Knowledge development, particularly ‘social’ knowledge production within an organisational framework cannot be taken for granted as knowledge leading to SCA is predominantly embedded within individuals. The KBV argues that the type of interdependence within a task determines the mode of the coordination process deployed. However, before the mechanisms for integrating specialised knowledge will be discussed further below, this thesis will identify three enablers for knowledge production and transfer which will aid in the integration discussion.
Autonomy as an enabler for knowledge creation and transfer: Nonaka, Toyama and Konno, (2001) argue, that the permission to act autonomously as far as circumstances permit, enables knowledge creation. This also improves new ideas, as knowledge
56 | P a g e generation is conducted in a less planned but more innovative way. Moreno-Luzon and Lloria (2008) argue that autonomy increases motivation when a context is created which encourages the involvement and commitment of individuals to create new knowledge by also allowing necessary freedom for its creation and absorption. Hence, any context for this research should enable autonomy for knowledge creation. The following chapter ‘Knowledge Transfer Partnerships’ (section: 2.5) will discuss this further.
Care as an enabler for knowledge creation and transfer: Krogh (1998) places “care” as one specific quality of firm relationships that enables organizational knowledge development (Krogh 1998). The source of knowledge creation and the willingness to transfer knowledge may be easily destroyed in the social process. Krogh, Ichijo and Nonaka believe that:
“… knowledge development, especially social knowledge development of organizations, cannot be taken for granted since knowledge is very fragile in them. Since individual knowledge can be easily killed, organizational knowledge development as social activity can be quite difficult or, in the worst case, impossible” (Krogh, Ichijo and Nonaka 2001, p.30)
Krogh, Ichijo and Nonaka (2001) argue that the social process of sharing does not happen naturally, as, e.g. organizational members may not show interest in the knowledge of others. For knowledge to develop, individuals must care about their own observation, reflecting on it, nurturing it despite possible criticism, and connecting it with the people whom might have an interest in it (Von Krogh and Roos 1996). Krogh, Ichijo and Nonaka (2001) offer both a conceptual discussion and a case study based on the Japanese firm. They argue that care is an enabler for knowledge creation and transfer by nurturing trust among employees. High care organizations are characterized by employees who help each other, are accessible, and share collectively the same value for care. Hence, care increases motivation and alignment in cooperation aspects as an act of mutual appreciation.
57 | P a g e Socialization as an enabler for knowledge creation and transfer: Socialisation refers to the extent of individual members to feel part of the firm and share their values. Ideas closely related to this are, amongst others, the level of trust, the degree of common values and the level of commitment to the task and to the firm (Moreno- Luzon; Perisand and Gonzalez 2001). Socialising is partly dependent on the degree of collaboration activities within the firm. Furthermore, a collaborative firm culture may foster socialisation outside firm boundaries which in turn may affect on a general positive organizational climate and strengthen relationship building.
Since autonomy is believed to encourage involvement and commitment of individuals to create new knowledge and since care effects well-being and corporation with the company, those enablers will in turn affect socialisation and are, therefore, interdependent.
It is important to clarify the idea between individual knowledge and organisational knowledge in the context of knowledge integration and the linkage to SCA. A number of authors (Berg 2013; Dawson 2000; Spender 1995; Nonaka 1994; Kogut and Zander 1992) centre ‘organisational knowledge’ in their analysis which in turn dilutes the mechanisms through which individuals link together their idiosyncratic knowledge bases. This literature review already argued the difference between data, information and knowledge and established that knowledge which is linked to SCA resits within the individual. Hence, this thesis distances itself from accepting ‘organisational knowledge’ on its own without recognising that specialised knowledge can only reside in individuals and that there could only be collective knowledge of individuals as a result of knowledge aggregation and integration would be somewhat contradictory to the KBV discussions so far. Grant (2011) argues that:
“The key to efficiency in knowledge integration is to create mechanisms that economize on learning” (Grant 2011, p. 545)
58 | P a g e To achieve integration of idiosyncratic knowledge, Grant (1996) proposed four mechanisms for knowledge integration which will be discussed below. Those four mechanisms integrate individual specialised knowledge by considering efficiency. Efficiency of knowledge integration mechanisms is seen in the KBV literature as one of the most important determinants with strategic implications, as, e.g. Krogh (2009) argues that the cost of sharing knowledge often outweighs the reward.
