1
Orchestrating Multi-level Knowledge Integration in an Organization:
A Social-Cognitive Perspective
Chi-Wei Liu
Lecturer, Management School, HongKuang University, Taiwan
Doctoral student, Graduate School of Management,
I-Shou University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan
[email protected]
Pei-Wen Huang
Lecturer, Department of International Trade, Cheng-Shiu University, Taiwan
Doctoral student, Graduate School of Management,
I-Shou University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan
[email protected]
1
2
Orchestrating Multi-level Knowledge Integration in an Organization:
A Social-Cognitive Perspective
ABSTRACT
This paper attempts to explore the relationship between organizational knowledge
integration and knowledge governance from a view of social-cognitive model of
behavior, a perspective of governing the multi-level knowledge integration.
Conceptually, based on the assumption that an organization serves as a knowledge
repository and knowledge creation is the key issue to enhance and enrich this
knowledge base, we assert that the nature of an organizational knowledge creation
lies in the organization’
s ability of integrating knowledge resided in multi levels.
From the view of social-cognitive model of behavior, we assert that arranging
knowledge governance mechanisms during the process of knowledge integration will
e
nha
nc
et
he or
ga
ni
z
a
t
i
on’
s ability of integrating the multi-level knowledge.
Theoretically, by integrating the essence of relational-embeddedness theory and
cognition school, the dual roles of knowledge governance and the content of
knowledge governance mechanisms turn illuminated. A conceptual model on the
relationship between knowledge governance and organizational knowledge
integration is proposed through arguments drawn from this social-cognitive
perspective.
2
3
Given that insight and innovative ideas originate from individuals not
organizations (Simon, 1991; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995), a theory of organizational
knowledge creation needs to consider the levels of individual, group, and
organization (Nonaka, 1994; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Nonaka, Toyama & Konno,
2000; Takeuchi & Nonaka, 2004). Encouragingly, this multilevel phenomenon has
been taken into consideration by more research in recent years while examining
organizational knowledge creation. Nonetheless, most research still takes it for
granted that individual knowledge would somehow become part of the organizational
knowledge. In another words, few research has questioned if there exist any
mechanisms to orchestrate the transforming process. The ensuing necessity of
examining the determinants influencing this process deserves gaining more and more
attention especially in the era of New Economy. And this concern is echoed by some
research by proposing the concept of “
governance”(Grandori, 2000; Grandori and
Kogut, 2002; Foss, Husted, Michailova and Pedersen, 2003; Nooteboom, 2000;
Zahra and Filatotchev, 2004).
To clarify the concept of governance in a knowledge-based organization, some
research has advanced our knowledge about this notion (e.g., Foss, et al., 2003;
Nooteboom, 2004; Zahra and Filatotchev, 2004; Foss and Pedersen, 2004). For
example, Nooteboom (2004) attempts to provide more explanatory power for the
relationship of governance and the organizational competence by reconciling
transaction cost economics (TCE) and competence view. Zahra and Filatotchev (2004)
examined the relationship between corporate governance and threshold firms from a
knowledge-based perspective. Foss and Pedersen (2004) assert the importance of
combining macro and micro views to examine the content of governance in
international knowledge-based economics. However, deficient in comprehensive
understanding of the role, content and theoretical foundations of knowledge
governance, we could not perceive why and how knowledge governance can arrange,
cultivate or shape an environment to “
govern”the process of the knowledge activities.
Our concern echoes what Foss et al. (2003: 16) indicated: “
it is fair to say the
understanding of the link between organization and knowledge, and in particular how
organizational controls may be used to foster knowledge sharing and creation, is very
much in its infancy”
. As a result, this research aims to shed light on this puzzle. To be
precise, to increase the conceptual clarity of the governance literature, theoretically,
we aim to explore the content of knowledge governance from the perspectives of
3
4
relational embeddedness theory and cognition school, the theoretical underpinnings
of a view of social-cognitive model of behavior.
Conceptually, organizational knowledge is created through the interaction between
individual human thought and the organizational social context within which it arises.
In particular, during the process of organizational knowledge creation, integrating
individual-level knowledge to group-level or organization-level is the nature of
orchestrating organizational knowledge creation. Accordingly, within the context,
either the impact of the cognitive consideration of the human thought or the impact
of the social consideration will determine the quality and quantity of the
organizational knowledge integration. Therefore, in this vein, from the cognitive side
of the interaction, shortening the cognitive distance among the organizational
members by reinforcing their learning abilities can help weld individual human
thought into group or an organizational thought. On the other hand, from the social
perspective of the interaction, cultivating a shared contextual environment can foster
the integration of the social knowledge. In so doing, the platform of knowledge
integration will be constructed.
Yet, to orchestrate the activity of integrating multi-level knowledge on the
platform, we assert that to motivate and to coordinate the knowledge carriers is the
nature of knowledge governance. Furthermore, to govern this activity of
organizational knowledge integration, this platform should be and could be
efficiently managed by arranging some knowledge governance mechanisms. Under
the context, there are two roles of knowledge governance mechanisms to play,
“
pr
oc
e
s
s
-loss avoiders”and “
process-gain facilitators”
. ‘
Pr
oc
e
s
s
-l
os
sa
voi
de
r
s
’a
r
e
those governance arrangements contributing to the smoothness of the knowledge
integration process by eliminating the obstacles during the process. As for
‘
process-g
a
i
nf
a
c
i
l
i
t
a
t
or
s
’
, served as catalysts of the knowledge creation process, they
are the arrangements to boost t
hei
ndi
vi
dua
l
’
swi
l
l
i
ng
ne
s
sa
nda
bi
l
i
t
yofintegrating
knowledge. We claim that by arranging these knowledge governance mechanisms
from a view of social-cognitive model of behavior, we can gain more explanation on
why firm A outperforms firm B when both firms undergo the same activity of
knowledge integration.
In sum, our focus of examining the relationship between knowledge governance
and organizational knowledge integration from a social-cognitive model of behavior
4
5
derives from two considerations. First, our perspective to examine knowledge
governance not only satisfies the nature of knowledge-integrating behavior, an
interaction of social and cognitive behaviors among organizational individuals, but
echoes the prevailing concern of extending our knowledge of governance from an
interdisciplinary approach (e.g., Grandori, 1997, 2002; Barney and Hesterly, 1999;
Shapira, 2000; Foss et al, 2003; Foss and Pedersen, 2004; Nooteboom, 2004). Second,
Nooteboom (2000) proposes that exploring the organizational knowledge creation
phenomena could be justified from a knowledge governance view. Though we
confirm that the key issue for a firm to enhance and enrich its knowledge base is
about how to efficiently create organizational knowledge (Nonaka, 1994). In
particular, we assert that the nature of an organizational knowledge creation lies in
the organization’
s ability of integrating multi-level knowledge. To gain more
understanding about organizational knowledge creation from a knowledge
governance perspective, we claim that the inception of examining the determinants of
organizational knowledge integration can shed more light on this issue.
Based on the focus of this study, we hope to achieve the following purposes. First,
being at the inception of exploring the theoretical underpinnings of knowledge
governance deposits, we hope to explore the roles and the content of the knowledge
governance mechanisms. Second, we hope the findings of this study can broaden our
knowledge on “
how”and “
why”knowledge governance mechanisms can motivate
and coordinate organizational knowledge doers.
With the objectives to achieve, our argument develops as follows. We begin with
an introduction of knowledge governance in an organization and justify the
legitimacy of a social-cognitive view of behavior model to examine the relationship
between knowledge governance and the organizational knowledge integration. Then,
the content of organizational knowledge integration is briefly introduced. Next, based
on the theoretical inference, the dual roles of knowledge governance and the content
of knowledge governance mechanisms turn illuminated. A conceptual model on the
relationship between knowledge governance and organizational knowledge creation
is proposed through arguments drawn from a social-cognitive view of behavior
model.
KNOWLEDGE GOVERNANCE IN AN ORGANIZATION
5
6
With the change in the meaning of knowledge, from being to doing, knowledge
has become a resource and utility (Drucker, 1994), a strategic asset (Winter, 1987)
and a source of competitive advantage (Teece and Pisano, 1994; Nonaka and
Takeuchi, 1995). Given that an organization serves as a knowledge repository (Kogut
and Zander, 1993), to enrich and enlarge this knowledge repository is to advance the
organization’
s competitiveness. Especially, the ability of integrating existing
knowledge determines the quality and quantity of this knowledge base.
In another
word, how a firm integrates different knowledge and experience in an organization
with flexibility is the key determinant of enlarging the organizational knowledge
base.
Fundamentally, organizational members are the primary entity to enrich and
enlarge this knowledge base. Yet, knowledge resided in different organizational
carriers is not only highly specialized but also dispersed among organizational
members (Kogut and Zander, 1993, 1996; Grant, 1996; Lam, 1997). Only when
knowledge is inextricably interwoven with one another in an organization will it
becomes more constructive and powerful. Under the circumstances, an organization
has to make the specialized knowledge more generative by integrating them into
shared and unified one with organizational touch. To successfully weld the individual
knowledge, the categories of thoughts of the people involved must be coordinated
during this processing (Nooteboom, 2000). In another word, during the welding
process, the specialized and dispersed knowledge can and should be directed by
governing. Accordingly, within the context, how to covert the individual-level
knowledge into integrative knowledge is an issue of “
knowledge governance”
.
Historically, the concept of knowledge governance could be traced back to
Dr
uc
ke
r
’
sa
dvoc
a
t
e of a
not
he
ri
ns
pi
r
i
ng ma
na
ge
me
ntt
houg
hton ‘
knowl
e
dge
wor
ke
r
s
’i
nt
he1960s
.Dr
uc
ke
r(
1960)a
s
s
e
r
t
st
ha
tl
i
keot
he
ra
s
s
e
t
s
,k
nowl
e
dge
should be properly governed and understood. It is claimed that when organization
me
mbe
r
se
xe
c
ut
eknowl
e
dgea
c
t
i
vi
t
i
e
sc
ol
l
e
c
t
i
ve
l
y
,i
ti
s‘
knowl
e
dgeg
ove
r
na
nc
e
me
c
ha
ni
s
ms
’(
Gr
a
ndor
i
,2001a)
,‘
or
g
a
ni
z
i
ngpr
i
nc
i
pl
e
s
’(
Kog
uta
ndZa
nde
r
, 1992,
1996)or‘
i
nt
e
g
r
a
t
i
ngme
c
ha
ni
s
m’(
Gr
a
nt
, 1996) that orchestrate knowledge located in
different divisions or individuals to proceed with organizational knowledge activities.
