• No results found

3. Literature Review: Boundary Objects & Boundary Management

3.5 Boundary management

Boundary management learning

Boundary objects, residing at the interface between communities are proposed to be capable of bridging both real and perceived differences, yet, it is emphasised that bridging may neither be a neutral or consensual activity (Huvila 2011). Kimble and colleagues (2010), affirm that the challenges associated with cross-boundary knowledge sharing are paradoxically what may make it of value. One of the noted challenges to knowledge sharing arguably rests upon whether or not there is a shared worldview (Clark and Brennan 1991). Research findings also identify that the more radical the innovation, the greater the potential problems in negotiating power across boundaries (Christensen et al. 2000).

Many researchers posit that co-located work groups tend to better share knowledge than dispersed group members (Scarborough et al. 2004; Kiesler and Cummings 2002). Co- location is identified as being significant to project team members’ knowledge integration

(Galegher et al. 1990). The review of the literature addressing knowledge sharing reveals there is an inclination for knowledge to be locally entrenched and challenging to transfer over any distance (Sapsed and Salter 2004). Research findings propose that people working in separated teams, more commonly disengage or 'drop' members who are distant (Mortenson and Hinds 2002). This challenge of being 'out of sight, and out of mind', also triggered lower effort and greater free riding, further leading to work delays (Kiesler and Cummings 2002).

The importance of face-to-face interaction is fundamental to facilitating the transfer of complex knowledge as well as building trust, commitment and social capital (Sapsed and Salter 2004). Storper and Venables (2003) profess that face-to-face interaction increases heart rates, arouses performance instincts, and people will work harder to connect and empathize with co-workers. Findings also suggest that eye-to-eye contact holds attention, and the act of physical touch like a handshake or embrace may construct social bonds (Nardi and Whittaker 2002). Similarly, it is further proposed that where there is not an opportunity for face-to-face interaction, relationships tend to falter (Sapsed and Salter 2004).

Akkerman and Bakker (2011) assert all learning that takes place involves boundaries. Cash et al. (2003) suggest that boundary management necessitates three primary activities - communication, translation, and mediation crossing boundaries between organisations and stakeholders. In some cases it is noted that boundary work is institutionalised into an official boundary organisation (Legano and Ingram 2009). Where findings indicate boundary organisations involve three significant features: (i) the creation of special roles within the organisation for boundary management; (ii) formally allocating roles among participants across the boundary, and (iii) providing a forum where information can be coproduced by various actors utilising boundary objects (Cash et al. 2003).

The creation of new knowledge is dependent on both communication and the development of new findings. One of the main challenges when actors from different organisational worlds interact is the different meanings ascribed to new objects (Carlile 2002). Thus, the primary challenge faced is to reconcile these meanings. Another noted challenge is that these ‘so called worlds’ can have both commonalities and differences (Star and Griesemer 1989).

Convergence

The concept of convergence describes a process whereby different social worlds or communities of practice come together, in a process of mutual constitution (Star et al. 1997). The concept of convergence was originally developed to describe the process

that information artefacts and social worlds intermingle, a process referred to as mutual constitution (Star et al. 1997). Conversely, divergence is perceived as the movement away from working together, a move towards incompatibility (Pawlowsky et al. 2000). Boundary object brokering is often the label given to activities and processes aimed at successful convergence of boundary objects with the communities of practice that they bond (Pawlowsky 2000).

Boundary crossing typically refers to transitions and interactions across different communities of practice or sites (Suchman 1994). Boundary crossing is suggested to be a vast and under-studied type of cognitive process (Engeström et al. 1995). Star and Griesemer (1989) propose a boundary object model highlighting the role of translation in determining the boundary object that would optimise both autonomy and communication between worlds. The determination of the potential of convergence is related to the primary aims of this research. Boundary object brokering is seen as the label ascribed to activities and processes striving towards the convergence of a boundary object, wellbeing, with the communities of practice that they connect namely health and tourism.

Brokering

Brokering is contended to provide a link between communities of practice (Pawlowsky et al. 2000). Activities in brokering are suggested to facilitate transactions and knowledge flow between communities of practice (Pawlowsky et al. 2000). Wenger (1998) proposes that the process of brokering requires sufficient legitimacy to sway practice development, and address conflicting interests. It is advised that brokers themselves be able to build new connections across communities of practice, and enable avenues for meaning (Wenger 1998).

It is proposed that there are four mechanisms involved in brokering or border crossing namely: identification; coordination; reflection; and transformation. Where different disciplines need to cooperate and information must travel across borders of diverse communities yet retain integrity, a fundamental question becomes, how can two communities with two differing, potentially irreconcilable epistemologies cooperate (Wilson and Herndl 2007; Fujimura 1992)?

