PROXIMITY DIMENSIONS AND DYNAMICS WITHIN AN ORGANISATION: EXPERIENCES FROM A CHANGE PROCESS

Proximity between actors within an organisation can be relevant for interactive learning and innovation because it promotes collaboration and knowledge exchange. However, proximity has mainly been studied as a characteristic of the relationships between actors belonging to different organisations. In this paper, a case study of a faculty at a university is used to investigate proximity within this organisation and related to a change process. Based on 23 interviews and a self-ethnographic approach, we offer a detailed micro-perspective on how the geographic, cognitive, and social dimensions of proximity influence interactive learning and innovation between employees within the organisation. We also identify two distinct proximity configurations that have emerged during the change process. Finally, we analyse how the proximity dimensions are balanced within these configurations and offer two propositions explaining their influence on interactive learning and innovation. We thereby contribute to the existing theory on proximity by extending the insight into proximity from an inter-organisational to an intra-organisational level and by adding new knowledge to the understanding of proximity dynamics.

[1]  L. Mathisen,et al.  The significance of knowledge readiness for co-creation in university industry collaborations , 2021, Innovation.

[2]  R. Fini,et al.  Spin‐offs' linkages to their parent universities over time: The performance implications of equity, geographical proximity, and technological ties , 2020 .

[3]  R. Boschma,et al.  Proximity, innovation and networks: a concise review and some next steps , 2020, Handbook of Proximity Relations.

[4]  Ferran Giones,et al.  University–industry collaborations: an industry perspective , 2019, Management Decision.

[5]  Vincenzo Zampi,et al.  Proximity and centrality in inter-organisational collaborations for innovation , 2019 .

[6]  C. Werker,et al.  Substituting face-to-face contacts in academics’ collaborations: modern communication tools, proximity, and brokerage , 2019, Studies in Higher Education.

[7]  Carmen Contreras Romero.  Personal and business networks within Chilean biotech § , 2018 .

[8]  Torben Pedersen,et al.  The dual influences of proximity on knowledge sharing , 2018, J. Knowl. Manag..

[9]  A. Tanner.  Changing locus of innovation: a micro-process approach on the dynamics of proximity , 2018, European Planning Studies.

[10]  Claudia Werker,et al.  Personal and social proximity empowering collaborations: the glue of knowledge networks , 2018, Industry and Innovation.

[11]  R. Garcia,et al.  Is cognitive proximity a driver of geographical distance of university–industry collaboration? , 2018, Area Development and Policy.

[12]  C. Romero.  Personal and business networks within Chilean biotech , 2018 .

[13]  D. Leszczyńska,et al.  How proximity matters in interactive learning and innovation: a study of the Venetian glass industry , 2018 .

[14]  K. Frenken,et al.  Proximity, knowledge base and the innovation process: towards an integrated framework , 2018 .

[15]  Merle Kuttim.  The role of spatial and non-spatial forms of proximity in knowledge transfer , 2016 .

[16]  Einar Rasmussen,et al.  How firms collaborate with public research organizations : The evolution of proximity dimensions in successful innovation projects , 2016 .

[17]  Teis Hansen,et al.  Substitution or Overlap? The Relations between Geographical and Non-spatial Proximity Dimensions in Collaborative Innovation Projects , 2015 .

[18]  R. Boschma,et al.  Proximity and Innovation: From Statics to Dynamics , 2015 .

[19]  Marie Coris,et al.  Proximity Dynamics, Social Networks and Innovation , 2015 .

[20]  Benedetto Lepori,et al.  Organizations as Penetrated Hierarchies: Environmental Pressures and Control in Professional Organizations , 2015 .

[21]  Ikujiro Nonaka,et al.  A THEORY OF ORGANIZATIONAL KNOWLEDGE CREATION , 2014 .

[22]  A. T. Wal.  The dynamics of the inventor network in German biotechnology: geographic proximity versus triadic closure , 2014 .

[23]  K. Charmaz,et al.  Constructing Grounded Theory , 2014 .

[24]  Soumaya Ben Letaifa,et al.  Too close to collaborate? How geographic proximity could impede entrepreneurship and innovation , 2013 .

[25]  Ron Boschma,et al.  The dynamics of interfirm networks along the industry life cycle: The case of the global video game industry, 1987–2007 , 2013 .

[26]  Jannika Mattes,et al.  Dimensions of Proximity and Knowledge Bases: Innovation between Spatial and Non-spatial Factors , 2012 .

[27]  Tom Broekel,et al.  The Co-evolution of Proximities – A Network Level Study , 2012 .

[28]  F. Molina-Morales,et al.  Geographical and cognitive proximity effects on innovation performance in SMEs: a way through knowledge acquisition , 2011, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal.

[29]  R. Piekkari,et al.  Theorising from case studies: Towards a pluralist future for international business research , 2011, Research Methods in International Business.

[30]  A. Torre.  The role of proximity during long-distance collaborative projects. Temporary geographical proximity helps , 2011 .

[31]  R. Tijssen,et al.  Research collaboration at a distance: Changing spatial patterns of scientific collaboration within Europe , 2010 .

[32]  Joris Knoben,et al.  Localized inter-organizational linkages, agglomeration effects, and the innovative performance of firms , 2009 .

[33]  Jean-Benoit Zimmermann,et al.  Clusters in the Global Knowledge-based Economy: Knowledge Gatekeepers and Temporary Proximity , 2008 .

[34]  A. Torre.  On the Role Played by Temporary Geographical Proximity in Knowledge Transmission , 2008 .

[35]  M. Grossetti.  Proximities and Embedding Effects , 2008 .

[36]  Nicolaj Siggelkow.  Persuasion with case studies , 2007 .

[37]  Teresa Brannick,et al.  In Defense of Being “Native”: The Case for Insider Academic Research , 2007 .

[38]  E. Stam.  Why Butterflies Don’t Leave: Locational Behavior of Entrepreneurial Firms , 2007 .

[39]  Constructing Grounded Theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis Kathy Charmaz Constructing Grounded Theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis Sage 224 £19.99 0761973532 0761973532 [Formula: see text]. , 2006, Nurse researcher.

[40]  J. Knoben,et al.  Proximity and Inter-Organizational Collaboration: A Literature Review , 2006 .

[41]  R. Boschma.  Proximity and Innovation: A Critical Assessment , 2005 .

[42]  Bart Nooteboom,et al.  Empirical Tests of Optimal Cognitive Distance , 2004 .

[43]  Mats Alvesson,et al.  Methodology for close up studies – struggling with closeness and closure , 2003 .

[44]  B. Nooteboom.  Learning and Innovation in Organizations and Economies , 2000 .

[45]  Rosa Grimaldi,et al.  How intermediary organizations facilitate university–industry technology transfer: A proximity approach , 2017 .

[46]  Christine Nadel,et al.  Case Study Research Design And Methods , 2016 .

[47]  Pamela S. Schindler,et al.  Business research methods 12th ed. , 2014 .

[48]  B. Lundvall,et al.  The Economic Geography of Innovation , 2007 .

[49]  Knoben.  Proximity and inter-organizational collaboration , 2006 .

[50]  Andrew C. Inkpen,et al.  Social Capital, Networks, and Knowledge Transfer , 2005 .

[51]  Ron Boschma,et al.  Proximity and Innovation , 2001 .

[52]  R. Stake.  The art of case study research , 1995 .