However, the mask blurring the aforementioned mechanisms has not been uncovered.
To uncover the mask, we assert that these organizing mechanisms mentioned above
6
7
are, to great extent, the application of knowledge governance in an organization.
Basically, a proper design of knowledge governance is a necessary condition for
speeding up the creation and application of organizational knowledge (Schulz, 2001;
Foote et al., 2002). Only through a proper design of organization knowledge
governance will the localized and specialized knowledge be facilitated to be shared
and be integrated. Nonetheless, if bearing in mind the knowledge to govern is
generally characterized as context-specific, cognitive complexity, dynamic, tacit, etc.,
we realize that as Lindenberg (2003: 50) claims t
ha
t‘
…wha
tr
e
a
l
l
yma
t
t
e
r
si
n
organizations is the management of motivation, especially in organizations which
e
mpl
oy
e
e
s
’i
nt
e
l
l
i
g
e
nte
f
f
or
ti
sr
e
qui
r
e
df
ora
da
pt
i
vebe
ha
vi
or
’
. This note raises our
i
nt
e
r
e
s
ta
boutt
he i
nt
e
r
pr
e
t
a
t
i
on of‘
g
ove
r
na
nc
e
’i
nt
he knowl
e
dge
-based New
Economics. We have claimed that the nature of knowledge governance is to motivate
and to coordinate the knowledge carriers in an organization. To cope with the nature
of our research, to be specific, “
to motivate”is to encourage these organizational
members’willingness to integrate their knowledge with others’and “
to c
oor
di
na
t
e
”is
to bridge the organizational members’cognitive distances to stimulate organizational
knowledge integration. We have been puzzled about if traditional governance
s
t
r
e
s
s
i
ngon“
c
ont
r
ol
”i
sa
bl
et
og
o
ve
r
nknowl
e
dgei
s
s
ue
swe
l
li
naknowl
e
dg
e
-based
or
g
a
ni
z
a
t
i
on.‘
Is it the time to put new insight into this aged concept by adding the
consideration of motivation and coordination while examining organizational
knowledge integration’
? With curiosity, we propose this query.
Why is a new perspective in need?
…Not
hi
ngi
smor
ef
undame
nt
a
li
ns
e
t
t
i
ng our research agenda and informing our
research methods than our view of the nature of the human beings whose behavior
we are studying (Simon, 1985: 303)
With an aim of gaining more amplification about the concept of knowledge
governance, existing research have tried to advance our knowledge by examining
knowledge governance in an organization from variant perspectives (e.g., Foss, et al.,
2003; Nooteboom, 2004; Zahra and Filatotchev, 2004; Foss and Pedersen, 2004). Yet,
with the absence of learning, expression of distrust, assumption of opportunism, and
static-efficiency focus, taking TCE as an approach has been criticized for failing to
7
8
provide comprehensive understanding about the content of knowledge governance
(Grandori, 2001a; Nooteboom, 2004). As an alternative, looking at governance from
‘
gr
owt
h
’pe
r
s
pe
c
t
i
ve(
a competence-based organization approach) appears to provide
more powerful explanation to this issue. Nevertheless, if we further consider the
di
me
ns
i
onsof‘
c
og
ni
t
i
vec
ompl
e
xi
t
y
’
,‘
c
og
ni
t
i
vedistance’
,‘
c
ont
e
xt
ua
lde
pe
nde
nc
e
’
a
nd‘
s
oc
i
a
lconstruction’ofknowl
e
dg
e
,t
hec
ont
e
ntofg
ove
r
na
nc
ei
st
ol
ookdi
f
f
e
r
e
nt
(Grandori, 2000a). Just as Davis and Thompson (1994) suppose that with negligence
of social influence, efficiency-oriented approaches are limited to their power of
explanation for delineating the relationship between governance and behavior, the
incomprehensiveness c
a
l
l
suponust
oc
ons
i
de
rwha
tt
he
or
e
t
i
c
a
l‘
l
e
ns
’wea
r
et
owe
a
r
i
fwea
t
t
e
mptt
oga
i
nac
ompr
e
he
ns
i
vepi
c
t
ur
ea
boutt
he‘
knowl
e
dg
eg
ove
r
na
nc
e
’in
organizational knowledge integration.
Given that organizational knowledge is integrated through the interaction between
organizational knowledge carriers from the cognitive and the social dimensions, to
gain more understanding about knowledge governance in the activity of
organizational knowledge integration, examining from both the impact of the
cognitive consideration of the human thought and the impact of the social
consideration will advance our knowledge about the concept of knowledge
governance.
Thec
or
ec
ont
e
ntofs
oc
i
a
lmode
lofbe
ha
vi
orl
i
e
si
nt
ha
t‘
or
g
a
ni
z
a
t
i
onsa
r
e
e
mbe
dd
e
di
nne
t
wor
ksofs
oc
i
a
lr
e
l
a
t
i
ons
hi
ps
,whi
c
hme
a
nsone
’
sbe
ha
vi
ori
sr
a
r
e
l
y
explicable without reference to previous and persisting effects of interaction with
ot
he
r
sa
n
dt
heove
r
a
l
lpa
t
t
e
r
nofs
u
c
hi
nt
e
r
a
c
t
i
onsi
ngr
oups
’(
Gr
a
nove
t
t
e
r
,1986:31)
.
I
nPf
e
f
f
e
ra
ndSa
l
a
ni
c
k’
s(
1978:1)wor
ds
:‘
t
o[better] understand the behavior of an
or
g
a
ni
z
a
t
i
on, y
ou mus
t unde
r
s
t
a
nd t
he c
ont
e
xt of t
ha
t be
ha
vi
or
’
, be
c
a
us
e
org
a
ni
z
a
t
i
ona
lbe
ha
vi
ori
s‘
e
mbe
dde
di
nc
onc
r
e
t
e
,ong
oi
ng s
y
s
t
e
ms ofs
oc
i
a
l
r
e
l
a
t
i
ons
’(
Granovetter, 1985: 487). Thus, to explain the integrating process of the
socially-embedded knowledge, we can never neglect the impact of social model of
behavior.
Furthermore, from cognition standpoints, people observe, interpret and evaluate
the world according to their categories or mental frameworks of perception,
interpretation and evaluation (Davis and Thampson, 1994). Knowledge is a human
and personalized resource, acquired from people and also embodied in people. In
8
9
a
ddi
t
i
on,g
i
ve
nt
ha
tknowl
e
dgei
sde
ve
l
ope
di
ni
nt
e
r
a
c
t
i
on wi
t
h one
’
ss
pe
c
i
f
i
c
,
idiosyncratic string of experiences in specific contexts, it is bound to vary between
people (Nooteboom, 2004). In this vein, from the cognitive side of the behavior, to
explore the content of knowledge governance must be based on an understanding of
the importance of shared mental models among organizational members, besides
emphasizing the social context in which such cognition is embedded. Therefore,
Though Nooteboom (2004) attempts to explore the content of governance by adding
the consideration of cognition to TCE, it leads to the deficiency in exploring the root
of governance in knowledge-based organizations without the consideration of the
impact of social dimension.
Thus, providing the impact of social interaction and cognitive distance on the
social knowledge, it re-confirms the necessity of the prevailing concern that a
multidisciplinary effort should be exerted to clarify the phenomenon of governance
(Grandori and Kogut, 2002; Foss and Pedersen, 2004; Nooteboom, 2004). What's
more, given that transaction cost is endogenous in an organization, while examining
the intra-organizational knowledge integration, a proper perspective will be
independent of this consideration. Thus, it is time to cast new insight on the old
concept of governance from the viewpoint of human behavior. The view combining
‘
s
oc
i
a
lmode
l
’and ‘
cognitive model’ofbehavior is the theoretical underpinning of
our theoretical perspective, defined as ‘
View of Social-Cognitive Model of Behavior’
(S-C model)
What is ‘
View of Social-Cognitive Model of Behavior’(
S-C model)?
We argue that while the target of being governed is ‘
t
hepr
oc
e
s
soft
heknowl
e
dge
acti
vi
t
yi
t
s
e
l
f
’
,the S-C model could provide more understanding about the
phenomena of governing knowledge activities.
With t
he di
me
ns
i
ons of ‘
i
nt
a
ng
i
bi
l
i
t
y
’
,‘
e
mbe
dde
dne
s
s
’
,‘
t
a
c
i
t
ne
s
s
’
,‘
s
oc
i
a
l
c
ons
t
r
uc
t
i
on’
,a
nd‘
c
og
ni
t
i
vedi
s
t
a
nc
e
’
,t
hede
ve
l
opme
nt
a
lpr
ocess of knowledge is
l
i
kewh
a
tNoot
e
boom (
2004:
513)c
l
a
i
ms
:‘
[
knowl
e
dge
]i
spa
t
hde
pe
nde
nt
:t
he
ybui
l
d
upon preceding firm-s
pe
c
i
f
i
ca
s
s
e
t
sa
nd or
g
a
ni
z
a
t
i
ona
ll
e
a
r
ni
ng’
.To gain more
comprehensive understanding about governing the path-dependent knowledge, we
cannot neglect the interaction between knowledge and the physical and social world
9
10
(Nooteboom, 1992). In this vein, the nature of governance focuses on governing this
process from knowledge being to knowledge doing resulting from the interaction of
members in an organization. And the target of being governed is ‘
t
hepr
oc
e
s
soft
he
knowl
e
dgea
c
t
i
vi
t
yi
t
s
e
l
f
’
. (In this study, we focus on knowledge integration.)
To gain more explanatory power about this knowledge resource and its process of
being productive, the social-cognitive behavior model is inductive from the doctrines
of relational-embeddedness theory and cognition school. To be specific, both from
the social side, with the consideration of the impact of identity, social influence and
trust, and from the cognitive side, with the consideration of the impact of bounded
rationality on the process of knowledge activities, the S-C model provides more
explanation on how to maximize the gain and minimize the loss during the process of
integrating multi-level knowledge by arranging knowledge governance mechanisms
(KGMs). In this vein, tog
r
e
a
te
xt
e
nt
,r
e
ga
r
di
ngt
he‘
how’que
s
t
i
oni
nc
or
por
a
t
e
strategy research (Priem and Butler, 2001), the S-C model discloses the black box of
how knowledge could become productive with competence through the deployment
of KGMs. Specifically, this approach broadens our view in terms of the relationship
between knowledge governance and organizational knowledge integration.