Wenger (1998) identifies three types of brokering processes - translation, coordination, and alignment. Here translation is defined as a process of framing, which aligns the worldview of one community to a different community. Coordination is referred to as a process of bringing together perspectives whereby communities of practice avoid working antagonistically. Alignment is the process of relating an endeavour from a community of practice to a greater context of meaning (Pawlowski et al. 2000).

The concept of brokers (Wenger 1998), offers a possible route for epistemically distinct groups to communicate (Kimble et al. 2010). Brokers are defined as members of several communities who can effectively make connections between them, coordinating new areas for learning and exchange (Brown and Duguid 1998). Carlile (2004) suggests that a broker’s role is to assist other people to transfer, translate and transform meanings during collaborative activities.

The people that exist at the boundary are referred to as brokers, boundary crossers or boundary workers (Akkerman and Bakker 2011). These individuals or groups of people are the ones that actually encounter irregularities in both their actions and interactions, thus it is suggested that brokers are worthwhile as a point of analysis to better understand boundaries (Akkerman and Baker 2011). It is reported that brokers have the task of building bridges and connecting sides, however, while accountable to each community, criticism is endured for being either too aligned, or too abstract to align (Fisher and Atkinson-Grosjean 2002). Tangaard (2007) describes the position at the boundary as being marginal strangers, not really belonging. Akkerman and Bakker (2011) report that research findings reveal how brokers are simultaneously a bridge and divisive force. Star and Griesemer (1989) refer to brokers as being a means of translation within a situation of multiple relations and requirements.

In the context of leadership it is proposed that some leaders tend to be successful due to their boundary-crossing leadership style (Morse 2010). Where there are strong advocates for the promotion of boundary crossing competence that would include an ability to effectively manage diverse discourses and practices across boundaries (Fortuin and Bush 2010; Walker and Nocon 2007). It is contended that brokering requires the ability to simultaneously manage membership and non-membership, where there is sufficient distance to remain objective, and adequate legitimacy to be heard (Wenger 1998).

As a means of mitigating brokering conflict, the concept of trading zones was introduced by Galison (1997) in order to preserve the differences between groups or subcultures and account for the history of their cooperation. Trading zones are defined as formations of distinct groups, with different goals and backgrounds that cooperate in a specific action. It is suggested that the knowledge map is fundamental to Galison's (1997) trading zone (Wilson and Herndl 2007).

Knowledge transfer

While there is a growing body of research on organisational knowledge transfer, there still remains a lack of clarity around its antecedents (van Wijk et al. 2008). Research findings support the notion that the ability to transfer knowledge will improve an

organisation's performance (Epple et al. 1996; Galbraith 1990) and provide a basis for competitive advantage (Tsai 2001; Zahra 2000). There is also mounting evidence supporting the notion that internal knowledge transfer between organisational groups offers competitive benefits (Schulz 2001; Gupta and Govindarajan 2000). Similarly, Nonaka (1994) proposes that knowledge-creating activities can also lead to greater innovation. While the benefits of knowledge transfer are well documented, its effectiveness is suggested to vary amongst different organisations (Argote 1999; Szulanski 1996).

In defining knowledge transfer, researchers distinguish between individual and organisation levels. At the individual level, knowledge transfer refers to how knowledge attained in one situation applies to another (Singley and Anderson 1989). At an organizational level, Argote and Ingram (2000) define knowledge transfer as the process by which one group is affected by the experience of another. While it is contended that knowledge transfer at the organisational level also involves transfer at the individual level, the challenge of transfer at organisational levels are noted to transcend the complexity at the individual level (Argote and Ingram 2000).

Argote and Ingram (2000) suggest that knowledge transfer happens when experience in one part of an organisation affects another part and can be either implicit or explicit. It is proposed that knowledge transfer is revealed through changes, and thus can be measured by measuring changes in knowledge or performance (Baum and Ingram 1998). It is suggested that a large amount of organisational knowledge acquired may be tacit and thus not simply articulated (Nonaka 1991). Thus, this type of knowledge transfer may be difficult to measure as it would not be captured in verbal reports (Argote and Ingram 2000). Accordingly, performance-based measurements have been suggested to measure knowledge more directly (Berry and Broadbent 1984, 1987).

It is suggested that a primary challenge to measuring knowledge transfer within groups is that it may exist within several repositories (Levitt and March 1988; Starbuck 1992; Walsh and Ungson 1991). Types of repositories for knowledge within organisations include: individual members; roles and organizational structures; the organization’s standard operating procedures and practices; its culture; and the physical structure of the workplace (Walsh and Ungson 1991). Thus, to measure change in knowledge, it must be captured within each of these repositories. These repositories arguably have an important dual function in that they change when transfer happens and therefore, the changes within the knowledge repositories are indicators of the outcomes of the knowledge transfer (Argote and Ingram 2000).

