The flow of ideas and timing of evaluation as determinants of knowledge creation

There are different perspectives on the study of knowledge in organizations, developed in economics, sociology, anthropology and organization theory. Several authors followed Schumpeter's idea that innovations are new combinations of existing knowledge and incremental learning. Kogut and Zander further developed this idea and defined knowledge as a portfolio of options, and emphasized the importance of combinative capacities in knowledge creation. In a similar vein, Garud and Nayyar developed a notion of the transformative capacitiy of a firm in analyzing technological innovations. This paper follows in this tradition by pointing at the effects of different organizational structures on the flow of ideas and on the possibility of combining proposals in organizations. Communication structures, span of control and timing of evaluation are shown, using computer simulations, to have a large impact on the degree to which commonalities and complementarities among ideas and proposals can be detected and on the eventual combination of ideas for knowledge creation. Implications for organizational design are discussed. Copyright 2003, Oxford University Press.

[1]  M. Shubik,et al.  A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. , 1964 .

[2]  M. C. Jensen,et al.  Specific and General Knowledge and Organizational Structure , 1995 .

[3]  R. Grant.  Toward a Knowledge-Based Theory of the Firm,” Strategic Management Journal (17), pp. , 1996 .

[4]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  ABSORPTIVE CAPACITY: A NEW PERSPECTIVE ON LEARNING AND INNOVATION , 1990 .

[5]  I. Nonaka,et al.  The Knowledge Creating Company , 2008 .

[6]  Clayton M. Christensen.  The Innovator's Dilemma , 1997 .

[7]  J. Brown,et al.  Organizational Learning and Communities-of-Practice: Toward a Unified View of Working, Learning, and Innovation , 1991 .

[8]  J. Brown,et al.  Knowledge and Organization: A Social-Practice Perspective , 2001 .

[9]  T. Lant,et al.  Organizational Cognition: Computation and Interpretation , 2000 .

[10]  R. Garud,et al.  TRANSFORMATIVE CAPACITY: CONTINUAL STRUCTURING BY INTERTEMPORAL TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER , 1994 .

[11]  Viktor Mikhaĭlovich Glushkov,et al.  An Introduction to Cybernetics , 1957, The Mathematical Gazette.

[12]  B. Kogut,et al.  Knowledge of the Firm, Combinative Capabilities, and the Replication of Technology , 1992 .

[13]  Sridhar Seshadri,et al.  Managerial Allocation of Time and Effort: The Effects of Interruptions , 2001, Manag. Sci..

[14]  Araújo,et al.  An Evolutionary theory of economic change , 1983 .

[15]  Michael X Cohen,et al.  A Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice. , 1972 .

[16]  I. Nonaka.  A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation , 1994 .

[17]  Z. Shapira.  Governance in Organizations: A Cognitive Perspective , 2000 .

[18]  M. Schulz.  THE UNCERTAIN RELEVANCE OF NEWNESS: ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING AND KNOWLEDGE FLOWS , 2001 .

[19]  K. Weick.  The social psychology of organizing , 1969 .

[20]  Raimar Richers.  The theory of economic development , 1961 .

[21]  S. Winter,et al.  An evolutionary theory of economic change , 1983 .

[22]  E. Jaques,et al.  In praise of hierarchy. , 1990, Harvard business review.

[23]  Andrew B. Hargadon,et al.  Brainstorming groups in context: Effectiveness in a product design firm , 1996 .

[24]  Laurence Prusak,et al.  In good company: how social capital makes organizations work , 2001, UBIQ.

[25]  J. Ruiz Moreno.  [Organizational learning]. , 2001, Revista de enfermeria.

[26]  M. Polanyi.  Chapter 7 – The Tacit Dimension , 1997 .