Moreover, being aware of the impact of knowledge on an organizational design,
Grandori (2002) points out that the contribution of knowledge approaches to
or
g
a
ni
z
a
t
i
ont
he
or
i
e
sl
i
e
si
npr
ovi
di
ngane
w‘
c
ont
i
ng
e
nc
y
’f
a
c
t
orf
orunde
r
s
t
a
ndi
ng
organizational arrangements. Based on the contention, we intend to unfold the
content of knowledge governance by studying the contextual variables within an
organization. Specifically, we propose that well-designed contextual governance
mechanisms will have more prevalent effect on the organization during knowledge
integration processes (all else being equal). And the dual roles played by KGMs are
“
process-loss avoiders”and “
process-gain facilitators”
. “
Pr
oc
e
s
s
-l
os
sa
voi
de
r
s
”a
r
e
those governance arrangements contributing to the smoothness of integrating
individual-level knowledge bye
l
i
mi
na
t
i
ngt
heobs
t
a
c
l
e
s
.“
Process-g
a
i
nf
a
c
i
l
i
t
a
t
or
s
”
,
serving as catalysts of the process, are the arrangements to boost t
hei
ndi
vi
dua
l
’
s
willingness and ability of perform knowledge activities.
Also, another significant phenomenon we have to bear in mind is that
organizations are multilevel systems by their very nature (Klein, Dansereau and Hall,
1994). Ha
vi
nga
s
s
ume
dt
ha
t‘
or
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
onsdonotc
r
e
a
t
eknowl
e
dg
e
;pe
opl
edo’
,we
10
11
affirm that organizational knowledge cannot be regarded as simply the collection of
individual knowledge, but rather the conversion of individual knowledge. Thus, what
interests us to look into in this study is a multilevel phenomenon. Hopefully, to build
a science with rich theory and relevant applications, the S-C model would not only
suite the needs of this line of research (Grandori and Kogut, 2002; Barney and
Hesterly, 1999; Shapira, 2000; Foss et al, 2003; Foss and Pedersen, 2004;
Nooteboom, 2004), but also echoes the query of bridging the micro-macro gap in
knowledge governance research and theory (Foss and Pedersen, 2004).
With no doubt, to enrich our knowledge about the line of governance research in
organizational knowledge integration, first we need to explore what the content of
organizational knowledge integration is.
ORGANIZATIONAL KNOWLEDGE INTEGRATION
For the purpose of this study, we follow Huang and Newell (2003) and adopt the
definition of knowledge integration as “
an ongoing collective process of constructing,
articulating and redefining shared beliefs through he social interaction of
organizational members”(Huang & Newell, 2003). However, regarding this assertion,
the question of what mechanisms integrate the individual specialized knowledge
upgraded to an organizational level and then unified as productive knowledge
remains largely unanswered. To solve this puzzle, we have to bear in mind that the
process of organizational knowledge integration is positively a multi-level
phenomenon, which depicts the process of converting individual knowledge to
organizational one. Thus, to get more knowledge about the content of knowledge
governance in organizational knowledge integration, two issues are in question.
‘
Wha
ta
r
et
he a
nt
e
c
e
de
nt
sofs
uc
c
e
s
s
f
ulor
g
a
ni
z
a
t
i
ona
lknowl
e
dg
eintegration?
’
‘
Wha
tme
c
ha
ni
s
mshe
l
pintegrate individual the knowledge into the organizational
l
e
ve
l
?
’Toa
ns
we
rt
he
s
eque
s
t
i
ons
,i
nt
hef
ol
l
o
wi
ngs
e
c
t
i
on,wef
i
r
s
tdi
s
c
us
st
he
process of organizational knowledge integration.
The roadmap of organizational knowledge integration
It is declared that to perform tasks at a collective level, the specialized knowledge
needs to be exchanged among relevant departments or members (Davenport and
11
12
Prusak, 1998). Thus, during the process of accomplishing tasks, knowledge
embedded in variant carriers but relevant to the tasks has to be intuited, interpreted,
shared, and integrated. Under this circumstance, two activities are central to the
process of organizational knowledge integration. First, “
knowledge sharing”is the
fundamental activity to initiate knowledge integration in an organization. Since
knowledge is dispersed and embedded in individuals, it would be difficult to govern
knowledge integration providing knowledge cannot be thoroughly shared within the
organization. Without effective functioning of knowledge sharing, the knowledge
embedded and dispersed in individuals will be less likely integrated into the
organizational level. Second, even the specialized knowledge is smoothly shared and
transferred within the organization; how to unify the shared individual knowledge
into organizational one is vital to organizational knowledge integration. Under this
condition, what determines this organizational welding process is not an issue of
‘
s
ha
r
i
ng
’
.I
ti
s
,r
a
t
he
r
,the ability of “
transforming”knowledge.
Thef
oc
usof‘
knowl
e
dgesharing’i
sonhow t
oma
keknowl
e
dge‘
f
l
ow’wi
t
hi
na
n
organization to facilitate knowledge integration t
hr
oug
h‘
s
ha
r
i
ng
’a
nd‘
t
r
a
ns
f
e
r
r
i
ng
’
.
Ont
heot
he
rha
nd,‘
knowl
e
dgetransformation’s
t
r
e
s
s
e
st
hei
mpa
c
toft
r
a
ns
f
or
mi
ng
ability of fusing divergent knowledge into integrated one. Within the context, our
central argument stresses on what helps the conversion of knowledge integration
among different levels within organizations. To be specific, what are the mediating
mechanisms to integrate individual-level knowledge into group- or organizationallevel one? To cope with this multi-level concern, we propose that two knowledge
integration me
di
a
t
i
ng me
c
ha
ni
s
ms
,s
pe
c
i
f
i
c
a
l
l
y
,‘
knowl
e
dg
ec
ommuni
c
a
t
i
on’a
nd
‘
knowl
e
dg
ecombination’
,a
r
erespectively elicited with respect to the two main
activities of organizational knowledge integration. And the roadmap of organizational
knowledge integration is illustrated in Figure 1.
Figure 1. The roadmap of knowledge integration process
Knowledge communication
(Environmental consideration)
Individual Knowledge
Organizational Knowledge Integration
Knowledge combination
(Ability consideration)
12
13
To illustrate the roadmap of organizational knowledge integration, in the following
section, these issues pertain to providing understanding of the determinants of
successful organizational knowledge integration and the existence of the mediating
mechanisms of knowledge integration will become more illuminated.
Mediating mechanisms of organizational knowledge integration
Knowledge sharing consideration
The focal point of knowledge sharing during the process of knowledge integration
is a
bou
t‘
s
ha
r
i
ng
’a
nd‘
t
r
a
ns
f
e
r
r
i
ng
’
.Ac
qui
r
i
ngne
w orc
ompl
e
me
nt
a
r
yknowl
e
dge
lies in the core concept of knowledge sharing/transferring perspective (Matson et al.,
2003). Since knowledge is embedded and dispersed among organization members,
how to acquire the required knowledge from others is in essence an issue of
communication. Thus, to facilitate the organizational knowledge integration,
“
knowledge communication”plays as a mediating mechanism.
Knowledge integration mediating mechanism: ‘
Knowledge Communication’
. Ｗe
argue that from the view point of knowledge sharing/transfer, with the purpose of
converting individual specialized knowledge into shared group or organizational
knowledge, smoothing knowledge communication within organizations is the top
priority for a successful organizational knowledge integration. In this vein, we define
‘
knowl
e
dg
ec
ommuni
c
a
t
i
on’a
s‘
t
hee
xc
ha
ngeofi
nf
or
ma
t
i
on,i
de
a
sort
houg
ht
s
among organization members which results in mutual understanding and shared
s
e
ns
e
ma
ki
ng
.
’
Yet, knowledge in an organization is generally characterized as a spectrum ranging
f
r
om ac
l
a
s
s
i
c‘
publ
i
cgood’a
to
n
ee
ndt
ooned
e
e
pl
ye
mbe
dde
di
n“
or
ga
ni
z
a
t
i
ona
l
r
out
i
ne
s
”a
tt
heot
he
r(
Ne
l
s
ona
n
dWi
nt
e
r
,1982)
.Undoubt
e
dl
y
,t
hr
oug
hknowl
e
dge
communication, knowledg
ewi
t
h‘
publ
i
cg
ood’ki
nd off
e
a
t
ur
ewoul
d bee
a
s
i
l
y
acquired. However, on the other hand, if it is tacit knowledge to be shared or to be
integrated, how to make knowledge-providers and knowledge-receivers achieve
mutual understanding through communication t
ur
ns out t
o be a
n‘
a
bi
l
i
t
y
’
consideration. According to Hansen (1999), the dedicated willingness and ability to
share/transfer are two key components for knowledge sharing/transfer. However,
without the relevant ability for executing knowledge sharing/transfer, the effect of
13
14
knowl
e
dges
ha
r
i
ng
/
t
r
a
ns
f
e
rwoul
dbedi
s
c
ount
e
de
ve
ni
f‘
wi
l
l
i
ng
ne
s
s
’be
i
ngpr
e
s
e
nt
.
Fur
t
he
r
mor
e
,‘
a
bi
l
i
t
y
’notonl
yi
nf
l
ue
nc
e
st
hes
uc
c
e
s
sofknowl
e
dg
ec
ommuni
c
a
t
i
on,
it is the nucleus concept of the activity of ‘
knowl
e
dg
ecombination’
.
Knowledge transformation consideration
The activity of knowledge transformation during the organizational knowledge
integration put
smor
ee
mpha
s
i
sont
he‘
a
bi
l
i
t
y
’c
onc
e
r
ni
nknowl
e
dg
eintegration. It
i
st
he‘
a
bi
l
i
t
yoft
r
a
ns
f
or
mi
ng
’r
a
t
h
e
rt
ha
n‘
a
bi
l
i
t
yofs
ha
r
i
ng
’
.Thi
sl
i
neofr
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
asserts that organizational knowledge creation functions as a process of either
recombining
existing
organizational
knowledge
or
combining,
absorbing,
assimilating, and transforming new knowledge acquired externally (Huber, 1991;
Hedlund, 1994; Grant, 1996; Okhusyen and Eisenhardt, 2002). In either case,
‘
l
e
a
r
ni
ngc
a
pa
bi
l
i
t
y
’s
e
r
ve
sa
st
hec
or
ede
t
e
r
mi
na
ntoft
r
a
ns
f
or
mi
ngknowl
e
dge(
e
.
g
.