McGrath and Argote (2001) propose a framework whereby knowledge is rooted in three basic elements within organisations namely members, tools and tasks (Argote and

McGrath 1993; Arrow and McGrath and Berdahl 2000). Within this context, members refer to the human mechanisms within the organisation. Tools are the technological component and include the hardware and software. Tasks are reflective of the organisation’s intentions, purposes and goals. Where it is suggested that in the case of knowledge, if it remains as a mere repository of information, the organisation is arguably not using it to learn (Goh 2002).

It is generally accepted among knowledge researchers that there are two main types - explicit knowledge, which can be codified and tacit knowledge that can be difficult to articulate (Nonaka 1994; Havens and Knapp 1998). Research indicates that a salient challenge in knowledge management is defining how knowledge types can both be codified and transferred within an organisation (Goh 2002). Past study findings indicate that codified knowledge transfers with greater ease than that which is not codified (Argote and Ingram 2000).

While knowledge type and codification act as determinants of knowledge transfer, there are several additional factors that are linked to the transfer of knowledge. Where factors positively affecting knowledge transfer include:

 Strategic similarity positively affected (Darr and Kertberg 2000)

 Characteristics of the social network affect extent (McEvily and Zaheer 1999)

 The nature of social ties interacts with the type of knowledge being transfered thus affecting transfer outcomes (Hansen 1999)

 Characteristics of the task where the greater the similarity, the greater the likelihood of transfer (Darr and Kurtzberg 2000; Singley and Anderson 1989)

 Characteristics of the tools being transfered – simple technology, geographic closeness (Galbraith 1990)

 Leadership practices and behaviours a major factor in the success of knowledge sharing (Goh 2002)

 Cultural dimensions of cooperation and collaboration critical to transfer (Goh 2002)  High level of trust an essential condition for willingness to cooperate (Levin and Cross

2004)

In the evaluation of potential determinants of synergies between public health and tourism communities of practice, the reviewed knowledge transfer body of knowledge, contributes to the conceptual understanding within this study. Empirical evidence centering on knowledge transfer to date has not linked boundary objects to knowledge sharing, transfer or exchange (Goh 2002; Argote and Ingram 2000). In the scant knowledge transfer literature that does make mention of the concept of boundaries, the language and frame employed differ from that of researchers grounding their work in Star and Griesemer's (1989) early work. In the review of knowledge management literature, it is suggested that studies have been mainly exploratory, lacking a central theoretical framework (Watson and Hewett 2006). That said, the knowledge transfer

literature reviewed, provides additional concepts to consider in the potential synergistic alliance of communities of practice within an organisation.

Conceptual map

As a means to conceptually map the current literature on boundary object management and knowledge transfer, Figure 8 highlights the main determinants of boundary crossing and knowledge transfer within the context of potential synergies between public health, tourism and wellbeing (boundary object) with the local authority. The

Figure 8: Potential determinants of boundary crossing and knowledge transfer

Characteristics of the boundary object that include the interpretive flexibility, symbolic structure and scale (Star and Griesemer 1989), are proposed to influence the success of knowledge being transferred between community of practice. In the context of this study, the concept of wellbeing is suggested to be a boundary object that enables

knowledge transfer between public health and tourism departments within the local authority. Carlile (2002) suggests that knowledge boundaries can have a range in their levels of complexity and are either: syntactic, semantic or pragmatic. Within this study it is put forward that they type of knowledge boundary that needs to be crossed between public health and tourism departments is pragmatic, where mutual interests still need to be developed to ‘transform’ knowledge at the boundary. The pragmatic boundary is viewed to be a more complex boundary to cross, yet is still evidenced to be possible (Carlile 2002;2004). Additionally, relational properties of the knowledge at the boundary include difference, dependence and novelty. In the case of the concept of wellbeing, it may be referred to as a novel situation, which could influence the likelihood of knowledge crossing boundaries.

Other factors depicted in Figure 8, that may influence knowledge transfer between communities of practice include: that knowledge is democratic (Wilson 2007), that there is a two-way flow of information (Waddell 1996), that knowledge is codified (Argote and Ingram 2000), and that team members are co-located (Clarke and Brennan 1991). Additional factors that may affect knowledge transfer are related to: the strategic similarity (Darr and Kertberg 2000), social network characteristics (McEvily and Zaheer 1999), the nature of the social ties (Hansen 1999), the characteristics of the task (Singley and Anderson 1989) and characteristics of the tools employed (Galbraith 1990), leadership practices (Goh 2002), the cultural dimensions associated with cooperation (Goh 2002), and the levels of trust (Levin and Cross 2004).

The role of brokering is another factor to consider in the transfer of knowledge between communities of practice. Wenger (1998) outlines three types of brokering processes: translation, coordination, and alignment, highlighting the significant role of brokering that occurs at the boundaries existing between communities. Collectively, these potential factors affecting knowledge transfer provide a conceptual framework to sensitise the researcher in the process of data collection and analysis.