Rules and directives – This mechanism is viewed as standards with the purpose to
regulate interaction between individuals or the interaction between individual and, e.g. plans, policies and procedures. Behaviour formulisation, which is a design variable for standardising work processes, achieves production efficiencies by means of regulations (Moreno-Luzon and Lloria 2008). Rules and directives enable communication at low costs, especially if it affects a number of individuals (Desetz 1991). Dependent on circumstances, it can also use the tacit knowledge of individuals to form, e.g. a set of procedures for quality control by maximising efficiency gains towards time, cost, and communication; without the need to try and teach idiosyncratic specialised knowledge to the rest of the workers.
Sequencing - This mechanism is concerned with the sequencing of tasks (Demsetz
1991; Grant 1996; Nelson and Winter 1982) by minimising redundant communication among workers (Hurnonen et al. 2015). Sequencing minimised communication and continuous coordination refers to the assignment of task activity using the individual's relevant knowledge independently through having separate engagement intervals (Nelson and Winter 1982).
Routines – This mechanism could be seen as a simple sequence. However, routines
have the ability to enable complex patterns of interaction in the absence of other coordinating mechanisms (Canonico et al. 2012; Grant 1996; Munkvold 2006). There are two main dimensions. First, considering examples such as operations of fast food restaurants (Leidner 1993) or auto racing pit crews (Grant 1996), routines have the ability to simultaneously support individuals’ within their specific task activity.
59 | P a g e Second, routines can be viewed from a mutual adjustment perspective which triggers a higher degree of informality. Mutual adjustment or dialogue between individuals and groups is an important coordination mechanism for knowledge creation and integration (Armbrecht et al. 2001; Kogut and Zander 1996; Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995; Palmer 1998; Von Krogh 1998). It is a simple coordinating mechanism using a process of informal communication. It is naturally used in the very basic organization structure and unexpectedly in the most complicated and uncertain (e.g. production needs specific knowledge) because it is the only one that works under very challenging circumstances (Mintzberg 1989).
Joyce, McGee and Slocum (1997) argue that informal contacts could be more significant than formal structures in reaching the organisation’s objectives. However, informal contact allows the creation of redundancy (Nonaka 1991; Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995), which is defined as the existence of information greater than the requirement of its firm members (Moreno-Luzon and Lloria 2008). In other words, if more information is shared and received then necessary. Hence, redundancy may be viewed as contradictory to the efficiency gains of a more formal routine establishment but may facilitate other KBV coordination themes such as ‘the role of common knowledge’. Since focus is given towards a holistic KBV approach such linkages may be important as it may lead to knowledge creation and coordination facilitation. Hence, further empirical analysis into this possible conflict is needed.
Group problem solving and decision-making – This mechanism is linked to communication and interactive-intensive and personal forms of integration (Berends et al. 2004; Grant 1996). The mechanism is widely researched in field studies, e.g. multi-disciplinary innovation projects (Van Aken et al. 2012; Huang and Newell 2003; Carlile 2002), and in experimental studies (Okhuysen and Eisenhardt 2002; Stasser et al. 1995). With the exception of the mutual adjustment perspective, the other above mechanisms seek integration efficiency through avoiding rich communication and learning. However, this mechanism is more time-consuming in its knowledge integration and therefore more costly. Ditillo (2004) argues that increased task
60 | P a g e complexity needs increased interaction. Whereas (Nickerson and Zenger 2004) argue that the higher the problem complexity, the more challenging it may become to identify and solve problems with multiple actors involved. This challenge could further magnify if the group does not share at least some types of common knowledge.
Grant points out that:
“efficiency in organizations tends to be associated with maximizing the use of rules, routines and other integration mechanisms that economize on communication and knowledge transfer, and reserve problem solving and decision-making by teams to unusual, complex, and important tasks” (Grant 1996, p. 115)
Considering this debate on the integration of specialist knowledge and the pursuit of efficiency gains linked to coordination and the KBV, this thesis would like to gain further insights into the identified four mechanisms and understand their role within the integration of knowledge that could be linked to SCA. For example, by considering the efficiency discussion, this thesis would expect a minimised use of group problem solving and decision-making due to the intensity of communication and therefore, time needed against the other modes of knowledge integration.