,
Huber, 1991; Hedlund, 1994; Nonaka, 1994; Nonaka et al., 2000; Schulz, 2001;
Borgatti and Cross, 2003).
From knowledge integration perspective, knowledge creation is defined either as
the combination of external new knowledge under the process of knowledge
exchange (Kogut and Zander, 1992; Grant, 1996; Okhusyen and Eisenhardt, 2002) or
as the reconfiguration of the existing organizational knowledge (Teece et al., 1997).
Firms could effectively integrate professional knowledge localized in each
de
pa
r
t
me
ntt
hr
oug
ha
ppl
y
i
ngor
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
onme
mbe
r
s
’i
nt
e
g
r
a
t
i
ona
bi
l
i
t
i
e
s
.Wi
t
hi
nt
he
context, what makes the dispersed and specialized knowledge integrated into
organizational knowledge appeals an ability concern. In a nutshell, regarding the
determinants of recombining, transforming or integrating knowledge, the focal
a
r
g
ume
ntof‘
knowl
e
dget
r
a
ns
f
or
ma
t
i
on’e
mpha
s
i
z
e
st
hei
mpor
t
a
nc
eofl
e
a
r
ni
ng
ability of transforming.
Knowledge integration me
di
at
i
ngme
c
hani
s
m:‘
Knowl
e
dgeCombinat
i
on
’
. From
the perspective of transforming knowledge, the enhancement of organizational
knowledge combination exists not only in making knowledge shared, what is more
important, but in how to re-configure, leverage or transform individual knowledge to
create more innovative organizational knowledge. Regarding this concern,
‘
knowl
e
dg
et
r
a
ns
f
or
ma
t
i
on’a
ddr
e
s
s
e
st
ha
tt
he ke
y determinant of knowledge
integration ba
s
e
son t
he or
g
a
ni
z
a
t
i
ona
l‘
c
ombi
na
t
i
ve c
a
pa
bi
l
i
t
y
’(
Na
ha
pi
e
ta
nd
Ghoshal, 1998) of transforming knowledge.
14
15
On the premise of the existence of an organization, to accomplish tasks by
combining divergent specialized knowledge into a shared and unified one, we
a
ddr
e
s
st
ha
ta
nor
g
a
ni
z
a
t
i
onf
unc
t
i
onsa
s‘
apr
oc
e
s
s
orofknowl
e
dge
’(
Ami
na
nd
Cohendet, 2000). This contention leads us to recognize the significance of cognitive
mechanisms (Amin and Cohendet, 2000) in transforming the tacit and cognitive
complicated knowledge. To be specific, in order to co-ordinate, to re-configure and to
transform individual knowledge into a collective body (a group level, or an
organization for example), organizations have to make the knowledge specialists
capable of learning. This ability helps organization members combine, integrate and
apply their organizational knowledge by shortening their cognitive distance with each
other during the process of tasks execution (Nooteboom, 2000, 2004). As a result,
or
g
a
ni
z
a
t
i
onme
mbe
r
s
’l
e
a
r
ni
nga
bi
l
i
t
i
e
s
,t
ogr
e
a
te
xt
e
nt
,de
t
e
r
mi
net
heor
ga
ni
z
a
t
i
on’
s
capability of integrating the individual-level knowledge into the organizational-level.
During the process of transforming knowledge, we argue that knowledge is not
combined in their original form but transformed into a unified one through the
i
nt
e
r
a
c
t
i
on ofi
ndi
vi
dua
l
s
’l
e
a
r
ni
ng a
bi
l
i
t
y
.We c
l
a
i
m t
hi
s ki
nd ofa
bi
l
i
t
ya
s
‘
knowl
e
dg
ecombination’
.Thecombination of organizational knowledge will further
illustrate in the replication of existing knowledge (Kogut and Zander, 1992), the
construction of organizational routines (Grant, 1996), the reconfiguration and
re-allocation of existing and new knowledge (Teece et al., 1997) and the application
of the leveraging capability (Foote et al., 2002).
Wi
t
ht
heme
c
ha
ni
s
m of‘
knowl
e
dg
ec
ons
ol
i
da
t
i
on’
,di
ve
r
s
ei
ndi
vi
dua
lknowl
e
dge
c
oul
dber
e
c
onf
i
g
ur
e
di
nt
oor
ga
ni
z
a
t
i
ona
lknowl
e
dg
e
.‘
Knowl
e
dgecombination’i
st
o
assist knowledge dispersed in individuals to be first converted and then collectively
complemented with each other. Being an important mediating mechanism for the
t
r
a
ns
f
o
r
ma
t
i
onofi
ndi
vi
dua
lknowl
e
dge
,‘
knowl
e
dgecombination’i
sa
l
s
oe
nha
nc
e
d
by bridging the cognitive distance among organization members. In short, through
the mediating process, individual knowledge gets enriched and productive and then is
able to be further transformed into organizational knowledge. Within the context, we
t
he
r
e
f
or
ede
f
i
ne‘
knowl
e
dg
ecombination’a
s‘
t
hea
c
tofi
nt
e
r
mi
ng
l
i
nga
ndl
e
ve
r
a
g
ing
existing individual knowledge into a unified and organizational one by bridging the
cognitive distance among organization members through the interaction of their
l
e
a
r
ni
nga
c
t
i
vi
t
i
e
s
’
.
15
16
In this section, two main knowledge activities of organizational knowledge
integration are further introduced and the nature of the mediating process of
organizational knowledge integration gets clarified. In another word, from the
pe
r
s
pe
c
t
i
veofs
ha
r
i
ngknowl
e
dg
e
,‘
knowl
e
dg
ec
ommuni
c
a
t
i
on’a
s
s
i
s
t
si
ndi
vi
dua
l
knowledge in being welded into organization knowledge. As for knowledge
t
r
a
ns
f
o
r
ma
t
i
on,‘
knowl
e
dg
e combination’t
r
a
ns
f
or
ms i
ndi
vi
dua
lknowl
e
dge i
nt
o
shared organizational knowledge through the interactive function of organization
me
mbe
r
s
’ l
e
a
r
ni
ng a
bi
l
i
t
i
e
s
. The
mediating
mechanism
of
‘
knowledge
communication’emphasizes cultivating contextual environment for knowledge
communication within an organization; the other mediating mechanism of
‘
knowledge combination’s
t
r
e
s
s
e
sont
hei
mpor
t
a
nc
eofi
ndi
vi
dua
l
’
sl
e
a
r
ni
nga
bi
l
i
ty
in consolidating variant and distinctive knowledge dispersed in individuals.
Summing up, we argue that under the function of two mediating mechanisms of
organizational knowledge integration at a given situation, the individual knowledge
will be embodied in the organization level.
Nevertheless, to further explore the content of knowledge governance in the
process of organizational knowledge integration, from the consideration of
communicating and combining individual-level knowledge into organization-level,
the impact of contextual factors and individual difference on individual knowledge
doer cannot be overlooked. This concern is driven from two considerations. First,
i
ndi
vi
dua
l
’
s be
ha
vi
ori
s vi
e
we
da
sa c
ombi
na
t
i
ve f
unc
t
i
on ofc
ont
e
xt
ua
la
nd
individual-difference effect (Klein and Kozlowski, 2000). Second, context-specific
(Zahra and Filatotcher, 2004) or context-dependent (Nooteboom, 2000) knowledge
results from the interaction between knowledge carriers and the contextual factors
originated from the organizational system (Klein and Kozlowski, 2000). Thus, within
the context of knowledge integration, we propose that the behavior of each
organization knowledge carrier is influenced by the interaction of contextual
environment and different individual learning ability. So, making organization
members sensitive toward environmental stimuli (Nonaka, 1994) and reinforcing
their learning abilities will amplify and internalize individual knowledge in
organizations (Nooteboom, 2004). Thus, during the process of integrating
organizational knowledge, to maximize the process-gain and minimize the
process-loss, how to govern the factors influencing the contextual environment and
different individual learning ability is the nature of knowledge governance in this
16
17
study.
KNOWLEDGE
GOVERNANCE
MECHANISMS
IN
ORGNAIZATIONAL KNOWLEDGE INTEGRATION AND THE
C\ONCEPTUAL MODEL FORM THE S-C MODEL
Drawn from the above arguments, we claim that the basic principle of knowledge
governance in organizational knowledge integration is about how to make the
dispersed and embedded knowledge flow smoothly within an organization (Almeida
and Kogut, 1999; Gupta and Govindarajan, 2000; Schulz, 2001) by motivating
organization members to share their expertise of their own free will and then to
coordinate the exchanged knowledge to accomplish the assigned tasks (Szulanski,
1996; Hansen, 1999; Postrel, 2002; Michaillova and Husted, 2003). Accordingly,
during the process of organizational knowledge integration, cultivating a beneficial
context to facilitate knowledge communication and reinforcing organization
me
mbe
r
’
sl
e
a
r
ni
ngability, to great extent, will determine the success of knowledge
integration in an organization. Hence, in this study, KGMs in organizational
knowledge integration are more with consideration of social context (Kostva, 1999)
r
a
t
he
rt
ha
nt
het
e
c
hnol
ogyi
t
s
e
l
f
.Ac
c
or
di
ng
l
y
,KGMsa
r
ede
f
i
ne
da
s‘
or
ga
ni
z
a
t
i
ona
l
arrangements which construct a beneficial context to knowledge integration or
s
t
r
e
ng
t
he
nor
g
a
ni
z
a
t
i
onme
mbe
r
’
sl
e
a
r
ni
nga
bi
l
i
ty in order to promote organizational
knowledge integration’
To achieve these two explicit goals of KGM, we assert that, during the process of
organizational knowledge integration, KGM has to play dual roles simultaneously,
t
ha
ti
s
,‘
pr
oc
e
s
s
-loss avoider
’a
nd‘
pr
oc
e
s
s
-g
a
i
nf
a
c
i
l
i
t
a
t
or
’
.‘
Pr
oc
e
s
s
-l
os
sa
voi
de
r
s
’
are those governance arrangements contributing to the smoothness of organizational
knowledge integration by eliminating the obstacles during the process. As for
‘
pr
oc
e
s
s
-g
a
i
nf
a
c
i
l
i
t
a
t
or
s
’
,s
e
r
ve
das catalysts of the knowledge creation process, they
a
r
et
hea
r
r
a
nge
me
nt
st
oboos
tt
hei
ndi
vi
dua
l
’
swi
l
l
i
ng
ne
s
sa
nda
bi
l
i
t
yofintegrating
knowledge. However, one should not regard them as two distinctive roles; in fact, the
playing of dual roles rests on a continuum. Owing to their contingent dimensions,
KGMsa
r
ec
ha
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
z
e
da
sas
pe
c
t
r
um r
a
ng
i
ngf
r
om ‘
pr
oc
e
s
s
-l
os
sa
voi
de
r
’a
tone
e
ndt
o‘
pr
oc
e
s
s
-g
a
i
nf
a
c
i
l
i
t
a
t
or
’a
tt
heot
he
r
.Thei
mpa
c
toft
he
i
ri
nvol
ve
me
nton
organizational knowledge integration determi
ne
se
a
c
h KGM’
sl
oc
a
t
i
on on t
hi
s
17
18
spectrum.
