Metaphoric boundary objects as co‐ordinating mechanisms in the knowledge sharing of innovation processes

Purpose – In order that knowledge distribution in companies can be efficient and effective, it should take place without boundaries. However, this is not often the reality. People tend to build up their own boundaries, often creating overly technical terminology so that others cannot participate in what they do. In other words, identity hinges on difference. Establishing these identities weakens the existence of real innovative companies and reinforces barriers within and between organisations. The ability of companies to transcend these barriers is partly based on the recognition of boundary objects. This means that the better the companies understand the nature of the existing boundary objects, the better they can take actions that will help to overcome existing barriers. Therefore the goal of the paper is to highlight boundary objects that co‐ordinate knowledge sharing within and between firms' innovation processes.Design/methodology/approach – There are many different types of boundary objects. The co...

[1]  Teresa M. Amabile,et al.  A Model of Creativity and Innovation in Organizations , 1988 .

[2]  H. Maturana.  The tree of knowledge , 1987 .

[3]  Ramkrishnan V. Tenkasi,et al.  P ERSPECTIVE M AKING AND P ERSPECTIVE T AKING IN C OMMUNITIES OF K NOWING , 2000 .

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

[5]  Kim B. Clark,et al.  Architectural Innovation: The Reconfiguration of Existing Product Technologies and the Failure of , 1990 .

[6]  S. Hart,et al.  Dimensions of success in new product development: An exploratory investigation , 1993 .

[7]  Tom R. Burns,et al.  The Management of Innovation. , 1963 .

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

[9]  Philip A. Roussel,et al.  Third generation R & D : managing the link to corporate strategy / Philip A. Roussel, Kamal N. Saad, Tamara J. Erickson , 1991 .

[10]  T. Allen.  Managing the flow of technology , 1977 .

[11]  Donna Greiner.  The Basics of Idea Generation , 1997 .

[12]  M. F. Hall.  COMMUNICATION WITHIN ORGANIZATIONS , 1965 .

[13]  Kaj U. Koskinen,et al.  The role of tacit knowledge in innovation processes of small technology companies , 2002 .

[14]  Michael L. Tushman,et al.  Technical Communication in R & D Laboratories: The Impact of Project Work Characteristics , 1978 .

[15]  R. Daft,et al.  Media Symbolism, Media Richness, and Media Choice in Organizations , 1987 .

[16]  P. Trott.  Innovation Management And New Product Development , 2004 .

[17]  Susan Leigh Star,et al.  Institutional Ecology, `Translations' and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39 , 1989 .

[18]  B. Twiss.  Managing Technological Innovation , 1974 .

[19]  R. Daft,et al.  Information Richness. A New Approach to Managerial Behavior and Organization Design , 1983 .

[20]  R. Kanter.  The Change Masters: Corporate Entrepreneurs at Work , 1985 .

[21]  H. Tsoukas.  The Missing Link: A Transformational View of Metaphors in Organizational Science , 1991 .

[22]  Gerald F. Smith,et al.  Towards a Logic of Innovation , 2003 .

[23]  C. P. Snow.  TWO CULTURES , 2006, Science.

[24]  Robert G. Cooper,et al.  The new product process: A decision guide for management , 1988 .

[25]  C. Prahalad,et al.  Competing for the Future , 1994 .

[26]  Susan R. Fussell,et al.  Perspective-Taking in Communication: Representations of Others' Knowledge in Reference , 1991 .

[27]  Stephanie D. Teasley,et al.  Perspectives on socially shared cognition , 1991 .

[28]  M. L. Patterson.  Accelerating innovation: A dip into the meme pool , 1990 .

[29]  Paul R. Carlile,et al.  A Pragmatic View of Knowledge and Boundaries: Boundary Objects in New Product Development , 2002, Organ. Sci..

[30]  P. Berger,et al.  Social Construction of Reality , 1991, The SAGE International Encyclopedia of Mass Media and Society.

[31]  Kaj U. Koskinen.  Tacit knowledge as a promoter of project success , 2000 .

[32]  Lauren B. Resnick,et al.  Shared cognition: Thinking as social practice , 1991, Perspectives on socially shared cognition.

[33]  Donald A. Schön.  The reflective practitioner : how professionals think in action , 1986 .

[34]  Elizabeth C. Hirschman,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

[35]  Joseph L. Badaracco,et al.  The knowledge link : how firms compete through strategic alliances / Joseph L. Badaracco, Jr. , 1993 .

[36]  G. Krogh,et al.  Five claims on knowing , 1996 .

[37]  Gerhard Fischer,et al.  Articulating the Task at Hand and Making Information Relevant to It , 2001, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[38]  L. Ross,et al.  The “false consensus effect”: An egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes , 1977 .

[39]  M. Boisot,et al.  CONVERGENCE REVISITED: THE CODIFICATION AND DIFFUSION OF KNOWLEDGE IN A BRITISH AND A JAPANESE FIRM , 1983 .

[40]  E. Rosch,et al.  The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience , 1993 .

[41]  Georg von Krogh,et al.  Enabling Knowledge Creation: How to Unlock the Mystery of Tacit Knowledge and Release the Power of Innovation , 2000 .

[42]  Hannu Vanharanta,et al.  Tacit knowledge acquisition and sharing in a project work context , 2003 .

[43]  Ernesto G. Arias.  Bottom-up Neighbourhood Revitalisation: A Language Approach for Participatory Decision Support , 1996 .

[44]  G. Hamel.  Competition for competence and interpartner learning within international strategic alliances , 1991 .

[45]  D. Schoen,et al.  The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action , 1985 .