Knowledge webs and generative relations:: A network approach to developing competencies

Firms can enjoy competitive advantage by developing relations for building knowledge webs. In order to become valuable, the relations in these knowledge webs need to be of a 'generative character'. Our findings indicate that there are three different factors contributing to making relations in the web generative and thereby valuable. These three factors are (1) a balance between novelty and confirmation in knowledge exchanges, (2) complementarity of competencies, and (3) shared visions across organizational borders. We examine each of these potential factors for creating value in detail and also discuss how organizations can improve their ability to build generative relations.

[1]  Keith G. Provan,et al.  Networks within networks: Service link overlap, organizational cliques, and network effectiveness , 1998 .

[2]  Jeffrey H. Dyer,et al.  The Relational View: Cooperative Strategy and Sources of Interorganizational Competitive Advantage , 1998 .

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

[4]  Henk W. Volberda,et al.  Co-evolution of Firm Absorptive Capacity and Knowledge Environment: Organizational Forms and Combinative Capabilities , 1999 .

[5]  W. Bennis,et al.  Leaders: Strategies for Taking Charge , 1985 .

[6]  Yves L. Doz,et al.  Formation processes of R&D consortia: which path to take? Where does it lead? , 2000 .

[7]  Y. Doz,et al.  Alliance Advantage: The Art of Creating Value Through Partnering , 1998 .

[8]  Nicolai Juul Foss,et al.  The Resource-Based Perspective: An Assessment and Diagnosis of Problems , 1998 .

[9]  Ron Sanchez,et al.  Dynamics of competence-based competition: Theory and practice in the new strategic management , 1997 .

[10]  C. Prahalad,et al.  The dominant logic: A new linkage between diversity and performance , 1986 .

[11]  R. Bertodo.  Implementing a strategic vision , 1990 .

[12]  J. Barney.  Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage , 1991 .

[13]  J. H. Dyer,et al.  Creating and managing a high‐performance knowledge‐sharing network: the Toyota case , 2000 .

[14]  David Lane,et al.  Foresight, Complexity, and Strategy , 1995 .

[15]  B. Wernerfelt,et al.  A Resource-Based View of the Firm , 1984 .

[16]  T. Das,et al.  A Resource-Based Theory of Strategic Alliances , 2000 .

[17]  Melissa A. Schilling.  Winning the standards race:: Building installed base and the availability of complementary goods , 1999 .

[18]  B Kogut.  Theoretical and empirical perspectives , 1988 .

[19]  R. Gulati.  Alliances and networks , 1998 .

[20]  C. Prahalad,et al.  To revitalize corporate performance, we need a whole new model of strategy. Strategic intent. , 1989, Harvard business review.

[21]  Lynda Gratton,et al.  Implementing a strategic vision—Key factors for success , 1996 .

[22]  J. Porras,et al.  Organizational Vision and Visionary Organizations , 1991 .

[23]  Stuart A. Kauffman,et al.  The origins of order , 1993 .

[24]  Ron Sanchez,et al.  Introduction: recent progress in developing theory for competence-based management , 2000 .

[25]  B. Kogut.  The network as knowledge : Generative rules and the emergence of structure , 2000 .

[26]  Donald E. Hatfield,et al.  THE EFFECTS OF CORPORATE RESTRUCTURING ON AGGREGATE INDUSTRY SPECIALIZATION , 1996 .

[27]  Daniel A. Levinthal.  Adaptation on rugged landscapes , 1997 .