In the next section with respect to the dual roles of knowledge governance in
organizational knowledge integration, we attempt to explore how and why
knowledge governance mechanisms can efficiently govern the process of knowledge
integration i
nt
e
r
msof‘
c
ont
e
xt
ua
le
nvi
r
onme
ntc
ul
t
i
va
t
i
ng
’a
nd‘
l
e
a
r
ni
nga
bi
l
i
t
y
r
e
i
nf
or
c
i
ng’
.Thec
ont
e
ntofknowl
e
dgeg
ove
r
na
nc
eme
c
ha
ni
s
msdur
i
ngt
hepr
oc
e
s
si
s
unfolded through exploring the underlying theoretical underpinnings of THE S-C
MODEL, namely relational-embeddedness theory and cognition school. In closing, a
conceptual model is developed drawn from our clarification.
Contextual environment cultivating
Regarding organizational knowledge integration, the core concept of cultivating an
environment lies in the condition if the knowledge could flow and be communicated
within the organization. Under the context, how to motivate organization members
share and exchange knowledge is the chief criteria for designing KMGs. In the
following section, from the social dimension of the S-C model, three knowledge
governance mechanisms, namely identity, trust and informal channels are generated
based on the relational-embeddedness theory of THE S-C MODEL.
Identity
The higher-order organizing principle resided in a hierarchical structure has its
relative value in contrast to market governance in terms of knowledge transfer and
knowledge sharing (Kogut and Zander, 1993; Grant, 1996). Thus, organizations
could build shared meaning by taking advantage of these arrangements such as
direction, authority, norms, etc. (Grant, 1996). As a result, based on the existing
shared meaning among organization members, individual members would easily
reach consensus or cohesion for the assigned tasks. Simply put, with the advantage of
higher organizing principles in an organization, organization members would align
their goals with that of organization and express high degree of cohesion with each
other (Napapiet and Ghoshal, 1998; Nooteboom, 2001).
Based on the relational embeddedness theory, the shared identity of organization
members could not only provoke individuals to obey specific norms and routines
(Grant, 1996) but motivate individuals to share knowledge. With the advantage of
identity, an organization should strengthen identity-shared organizational culture in
18
19
which organization members share strong value, cohesion and commitment of the
organizational objective. With shared identity among organization members,
knowledge will flow thoroughly and exchange efficiently (Kogut and Zander, 1996;
Brown and Duguid, 2001). Consequently, knowledge integration in an organization
will be promoted efficiently and effectively. Moreover, under the consensus of shared
identity, the knowledge shared and exchanged in terms of quality, quantity and
r
e
l
e
va
nc
ei
sna
t
ur
a
l
l
ymor
el
i
ke
l
yt
ome
e
ti
ndi
vi
dua
l
’
se
xpe
c
t
a
t
i
on.Thus
,t
os
moot
h
the process of knowledge communication, shared value and identity, as a process-loss
avoider, motivates organization members to communicate knowledge with others in
an organization (Kogut and Zander, 1996; Brown and Duguid, 2001). Furthermore,
with the advantage of identity, an organization could strengthen identity-shared
organizational culture, in which members could share strong value, cohesion and
commitment of the organizational objective. Within the context, identity functions as
a process-gain facilitator. In short, from social side of THE S-C MODEL, identity is
proper KGM to cultivate a social context beneficial to communicating
individual-level knowledge.
Trust and informal interaction channels
Based on the relational embeddedness theory, the major premise of making
knowl
e
dgee
mbe
dde
di
nr
e
l
a
t
i
ons
hi
psorne
t
wor
kf
unc
t
i
onwe
l
li
s‘
t
r
us
t
’
.(
Cr
os
se
ta
l
.
,
2001; Hansen, 2002; Borgatti and Cross, 2003). It is asserted that only when
knowledge is communicated on the basis of trust can the individual receiver aware
that the shared knowledge is of value, importance and relevance (Cross et al., 2001;
Hansen, 2002; Borgatti and Cross, 2003). To be specific, trust enables the knowledge
exchange parties to recognize the quality and quantity of the exchanged knowledge
and to evaluate the outcome of exchange at the same time. In short, trust is not only
being a necessary condition but also a product of knowledge exchange and sharing
(Davenport and Prusak, 1998).
Trust is built through the interaction among organization members (Cross et al.,
2001). Mutual trust among organization members could facilitate knowledge flow
thoroughly and transparently within the organization (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998).
I
nas
i
mi
l
a
rve
i
n,Da
ve
npor
te
ta
l
.1999’
ss
t
udyofc
ol
l
a
bor
a
t
i
veR&D pr
oj
e
c
tt
e
a
ms
also supports this assertion. They found that mutual trust among team members
would help remove the barriers of knowledge communication, enhance the quality
19
20
and quantity of exchanged knowledge, and promote the efficiency of knowledge
communication. Consequently, we propose that trust can be arranged as a governance
mechanism to both enhance communication and restrain process-loss during the
process of knowledge integration.
Recognizing the significance of trust in communicating knowledge, what causes
mutual trust is worthy of exploring. Scholars claimed that trust could only be built
through past experiences of knowledge transaction and the recognition of counter
pa
r
t
y
’
se
xpe
r
t
i
s
e(
Na
ha
pi
e
ta
ndGhos
ha
l
,1998;Da
ve
npor
ta
ndPr
us
a
k,1998;Bor
g
a
t
t
i
and Cross, 2003). Therefore, during the communicating process, unpleasant
experiences of interaction among individuals will not incur trust for next move. From
this point of view, trust can only be regarded as an instrument of governance in a
limited sense (Nooteboom, Berger and Noorderhaven, 1997). More specifically, as a
process-loss avoider, trust can contribute to risk reduction in terms of the smoothness
ofc
ommuni
c
a
t
i
on;none
t
he
l
e
s
s
,i
tn
e
e
dst
i
mea
nde
f
f
or
tt
oha
vet
r
us
t‘
i
npl
a
c
e
’
.
I
na
ddi
t
i
ont
ot
hei
mpa
c
tof‘
e
xpe
r
i
e
nc
e
’ont
r
us
t
-building, it is also asserted that
trust can be formed by developing mutual bonds or shared norms and values
(Nooteboom, et al., 1997). Concerning identity-building, it is usually constructed
through formal arrangements such as directions, routines, authority or fiats within
organizations (Grant, 1996). However, informal interaction among members also
results in shared identity (Rentch, 1990). Rentch (1990) demonstrates that patterns of
s
oc
i
a
li
nt
e
r
a
c
t
i
on a
c
r
os
sf
or
ma
l uni
t
si
nf
l
ue
nc
e me
mbe
r
s
’c
ons
e
ns
us on
organizational climate, implying that informal connections do have an effect on the
shaping of shared-meaning and shared-value.
With a similar assertion, relational embeddedness theorists claim that
inter-personal relations are embedded within organizational context and are emerged
through informal social ties and interaction within the internal network (Nahapiet and
Ghoshal, 1998; Hansen, 1999, 2002; Uzzi and Lancaster, 2003). Through the
informal relational network nested in the organization, informal communication
channels could be constructed. It is these informal channels that enable organization
me
mbe
r
st
o‘
know wha
t
’a
nd‘
know how’(
Cr
os
se
ta
l
.
,2001;Bor
ga
t
t
ia
ndCr
os
s
,
2003; Uzzi and Lancaster, 2003). Under the circumstances, organizational knowledge
could be more accessible and thus facilitate knowledge exchange and sharing among
organization members (Borgatti and Cross, 2003). In an empirical study, Cross et al.
20
21
(2001) concludes that the amount of knowledge acquired through informal relational
interaction is five times of that acquired through formal mechanisms. Indeed,
informal communication channels help speed up the process of searching and
transferring knowledge and further exert deeper impact on the knowledge exchange
and combination for knowledge creation (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998; Cross et al.,
2001; Borgatti and Cross, 2003). As a consequence, informal interpersonal
communication does not merely improve the informal interaction among members.
In short, informal relational network is another locus for knowledge sharing and
organizational learning beyond formal organizational arrangements (Davenport and
Prusak, 1998; Hansen, 1999; Cross et al., 2001).
To sum up, the building-up of informal interaction channels and the shaping of
working ambience with mutual trust are the two governance mechanisms analyzed
from the social model of THE S-C MODEL. It is asserted that through the informal
interaction channels and trust among organization members, the activities of
knowledge creation will be successively intensified. Being process-loss avoiders,
these two mechanisms are to facilitate knowledge communication. Especially when
tacit and embedded knowledge is taken into account, only informal interactions are
advantageous to channel the communication (Lam, 1997; Gupta and Govindarajan,
200). Moreover, with regard to the sharing of tacit and valuable knowledge,
knowledge communication can be best achieved through strong personal and stable
relationships rooted in mutual trust. We suppose that only through informal
interactions based on mutual trust that knowledge of competitive advantages, which
is usually characterized as tacit and path-dependent, could be communicated and
exchanged. Therefore, informal communication channels and mutual trust not only
serve as process-loss avoiders and, more importantly, as process-gain facilitators,
mechanisms to gain more process value.
