Boundary emergence in inter-organizational innovation: The influence of strategizing, identification and sensemaking

Purpose – Inter-organizational innovation is becoming an attractive development form in view of the complexity of many of today’s innovations. However, inter-organizational innovation does not often lead to the desired results. To understand this paradoxical situation, the purpose of this paper is to examine a high-novelty R & D collaboration between multiple organizations with focus on the occurrence of knowledge boundaries and their underlying mechanisms. Design/methodology/approach – The analysis is based on a grounded longitudinal study of an inter-organizational R & D team. Participant observation data, interviews, and document data have been collected over three years. Findings – The study identified six different knowledge boundaries characterized by processes of sensemaking, strategizing, and group identification. These three processes were all rooted in continuous attempts at the individual level to reduce uncertainty, and the findings therefore highlight the unexpected consequences of uncertaint...

[1]  E. Wenger.  Communities of Practice and Social Learning Systems , 2000 .

[2]  F. Veloso,et al.  Interfirm Innovation under Uncertainty: Empirical Evidence for Strategic Knowledge Partitioning* , 2008 .

[3]  Wanda J. Orlikowski,et al.  Understanding Shifting Power Relations within and Across Organizations: A Critical Genre Analysis , 2008 .

[4]  Michael A. Hogg,et al.  Uncertainty, entitativity, and group identification , 2007 .

[5]  Walter W. Powell,et al.  The Frontiers of Intellectual Property: Expanded Protection versus New Models of Open Science , 2007 .

[6]  Gilbert Probst,et al.  Why communities of practice succeed and why they fail , 2008 .

[7]  Arvind Parkhe,et al.  Orchestrating Innovation Networks , 2006 .

[8]  Paul R. Carlile,et al.  Transferring, Translating, and Transforming: An Integrative Framework for Managing Knowledge Across Boundaries , 2004, Organ. Sci..

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

[10]  H. Lundberg.  Triple Helix in practice: the key role of boundary spanners , 2013 .

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

[12]  H. Tajfel,et al.  The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior. , 2004 .

[13]  Bart van den Hooff,et al.  Are We on the Same Page? Knowledge Boundaries and Transactive Memory System Development in Cross-Functional Teams , 2015, Commun. Res..

[14]  Emmanuelle Vaast,et al.  The Emergence of Boundary Spanning Competence in Practice: Implications for Implementation and Use of Information Systems , 2005, MIS Q..

[15]  Anselm L. Strauss,et al.  Basics of qualitative research : techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory , 1998 .

[16]  Isabelle Bouty.  Interpersonal and Interaction Influences on Informal Resource Exchanges Between R&D Researchers Across Organizational Boundaries , 2000 .

[17]  William C. Barley,et al.  Human Communication Research Issn 0360-3989 Engineering Objects for Collaboration: Strategies of Ambiguity and Clarity at Knowledge Boundaries , 2022 .

[18]  L. Biggiero,et al.  Heterogeneity and Specificity of Inter-Firm Knowledge Flows in Innovation Networks , 2008 .

[19]  Paul R. Carlile,et al.  Into the black box: the knowledge transformation cycle , 2003, IEEE Engineering Management Review.

[20]  JoAnne Yates,et al.  Life in the Trading Zone: Structuring Coordination Across Boundaries in Postbureaucratic Organizations , 2006, Organ. Sci..

[21]  Ikujiro Nonaka,et al.  On a Knowledge creating organization , 1994 .

[22]  Elaine M. Bailey,et al.  Diagnosing Unforeseeable Uncertainty in a New Venture , 2007 .

[23]  Natalia Levina,et al.  Collaborating on Multi-Party Information Systems Development Projects: A Collective Reflection-in-Action View , 2005, Inf. Syst. Res..

[24]  A. Strauss,et al.  The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research aldine de gruyter , 1968 .

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

[26]  S. Gächter,et al.  Initiating private-collective innovation: The fragility of knowledge sharing , 2010 .

