Organisational rules, codification and knowledge creation in inter-organisation cooperative agreements

Avadikyan, Arman; Llerena, Patrick; Matt, Mireille; Rozan, Anne; Wolff, Sandrine

doi:10.1016/s0048-7333(01)00161-5

Cited by 37 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Standards are required in order to combine information and resources for knowledge sharing. Such standards should allow for flexibility in sense making and, hence, have the characteristics of fuzzy rules, where there is Broom for interpretation ( Avadikyan et al 2001). The lead firm in the ecosystem needs to embrace an open action strategy by developing fuzzy rules for knowledge interpretation as it is shared across the ecosystem.…”

Section: Uncertainty Vs Certaintymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Standardization enables better comparison of data in order to leverage coordination for knowledge sharing. Such standards, therefore, have the characteristics of codified rules (Avadikyan et al 2001). The lead firm in the ecosystem needs to embrace a closed action strategy by developing codified standards for knowledge that are fairly routine.…”

Section: Uncertainty Vs Certaintymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Knowledge management capabilities of lead firms in innovation ecosystems

Velu

2015

AMS Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Knowledge management is a key capability for innovation. Prior research has typically conceptualized and examined knowledge management capabilities as a property of an individual firm or business unit. More recently, however, the locus of competition and innovation has started to shift from the individual firm to firms working together as an ecosystem. In light of these changing realities, we explicate a set of capabilities that are built, maintained, and exercised by the lead firm in order to enhance innovation within ecosystems. We highlight three knowledge management capabilities: (1) knowledge acquisition, (2) knowledge sharing, and (3) knowledge utilization. Drawing on open and closed action strategies firms use to foster team-based innovation, we develop propositions for the knowledge management capabilities of the lead firm. Our approach highlights three salient tensions that arise from team based innovation: autonomy-control, dissent-consent and uncertainty-certainty. We highlight how the three tensions need to be managed across knowledge management capabilities in order to increase the rate of innovation of the ecosystem. In doing so, we contribute to the evolving marketing literature on sensing and responding in ecosystems in order to provide customers with superior value. We discuss the implications for both managers and theory.

show abstract

Section: Uncertainty Vs Certaintymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Uncertainty Vs Certaintymentioning

confidence: 99%

Knowledge management capabilities of lead firms in innovation ecosystems

Velu

2015

AMS Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A third mechanism through which formalization facilitates sensemaking revolves around its role in instigating and maintaining interaction (Avadikyan et al 2001;Balogun and Johnson 2005;Simons 1995). Interaction between participants in interorganizational relationships flows through 'series of formal processes' and outcomes (Ring 2000: 154), which serve as frameworks, mediums, or triggers for interaction (Ness 2002;Putnam 2003).…”

Section: Instigating and Maintaining Interactionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Interaction between participants in interorganizational relationships flows through 'series of formal processes' and outcomes (Ring 2000: 154), which serve as frameworks, mediums, or triggers for interaction (Ness 2002;Putnam 2003). Formalization is used to spin new stories; set actions in motion; announce beginnings, milestones and ends; and trigger changes of course (Avadikyan et al 2001;Eccles and Nohria 1992;Weick 1995). It entails the exchange of proposals between parties, which mediate conversations and dialogues (Nellore 2001;Putnam 2003), and enable parties to discuss tasks not yet executed and outcomes that still have to be created (Yakura 2002).…”

Section: Instigating and Maintaining Interactionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Coping with Problems of Understanding in Interorganizational Relationships: Using Formalization as a Means to Make Sense

Vlaar¹,

Bosch²,

Volberda³

2006

Organization Studies

220

312

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research into the management of interorganizational relationships has hitherto primarily focused on problems of coordination, control, and to a lesser extent, legitimacy. In this article, we assert that partners cooperating in such relationships are also confronted with 'problems of understanding'. Such problems arise from differences between partners in terms of culture, experience, structure and industry, and from the uncertainty and ambiguity that participants in interorganizational relationships experience in early stages of collaboration. Building on Karl Weick's theory of sensemaking, we advance that participants in interorganizational relationships use formalization as a means to make sense of their partners, the interorganizational relationships in which they are engaged and the contexts in which these are embedded so as to diminish problems of understanding. We offer a systematic overview of the mechanisms through which formalization facilitates sensemaking, including: (1) focusing participants' attention; (2) provoking articulation, deliberation and reflection; (3) instigating and maintaining interaction; and (4) reducing judgement errors and individual biases, and diminishing the incompleteness and inconsistency of cognitive representations. In this way, the article contributes to a better understanding of the relationships between formalization and sensemaking in collaborative relationships, and it carries Karl Weick's thinking on the relationship between sensemaking and organizing forward in the context of interorganizational management.

show abstract

“…Sanctioning may reduce opportunistic behaviour in the network because it shows actors that sanctions will be implemented if they do not act according to the rules (Avadikyan et al, 2001;Tenbrunsel & Messick, 1999). Using social control refers to collectively pressuring network actors to adhere to network norms, values or goals (Jones et al, 1997;Ouchi, 1979).…”

Section: Network Management Activitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

An activities-based approach to network management: An explorative study

Manser

Hillebrand

Woolthuis

et al. 2016

Industrial Marketing Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research highlights There are three distinct modes of network management: basically coordinated, controloriented and reward-oriented  Basically coordinated networks can only be managed in a limited way  Reward-and control-oriented networks can be managed, but through very different AbstractOver the last few decades, the industrial marketing literature and the business network literature have promoted a holistic approach to marketing and provided a framework for understanding interorganizational networks. However, our understanding of how interorganizational networks govern themselves when developing innovations is still limited. Most network management literature does not focus on the activities employed by network actors and/or does not recognize that there may be different modes of network management. This study explores how, why and in which combination network management activities are employed in a network and in doing so proposes a new conceptualization of network management. Using primary and secondary data pertaining to eleven innovation projects, this study reveals how network management consists of combinations of (rather than individual) management activities undertaken to manage a network.This study identifies three distinct modes of network management: basically coordinated, control-oriented and reward-oriented. Moreover, this study proposes that network actors try to match the management mode to their prevailing mental model as well as the type of network (e.g. in terms of project innovativeness).

show abstract

Organisational rules, codification and knowledge creation in inter-organisation cooperative agreements

Cited by 37 publications

References 22 publications

Knowledge management capabilities of lead firms in innovation ecosystems

Knowledge management capabilities of lead firms in innovation ecosystems

Coping with Problems of Understanding in Interorganizational Relationships: Using Formalization as a Means to Make Sense

An activities-based approach to network management: An explorative study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About