Having analyzed the determinants of organizational knowledge integration, we
c
onc
l
ud
et
ha
t‘
e
nvi
r
onme
nt
’a
nd‘
a
bi
l
i
t
y
’a
r
et
wof
oc
a
lf
a
c
t
or
s(
please refer to Figure
1)
.The or
i
g
i
ns oft
he
s
et
wo de
t
e
r
mi
na
nt
sa
nc
hori
n‘
i
nc
r
e
a
s
i
ng organization
me
mbe
r
’
swi
l
l
i
ng
ne
s
sbymot
i
va
t
i
on’a
nd‘
e
nha
nc
i
ngor
g
a
ni
z
a
t
i
onme
mbe
r
’
sa
bi
l
i
t
y
byc
oor
di
na
t
i
on’
,i
fwebe
a
ri
nmi
n
dwi
t
ht
hena
t
u
r
eof‘
g
ove
r
ni
ng
’i
st
omot
i
va
t
ea
nd
to coordinate. With respect to motivating the willingness in the above section, three
KGMs are generated throughout our inference. We argue that the design of these
21
22
KGMshe
l
ps
ha
pea
ne
nvi
r
onme
ntbe
ne
f
i
c
i
a
lt
or
a
i
s
i
ng or
g
a
ni
z
a
t
i
on me
mbe
r
’
s
willingness for knowledge communication. However, when knowledge is personal,
tacit, or sophisticated, it is technically difficult to communicate it, no matter what
i
nc
e
nt
i
ve
sa
r
epr
e
s
e
nt(
Gr
a
ndor
i
,2001a
)
.Howe
ve
r
,ne
i
t
he
r‘
t
r
us
t
’nor‘
i
de
nt
i
t
y
’
serves as a sufficient condition for successful communication of tacit and embedded
knowledge. Unde
rt
hi
sc
ondi
t
i
on,wepr
opos
et
ha
te
nha
nc
i
ngme
mbe
r
’
sa
bi
l
i
t
yi
n
communicating the knowledge with complexity or embeddedness could be a
solution.
Learning ability reinforcing
Provided that organizational knowledge integration functions as a process of either
reconfiguring existing knowledge or transforming new knowledge acquired
externally, ‘
ability of sharing or recombining knowledge’promotes the quality of the
reconfiguring and transforming process (Hedlund, 1994; Nonaka et al., 2000; Schula,
2001; Borgatti and Cross, 2003). As long as their ability of sharing and
transformation is strengthened, organization members are capable of assisting the
accumulation of organization knowledge through the mediating mechanisms of
‘
knowledge communication’and ‘
knowledge combination’
.
In terms of ability-enhancing, while designing KGMs t
opr
omot
ei
ndi
vi
dua
l
’
s
l
e
a
r
ni
nga
bi
l
i
t
y
,weur
g
et
ha
tt
hei
mpa
c
tofc
og
ni
t
i
veva
r
i
e
t
yoni
ndi
vi
dua
l
’
sl
e
a
r
ni
ng
ability needs to be taken into consideration. This assertion corresponds to what
cognition school emphasizes (Lam, 1997; Grandori, 2001c; Nooteboom, 1992,
2004).
The assertion of cognition school lays emphasis on the fundamental rationale of
bounded rationality in collective thinking and action. Because people observe,
interpret and evaluate the world according to their categories or mental frameworks
of perception, interpretation and evaluation (Davis and Thampson, 1994), knowledge
is a human and personalized resource, acquired from people and also embodied in
people. As a result, the ‘
cognitive distance’stemmed from different mental models
incurs problems of conflicts and needs for adjustment among organization members
(Nooteboom, 2004). The situation is even worse when the knowledge is
characterized as embeddedness and tacitness. Thus, the embedded and tacit
knowledge coupled with bounded rationality limits the ability of organizational
knowledge integration. In order to intertwine individual knowledge into
22
23
organizational knowledge, shared cognitive models among individuals would help
the achievement of this knowledge welding process to great extent. In consequence,
researchers on cognition school postulate that to elevate the degree of shared
cognition, interactive learning, promotion of communication and absorptive
capabi
l
i
t
ywi
l
la
l
l
e
vi
a
t
et
hene
g
a
t
i
vei
mpa
c
tof‘
c
og
ni
t
i
vef
a
i
l
ur
e
’(
Gr
a
ndor
i
, 2001b)
or ‘
c
og
ni
t
i
vedi
s
t
a
nc
e
’(
Noot
e
boom,2001)
.In a nutshell, from the competence side
of THE S-C MODEL, a proper KGM is to promote the degree of shared cognition
among individuals and to enhance or
g
a
ni
z
a
t
i
on me
mbe
r
s
’transformation ability
through organizational learning (Teece et al., 1997; Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998;
Foote et al., 2002; Nooteboom, 2001, 2004).
Organizational learning is defined as a process in which organization members
would deem the task execution as an opportunity to learn (i.e. learning intent) (Hamel,
1991) and is able to recognize which knowledge is beneficial to the task-related
activities (absorptive capability) (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990; Argote et al., 2003;
Zahra and George, 2002). Through the process of individual learning by means of
formal or informal communication channels, the cognitive distance among
organization members is bridged; what is more, the variant and distinctive knowledge
dispersed in individuals is combined and converged to an organizational one with the
help of increased transformation ability. Consequently, with the presence of shared
cognition and transformation ability, t
he me
di
a
t
i
ng f
unc
t
i
ons of ‘
knowl
e
dge
c
ommuni
c
a
t
i
on’a
nd‘
knowledge combination’c
oul
dbea
c
hi
e
ve
d.
On one side, by br
i
dg
i
ng e
a
c
hi
ndi
vi
dua
l
’
sc
og
ni
t
i
ve di
s
t
a
nc
et
hr
oug
ht
he
interactive function of their learning abilities, existing individual knowledge can be
intermingled and leveraged into a new form of united organizational knowledge. On
the other side, toe
nha
nc
eor
g
a
ni
z
a
t
i
onme
mbe
r
’
sl
e
a
r
ni
ngc
a
pa
bi
l
i
t
yhe
l
psr
e
c
ombi
ne
the existing knowledge and then diffuse, converge and finally store it in the
organizational knowledge repository (Kogut and Zander, 1993). In a word, since
capabilities of knowledge creation could be enhanced on the premise that the
organization possesses organizational learning capability to certain extent, an
organization should promote organizational learning to bridge cognitive distance
among organization members and to strengthen their ability of knowledge sharing
and transformation. To achieve the purpose of reinforcing individual learning ability
by shortening the cognitive distance, some learning activities should be arranged,
23
24
such as “
Community of Practice”
,“
Study Group”and “
On –Job Training”
, etc.
By examining the theories that THE S-C MODEL anchors, four essential
knowledge governance mechanisms, namely shared identity, mutual trust among
members, informal communication channels and organizational learning activities,
are induced when effective knowledge integration is taken into consideration. We
propose that with the aims of motivating or
g
a
ni
z
a
t
i
onme
mbe
r
’
s willingness and
coordinating
organization
member’
s ability,
these
knowledge
governance
me
c
ha
ni
s
ms woul
d pr
omot
e ‘
knowl
e
dg
e c
ommuni
c
a
t
i
on’ a
nd ‘
knowl
e
dge
combination’during the process of integrating organizational knowledge.
Identity
Trust
Informal communication channels
Organizational learning activities
.
Knowledge communication
(Environmental consideration)
Organizational Knowledge Integration
Individual Knowledge
Knowledge combination
(Ability consideration)
Figure 2. Conceptual Model of Organizational Knowledge Integration
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study is to clarify the necessity of examining organizational
knowledge integration from THE S-C MODEL and further to examine the
governance's role and the content of KGMs.
In order to clarify the content of knowledge governance perspective, the questions
24
25
we have examined are basic, but central and crucial to the progress of understanding
the necessity of examining the phenomena in knowledge integration from THE S-C
MODEL. It is evident that answers to the questions proposed help clarify why and
how knowledge governance can arrange, cultivate or shape an environment to
motivate and to coordinate knowledge workers during the process of knowledge
integration.
To be specific, the argument represented in this study puts emphasis on a number
ofi
mpor
t
a
nti
s
s
ue
s
.Fi
r
s
t
,ba
s
e
don‘
mot
i
va
t
i
on’a
nd‘
c
oor
di
na
t
i
on’
,t
hec
or
ec
onc
e
pt
of governance, we propose the dual roles of knowledge governance mechanisms. By
exploring the theoretical underpinnings knowledge governance mechanisms deposit,
we uncover the content of THE S-C MODEL. Though this THE S-C MODEL
a
ppr
oa
c
h pr
ovi
de
s a c
onc
e
p
t
ua
l c
l
a
r
i
t
y c
onc
e
r
ni
ng ‘
g
ove
r
na
nc
e
’i
n a
knowledge-based organization, at the same time it also evokes wondering for further
research if the content of the KGMs proposed can be applied to other knowledge
activities.
Second, the KGMs influencing organizational knowledge integration are generated
in terms of the underlying theories knowledge governance posits. Though, they are to
achieve the goal of motivating and coordinating; at the same time, the degree of the
i
nvol
ve
me
ntoft
he
s
eme
c
ha
ni
s
msbr
i
ng
souta‘
t
r
a
de
-of
f
’i
s
s
ue
.‘
Tr
us
t
’
,f
ore
xa
mpl
e
,
in organizational knowledge integration i
sr
e
ga
r
de
da
ss
omeki
ndof‘
s
oc
i
a
lc
a
pi
t
a
l
’
;
but very possibility, it could tur
ni
nt
o‘
s
oc
i
a
ll
i
a
bi
l
i
t
y
’whi
c
hc
oul
dber
e
s
ul
t
e
df
r
om
that individuals take the exchanged knowledge for granted. (Nooteboom, 2001).
Under this situation, too much trust between knowledge workers deters innovation.
Also, similar issues need to be attende
dt
oi
nt
e
r
msof‘
br
i
dg
i
ngc
og
ni
t
i
vedi
s
t
a
nc
e
a
mongor
g
a
ni
z
a
t
i
onme
mbe
r
s
’(
No
ot
e
boom,2001)
.Conc
e
r
ni
ngt
hei
s
s
ueofbr
i
dg
i
ng
cognitive distance, Nooteboom (1992, 1999) asserts that learning from interaction
requires sufficient distance for novelty but also sufficient proximity for
understanding. Though, shared mental model will increase mutual understanding and
then facilitate knowledge creation (Nooteboom, 2000; Amin and Cohendet, 2000), it
also may cause innovation failure for lack of diversified interpretations resulting
from different mental models (Nooteboom, 2000; Amin and Cohendet, 2000). Here,
the optimal cognitive distance among organization members needs further
exploration.