[27]  B. Glaser.  Theoretical Sensitivity: Advances in the Methodology of Grounded Theory , 1978 .

[28]  A. Strauss.  Basics Of Qualitative Research , 1992 .

[29]  Anne L. J. Ter Wal,et al.  Coping with Open Innovation: Responding to the Challenges of External Engagement in R&D , 2014 .

[30]  Jay R. Galbraith.  Designing Complex Organizations , 1973 .

[31]  Michael A. Hogg,et al.  Motivations for group membership : The role of subjective importance and uncertainty reduction , 1999 .

[32]  Natalia Levina,et al.  The Emergence of Boundary Spanning Competence in Practice: Implicationsfor Information Systems' Implementation Use , 2004 .

[33]  C. Hardy,et al.  Discourse and Collaboration: The Role of Conversations and Collective Identity , 2005 .

[34]  P. Bourdieu,et al.  实践与反思 : 反思社会学导引 = An invitation to reflexive sociology , 1994 .

[35]  P. Burke,et al.  Identity theory and social identity theory , 2000 .

[36]  Martin A. Bader,et al.  Managing intellectual property in inter-firm R&D collaborations in knowledge-intensive industries , 2008, Int. J. Technol. Manag..

[37]  H. Chesbrough,et al.  Open Innovation and Strategy , 2007 .

[38]  Hugh Willmott,et al.  Re-Embedding Situatedness: The Importance of Power Relations in Learning Theory , 2003, Organ. Sci..

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

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

[41]  Vicki Parker,et al.  When do interprofessional teams succeed? Investigating the moderating roles of team and professional identity in interprofessional effectiveness , 2011 .

[42]  Davide Ravasi,et al.  Exploring entrepreneurial learning: A comparative study of technology development projects , 2005 .

[43]  Deborah Dougherty,et al.  Digital Science and Knowledge Boundaries in Complex Innovation , 2012, Organ. Sci..

[44]  J. Sillince,et al.  Strategic intent as a rhetorical device , 2007 .

[45]  Andrew B. Hargadon,et al.  Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm. , 1997 .

[46]  S. Park,et al.  Interfirm Rivalry and Managerial Complexity: A Conceptual Framework of Alliance Failure , 2001 .

[47]  Nannette P. Napier,et al.  Balancing diversity in innovation networks: Trading zones in university-industry R&D collaboration , 2015 .

[48]  David O'Sullivan,et al.  MANAGING WITHIN DISTRIBUTED INNOVATION NETWORKS , 2007 .

[49]  Toke Bjerregaard.  Industry and academia in convergence: Micro-institutional dimensions of R&D collaboration , 2010 .

[50]  Mohan V. Tatikonda,et al.  Technology novelty, project complexity, and product development project execution success: a deeper look at task uncertainty in product innovation , 2000, IEEE Trans. Engineering Management.

[51]  D. Harrison,et al.  What's the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. , 2007 .

[52]  Davide Ravasi,et al.  Organizing Thoughts and Connecting Brains: Material Practices and the Transition from Individual to Group-Level Prospective Sensemaking , 2012 .

[53]  Douglas Polley,et al.  Learning While Innovating , 1992 .

[54]  Beth A. Bechky,et al.  Boundary Organizations: Enabling Collaboration among Unexpected Allies , 2008 .

[55]  Anne O'Brien,et al.  Developing Transactive Memory Systems , 2012 .

[56]  Koenraad Debackere,et al.  Thinking along: a process for tapping into knowledge across boundaries , 2011, Int. J. Technol. Manag..

[57]  Richard Whittington,et al.  Strategy as Practice , 1996 .

[58]  Angel Cabrera,et al.  Knowledge-Sharing Dilemmas , 2002 .

[59]  D. Dougherty.  Interpretive Barriers to Successful Product Innovation in Large Firms , 1992 .

[60]  R. Suddaby.  From the Editors: What Grounded Theory is Not , 2006 .