjusting this portfolio dynamically.…”

Section: < Insert Figure 2 Here >mentioning

confidence: 82%

Dynamic Client Portfolios as Sources of Ambidexterity: Exploration and Exploitation Within and Across Client Relationships

Bednarek¹,

Burke²,

Jarzabkowski³

et al. 2016

Long Range Planning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper explains how dynamic client portfolios can be a source of ambidexterity (i.e. exploration and exploitation) for knowledge intensive firms (KIFs). Drawing from a unique qualitative dataset of firms in the global reinsurance market, we show how different types of client relationships underpin a dynamic client portfolio and become a source of ambidexterity for a KIF. We develop a process model to show how KIFs attain knowledge by segmenting their client portfolios, use that knowledge to explore and exploit within and across their client relationships, and dynamically adjust their client portfolios over time. Our study contributes to the literature on external sources of ambidexterity and dynamic management of client knowledge within KIFs.Keywords: Ambidexterity, client relationship management; knowledge intensive firms, strategic business relationship, exploration and exploitation Accepted for publication at Long Range Planning 2 IntroductionSince March's (1991) seminal work, the concept of organizational ambidexterity -the concurrent pursuit of exploitation, "the development of things already known", and exploration, the development of new knowledge (Levinthal and March, 1993, p. 105;Lavie et al., 2010) -has captured the imagination of organizational scholars. Ambidexterity is considered critical for organizational success and yet also extremely difficult to achieve within a single organization (Andriopoulos and Lewis, 2010;He and Wong, 2004;Raisch and Birkinshaw, 2008). In response to this recognized difficulty in achieving ambidexterity internally, interest in the role of external relationships in enabling ambidexterity has recently burgeoned, primarily with a focus on strategic alliances (e.g. Koza and Lewin, 1998;Lavie and Rosenkopf, 2006;Raisch and Birkinshaw, 2008;Rothaermel and Deeds, 2004). Yet, we still have much to learn about other external sources of ambidexterity, foremost among them client relationships. Initial studies highlight clients as sources of knowledge (Im and Rai, 2008), but tell us little about how knowledge is attained and used within and across client relationships to enable ambidexterity over time.The literature on knowledge-intensive firms (KIFs), by contrast, has developed some understanding of how firms can use client relationships for their own knowledge development (Bettencourt et al., 2002;Fosstenløkken et al., 2003;Skjolsvik et al. 2007). 1 Such KIFs critically rely on their ability to create, preserve and replenish a stock of valuable knowledge that they apply in their knowledge-based services (Alvesson, 1995;Moore and Birkinshaw, 1998;Starbuck, 1992;Von Nordenflycht, 2010). KIFs thus offer a useful context in which to study the potential of client relationships to fuel exploration and exploitation. Client knowledge can be a source of both exploration and exploitation within KIFs (He and Wong, 2005;Levinthal and March, 1993;Lavie et al., 2010); either refining existing knowledge, such as improving an existing solution, or 1 To maintain the authenticity of our data we ...

show abstract

Section: < Insert Figure 2 Here >mentioning

confidence: 82%

Dynamic Client Portfolios as Sources of Ambidexterity: Exploration and Exploitation Within and Across Client Relationships

Bednarek¹,

Burke²,

Jarzabkowski³

et al. 2016

Long Range Planning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One aspect of team working research that is closely related to the study of team learning is the examination of how teams share information (Hoch 2014) process information (Hinsz, Tindale, and Vollrath, 1997) share knowledge (Lee, Lee, and Park, 2014) create knowledge (Reihlen and Nikolova 2010) integrate knowledge (Gardner, Gino, and Staats, 2012) share cognition (Cannon-Bowers and Salas 2001), or develop team cognition (Cooke et al 2003;He, Butler, and King, 2007) and create shared mental models (Dionne et al 2010). …”

Section: Team Learning Action Research and Action Learningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Enabling team learning in healthcare

Boak

2016

Action Learning: Research and Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper is based on a study of learning processes within 35 healthcare therapy teams that took action to improve their services. The published research on team learning is introduced, and the paper suggests it is an activity that has similarities with action research and with those forms of action learning where teams address collective problems to enhance organisational performance. The paper proposes factors within the teams and in the teams' environments that enabled team learning, in particular, within the team, the behaviours of team leaders to encourage learning, communication, planning, action and review, and in the teams' environments the behaviour of senior managers and other stakeholders in positions of authority, access to effective information systems, and the availability of a modest amount of resource to enable team learning.

show abstract

“…Other elements of transformational governance include the organizational culture (Ouchi, 1979;Wilkesmann et al, 2009) and social norms that exist within organizations (Elster, 1989;Inauen, Rost, Osterloh, & Frey, 2010). Professional organizations are governed by social norms (Freidson, 2001;Mintzberg, 1989;Reihlen & Nikolova, 2010), like the norms that guide the quality of good research or approaches to teaching (Prosser & Trigwell, 2006;Trigwell & Prosser, 2004). Both are socialized over a long process of academic education.…”

Section: Transformational Governancementioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Transactional and Transformational Governance on Academic Teaching: Empirical evidence from two types of higher education institutions

Wilkesmann

2013

Tertiary Education and Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The leadership literature distinguishes two modes of governance, which can also be applied to the governance of universities: transactional and transformational. Transactional governance encompasses all forms of managerial governance, including selective incentives and monitoring capacity. The theoretical underpinning of this mode can be found in principal-agent theory. Transformational governance covers the means of restructuring the roles of principals and agents or the interaction situation in the organization, and also addresses all the means of restructuring the relationship between perceived environment and motivation, as can be seen in self-determination theory. Other elements of transformational governance are social norms, such as those that inform the quality of research or approaches to teaching. The main research question is: what has more impact on professors' perceptions of the significance attributed to academic teaching in Germany-transactional or transformational governance? Two hypotheses for transactional and two hypotheses for transformational governance are developed. The research question is answered with the help of two quantitative surveys, one conducted in 2009 with a sample of 1119 German research university professors and another conducted in 2011 with a sample of 942 German professors from universities of applied sciences. The main findings are that transactional governance has no impact on the perception of the significance attributed to academic teaching, whereas transformational governance has ample influence.

show abstract

Knowledge production in consulting teams

Cited by 27 publications

References 64 publications

Dynamic Client Portfolios as Sources of Ambidexterity: Exploration and Exploitation Within and Across Client Relationships

Dynamic Client Portfolios as Sources of Ambidexterity: Exploration and Exploitation Within and Across Client Relationships

Enabling team learning in healthcare

Effects of Transactional and Transformational Governance on Academic Teaching: Empirical evidence from two types of higher education institutions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About