25
26
Summing up, the knowledge governance mechanisms generated form THE S-C
MODEL woul
de
nc
ount
e
radi
l
e
mmaof‘
t
oomor
e
’or‘
t
ool
e
s
s
’
.Tof
i
ndoutt
he
optimal degree of involvement of these environmental governance mechanisms, it is
worth more examination for future research. Furthermore, given the distinctive but
inter-related dimensions of these KGMs, each may be influenced by the interaction
effect with other KMGs. Thus, to discover the impact of the interaction effect among
these KMGs is also another possible research area for future study
Third, in terms of process-loss avoider and process-gain facilitator, these KGMs
s
e
r
vea
sc
ont
i
ng
e
ntr
ol
e
sont
hec
ont
i
nuum ofKGM.Fore
xa
mpl
e
,‘
t
r
us
t
’i
sbot
ha
necessary and sufficient condition for knowledge communication. In order to let
embedded knowledge flow well, trust is considered to be a basic requirement of
being a process-loss avoider (Nooteboom et al., 1997; Cross et al, 2001; Hansen,
2002; Borgatti and Cross, 2003). On the other hand, with the function of enhanced
identity or interaction among organization members, trust could facilitate the
process-gain in terms of sharing valuable tacit knowledge easily. Thus, for a better
explanation in examining the roles of knowledge governance mechanisms, the notion
of‘
c
ont
i
nge
nc
y
’s
houl
dbeputi
nt
oc
ons
i
de
r
a
t
i
on.Thei
mpa
c
toft
he‘
c
ontingency
di
me
ns
i
on’ofKGM onr
e
l
a
t
e
dknowl
e
dg
ea
c
t
i
vi
t
i
e
sc
oul
dbea
not
he
rdi
r
e
c
t
i
onf
or
future research.
Forth, this study provides better understanding about the relationship between
KGMs and knowledge integration through inspecting the content of THE S-C
MODEL. This highlight provides further understanding about how to examine other
organizational knowledge activities from this view. Moreover, we restrict the present
study to an intra-organizational phenomenon. In a similar vein, knowledge activities
in the inter-organizational context still can be examined from THE S-C MODEL
proposed in this study.
Since this study is based on the inference of a conceptual model, there leaves much
room for further empirical tests. Future research may build on this conceptual model
to sketch out steps toward practical understanding about the practical phenomena in
knowledge creation. While examining the conceptual model empirically, the
alignment among level of theory, level of measurement and level of analysis
(Rousseau, 1985) is another important consideration when dealing with this
multilevel research issue.
26
27
CONCLUSION
Clearly, the theoretical foundation inquiry into effective knowledge governance
needs to be further clarified. Notably, with the attempt to contribute to the process of
theorizing governance theory in the knowledge-based Economics, we propose THE
S-C MODEL as theoretical lens to explore the role and content of governance.
Through examining the theories with flavor of ‘
s
oc
i
a
l
’and ‘
cognitive’model of
behavior, namely relational-embeddedness theory and cognition school, we attempt
to construct the content of THE S-C MODEL. Fundamentally, these theories were
developed under different background and rationale. Though the nature of these
theories provides with unique observation and diverse interpretations of efficient
knowledge governance mechanisms; whereas, they share with the basic requirement
of systemized and consistent logic in interpretation the issues of knowledge
governance in organizations. This consistency not only reflects the multidimensional
characteristics of the essence of knowledge governance but also further justifies that
the adoption of an interdisciplinary research is imperative to offer comprehensive and
systematic observation of the issues of knowledge governance.
To be specific, the contribution of this study is three-fold. First of all, this paper
calls for the need of examining the socially-built knowledge activities from THE S-C
MODEL, a reconciliation of ‘
s
oc
i
a
l
’and ‘
cognitive’models of behavior. THE S-C
MODEL presents more powerful explanatory about the impact of the dimensions of
‘
bounde
dr
a
t
i
ona
l
i
t
y
’
,‘
c
og
ni
t
i
ve c
ompl
e
xi
t
y
’
,a
nd ‘
s
oc
i
a
l
l
y
-e
mbe
dde
dne
s
s
’of
knowledge on organizational knowledge integration. In addition, it provides
comprehensive understanding about how organizational knowledge integration can
be governed in terms of the application of KGMs. To be specific, as we have claimed
previously, THE S-C MODEL uncovers the process black box of how knowledge
could become productive with competence through an integrative process. This
assertion, to great extent, fills up the gap of the existing governance literature.
Second, the nature of knowledge integration gets clarified and two knowledge
mediating
mechanisms
to
integrate
individual-level
knowledge
into
organizational-level are accordingly drawn from the clarification. Luckily, this
advances our further understanding about the rationale of the knowledge integration
process in organizations. Though, the concept of knowledge spiral, proposed by
Nonaka (1994), took multilevel phenomenon in organizational knowledge creation
27
28
into consideration, but yet it did not receive much attention. The two mediating
mechanisms of organizational knowledge creation not only remind us of the
importance of taking the multilevel issues into account, but also provide an
e
xpl
a
na
t
i
ont
oNona
ka
’
s(
1994)a
s
s
e
r
t
i
on.The
or
e
t
i
c
a
l
l
ya
ndc
onc
e
pt
ua
l
l
y
,t
het
wo
interdependent mechanisms to great extent serve as level spanners for orchestrating
individual knowledge into group or organizational knowledge. In addition,
concerning the line of knowledge integration research, the two main knowledge
activities of organizational knowledge integration provide further theoretical support
for the assertion that ‘
e
nvi
r
onme
n
t
’(
t
hef
oc
usofknowl
e
dg
ef
l
ow)a
nd‘
a
bi
l
i
t
y
’(
t
he
focus of knowledge transformation) will determine the success of organizational
knowledge integration.
In addition, two knowledge-integration-mediating mechanisms for integrating
individual knowledge into organizational knowledge are drawn from the clarification
of this multi-level issue. The assertion of dual roles of knowledge governance in
governing knowledge integration activities gets supported through the inference.
Through our exploring the contents of the dual roles in organizational knowledge
integration, THE S-C MODEL is elaborated by integrating different theoretical
foundations. Moreover, four conclusive knowledge mechanisms in organizational
knowledge integration are generated from the theoretical underpinnings of THE S-C
MODEL. In general, this study adds some knowledge to the relationship between
knowledge governance and organizational knowledge integration fromTHE S-C
MODEL.
In light of the transformation of the governance theory, governance and knowledge
are important considerations in designing the organizations of the future (Besseyre
des Horts, 2002). Our intent is to discover significant variables of knowledge
governance within the context of organizational knowledge integration from THE
S-C MODEL, and to lay the groundwork for more systematic and rigorous testing of
the conceptual model proposed in this study in the future. To be specific, the present
paper is an attempt to stimulate a more extended conceptualization of knowledge
governance in organizations. During this theorizing journey, we do hope we asked a
r
i
g
htqu
e
s
t
i
ona
ndwea
r
emovi
ngont
her
i
g
htt
r
a
c
k…
REFERENCES
Almeida P, Kogut B. 1999. Localization of knowledge and the mobility of engineers
28
29
in regional networks. Management Science 45:905-917
Amin A, Cohendt P. 2000. Organizational learning and governance through embedded
practices. Journal of Management and Governance 4: 93-116.
Argote L, McEvily B, Reagans R. 2003. Managing knowledge is organizations: An
integrative framework and review of emerging themes. Management Science 49:
571-582.
Barney JB, Hesterly W. 1999. Organizational economics: understanding the
relationships between organizations and economic analysis. Stewart R. Clegg and
Cynthia Hardy (Eds.), Studying Organization: Theory and Method 109-141.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Barson J, Kreps D. 1999. Strategic Human Resource Management. New York: Wiley.
Besseyre des Horts C. 2002. Governance, knowledge creation, and organizing: an
a
f
t
e
r
t
houg
ht
’
.Human Resource Planning 25:48-51.
Barney J. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantages. Journal of
Management 17:99-120
Barney J. 1997. Gaining and sustaining competitive advantage. Reading, MA:
Addison Wesley.
Birkinshaw J, Nobel R, Ridderstrale, J. 2002. Knowledge as a contingency variable:
do the characteristics of knowledge predict organization structure? Organization
Science. 13:274-289
Borgatti SP, Cross R. 2003. A relational view of information seeking and learning in
social networks. Management Science 49: 432-445.
Brown JS, Duguid P. 2001. Knowledge and organization：a social-practice perspective.
Organization Science 12: 198-213.
Ca
nne
l
l
aA,Pa
e
t
z
ol
dRL.1994.Pf
e
f
f
e
r
’
sba
r
r
i
e
r
st
ot
hea
dva
nc
eofor
ga
ni
z
a
t
i
ona
l
science: a rejoinder. Academy of Management. The Academy of Management
Review 19: 331-341
Chi
,Ta
i
l
a
n.(
1994)
,“
Tr
a
di
ngi
ns
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
cr
e
s
our
c
e
:Ne
c
e
s
s
a
r
yc
ondi
t
i
ons
,t
r
a
ns
a
c
t
i
on
c
os
tpr
obl
e
msa
ndc
hoi
c
eofe
xc
ha
nges
t
r
uc
t
ur
e
”
,Strategic Management Journal,
15(4): 271-290.
Cohen, W. M. & Levinthal, D. A., 1990. Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on
learning and innovation, Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1): 128-152.
Conner KM. 1991. A historical comparison of resource-based theory and five schools
of thought within industrial organization economics: do we have a new theory of
29
30
the firm?. Journal of Management 17:121-154.
Conner KM, Prahalad CK. 1996. A resource-based theory of the firm: knowledge
versus opportunism. Organization Science 7: 477-501.
Cross R, Parker A, Prusak H, Borgatti SP. 2001. Knowing what we know: supporting
knowledge creation and sharing in social networks. Organizational Dynamics 30:
100-120.
Cummings JL, Teng BG. 2003. Transferring R&D knowledge: The key factors
affecting knowledge transfer success. Journal of Engineering and Technology
Management 20: 39-68.
Davenport HT, Prusak L. 1998. Working Knowledge Boston, Massachusetts : Harvard
Business School Press.
Davis GF, Thompson TA. 1994. A social movement perspective on corporate control.
Administrative Science Quarterly 39: 141-173.
Demsez H. 1991. The theory of the firm revisited. O.E. Williamson, S.G. Winter, eds.
The Nature of the Firm. Oxford University Press, New York.
Drucker, PF. 1994. Post-Capitalist Society. Harper Business, A Division of Harper
Collins Publishers.
Dyer JH, Singh H. 1998. The relational view: cooperative strategy and sources of
inter-organizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review 23:
660-679.
Emerson RM. 1962. Power-dependence relations. American Sociological Review 27:
31-41
Foote N, Matson E, Weiss L, Wenger E. 2002. Leveraging group knowledge for
high-performance decision making. Organizational Dynamics 31: 280-295.
Foss NJ, Husted K, Michailova S, Pedersen T. 2003. Governing knowledge processes:
theoretical foundations and research opportunities. Center for knowledge
governance working paper #2003-1.
Foss NJ, Pedersen T. 2004. Organizing knowledge processes in the multinational
corporation: an introduction. Journal of International Business Studies 35: 340-349.
Ghoshal S, Moran P. 1996. Bad for practice: A critique of the transaction cost theory.
Academy of Management Review 21:13-47.
Grandori A. 1997a.Governance Structures, Coordination mechanisms and cognitive
models. Journal of management and governance 29:192-208.
Grandori A. 1997b. An organizational assessment of interfirm coordination modes.
30
31
Organization Studies 18:887-925.
Grandori A. 2001a. Neither hierarchy nor identity: knowledge governance mechanism
and the theory of the firm. Journal of Management and Governance 5: 381-399.
Grandori A. 2001b. Cognitive failures and combative governance. Journal of
Management and Governance 5: 252-260.
Gr
a
ndo
r
iA.2001c
.Roundt
a
bl
e‘
c
ong
ni
t
i
on,r
a
t
i
ona
l
i
t
ya
ndg
ove
r
na
nc
e
’de
di
c
a
t
e
dt
o
the memory of Herbert A. Simon— Introduction. Journal of Management and
Governance 5: 205-273.
Grandori A, Kogut B. 2002. Dialogue on organization and science. Organization
Scienc13: 224-231
Granovetter M. 1985. Economic action and social structure: the problem of
embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology 91: 346-364.
Granovetter M. 1986. Labor mobility, internal markets and job matching: a
comparison of the sociological and economic approaches. Research in Social
stratification and Mobility 5: 3-39. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press
Grant RM. 1996. Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic
Management Journal 17: 109-122.
Gupta AK, Govindarajan V. 2000. Knowledge flows within multinational corporations.
Strategic Management Journal 21: 473-496.
Hansen MT. 1999. The search-transfer problem: the role of weak ties in sharing
knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly 44:
82-111.
Hansen MT. 2002. Knowledge networks：Explaining effective knowledge sharing in
multiunit companies. Organization Science 13: 232-248.
Hedlund G. 1994. A model of knowledge management and the N-form corporation.
Strategic Management Journal 15: 73-90.
Hamel, G., 1991. Competition for competence and interpartner learning within
international strategic alliances, Strategic Management Journal, 12: 83-103.
Hendriks P. 1999. Why share knowledge? The influence of ICT on the motivation for
knowledge sharing. Knowledge and Process Management 6: 91-100.
Hennart JF. 1986. What is internalization. Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv 122:791-804
Hennart JF. 1994. The comparative institutional theory of the firm: Some implications
for corporate strategy. Journal of Management Studies 31: 193-207.
Huang, J.C. Newell, S. 2003. Knowledge Integration Processes and Dynamics within
31
32
the Context of Cross-functional Projects. International Journal of Project
Management 21: 167-176.
Huber GP. 1991. Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the
literatures. Organization Science 2: 88-115.
Klein KJ, Dansereau F, Hall RJ. 1994. Levels issues in theory development, data
collection, and analysis. Academy of Management Review 19:195-229.
Klein KJ, Kozlowski SWJ. 2000. Multilevel theory, research, and methods in
organizations. Foundations, extensions, and new directions. Jossey-Bass: SF.
Kogut, B, Zander U. 1992. Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and
the replication of technology. Organization Science 3: 383-397.
Kogut B, Zander U. 1993. Knowledge of the firm and the revolutionary theory of
multinational corporation. Journal of International Business Studies 24:625-645
Kogut B, Zander U. 1996. What firms do? Coordination, identity and learning.
Organization Science 7: 502-518.
Kostova, T. 1999. Transnational transfer of strategic organizational practices: A
contextual perspective. Academy of Management Review 24: 308-324.
Lam A. 1997. Embedded firms, embedded knowledge: problems of collaboration and
knowledge transfer to global cooperative ventures. Organizational Studies 18:
973-996.
Lindenberg S. 2003. The Cognitive Side of Governance. The governance of Relations
in markets and organizations. Research in the Sociology of Organizations 20: 47-76
Madhavan R, Grover R. 1998. From embedded knowledge to embodied knowledge:
New product development as knowledge management. Journal of Marketing 62:
1-12.
Madson TL, Mosakowski E, Zaheer S. 2002. The dynamics of knowledge flows:
Human capital mobility, knowledge retention and change. Journal of Knowledge
Management 16: 164-176.
March JG, Olsen JP. 1995. Democratic Governance. New York: Free Press.
Ma
t
s
onE,Pa
t
i
a
t
hP
,Sha
ve
r
s
,T.2003.St
r
e
ng
t
he
ni
ngy
ouror
g
a
ni
z
a
t
i
on’
si
nt
e
r
na
l
knowledge market. Organizational Dynamics 32: 275-285.
Michailova S, Husted K. 2003. Knowledge-sharing hostility in Russian firms.
California Management Review 45: 59-77.
Mohr JJ. 2002. Managing the paradox of inter-firm learning: the role of governance
mechanisms. The Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 17: 282-301.
32
33
Nahapiet J, Ghoshal S. 1998. Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational
advantage. Academy of Management Review 23: 242-266.
Nelson R, Winter S. 1982. An evolutionary theory of economic change. Harvard
University, Cambridge, MA
Nickerson J.A. and T.R.Ze
nge
r
.2004.‘
AKnowl
e
dge
-based Theory of the Firm-The
Problem-s
ol
vi
ngPe
r
s
pe
c
t
i
ve
’
.
Wor
ki
ngpa
pe
r
Nonaka I. 1994. A Dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation.
Organization Science 5: 14 - 37.
Nonaka I, Takeuchi H. 1995. The knowledge-creating company. Oxford : Oxford
University Press.
Nonaka I, Toyama R, Konno N. 2000. SECI, Ba and leadership：A unified model of
dynamic knowledge creation. Long Range Planning 33: 5 - 34.
Nooteboom B. 2000. Learning by interaction: Absorptive capability, cognitive
distance and governance. Journal of Management and Governance 4: 69-92.
Nooteboom B. 2004. Governance and competence; how can they be combined?
Cambridge Journal of Economics 28: 505-525.
Nooteboom B, Berger H, Noorderhaven NG. 1997. Effects of trust and governance on
relational risk. Academy of Management Journal 40: 308-338.
Okhuysen GA, Eisenhardt KM. 2002. Integrating knowledge in groups: How formal
interventions enable flexibility. Organization Science 13: 370-386.
Osterloh M, Frey BS. 2000. Motivation, knowledge transfer and organizational forms.
Organization Science 11: 538-550.
Pfeffer J, Salanick, GR. 1978. The external control of organizations: A resource
dependence perspective. New York: Harper and Row
Pisano G. 1994. Knowledge, integration, and the locus of learning: an empirical
analysis of process development. Strategic Management Journal 15: 85-100.
Postrel S. 2002. Islands of shared knowledge: specialization and mutual
understanding in problem-solving teams. Organization Science 13: 303-320.
Priem RL, Butler JE. 2001. Is the resource-ba
s
e
d“
vi
e
w”aus
e
f
ulpe
r
s
pe
c
t
i
vef
or
strategic management research?. Academy of Management Review 26:22-40
Rousseau DM. 1985. Issues of level in organizational research: Multilevel and
cross-level perspectives. In L. L. Cummings & B. Staw (eds). Research in
organizational behavior. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. 7: 1-37.
Schulz M. 2001. The uncertain relevance of newness: organizational learning and
33
34
knowledge flow. Academy of Management Journal 44: 661-681.
Shapira Z. 2000. Governance in organizations: A cognition perspective. Journal of
Management and Governance 4: 53-67.
Simon HA. 1985. Human nature in politics: the dialogue of psychology with political
science. American Political Science Review 79: 293-304.
Simon, H.A. 1991. Bounded rationality and organizational learning.Organization
Science 2:125-134.
Smircich L. 1983. Concepts of culture and organizational analysis. Administrative
Science Quarterly 28: 339-358.
Szulanski G. 1996. Exploring internal stickiness： Impediments to the transfer of best
practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal 17: 27-43.
Takeuchi, H., Nonaka I. 2004. Hitotsubashi on Knowledge Management. John Wiley
& Sons (Asia) Pte Ltd.
Teece DJ, Pisano G, Shuen, A. 1997. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management.
Strategic Management Journal 18: 509-553.
Thompson JA, Bunderson JS. 2003. Violations of principle: ideological currency in
the psychological contract. Academy of Management. The Academy of Management
Review 28: 571
Tsai W, Ghoshal S. 1998. Social capital and value creation: the role of intrafirm
networks. Academy of Management Journal 41: 464-476.
Uzzi B, Lancaster R. 2003. Relational embeddedness and learning: the case of bank
loan managers and their clients. Management Science 49: 383-399.
Weick KE. 1979. Cognitive processes in organizations. In B. M. Staw (ed). Research
in organizational behavior: 1:41-74 Greenwich, Conn: JAI Press
Weick KE. 1995. What theory is not, theorizing is. Administrative Science Quarterly
40: 385-390
Wexler MN. 2001. The who, what and why of knowledge mapping. Journal of
Knowledge Management 5: 249-253.
Winter S. 1987. Knowledge and competences as strategic assets. In David J. Teece (ed)
The Competitive Challenge: 159-184. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Zahra SA, Filatotchev I. 2004 Corporate governance and threshold firms: a
knowledge-based perspective. The Journal of Management Studies 41:885
Zahra SA, George G. 2002. Absorptive capacity: a review, reconceptualization, and
extension. Academy of Management. The Academy of Management Review 27:
34
35
185-203
35