Managing in practice for knowledge effects in collaborative ventures

translation is that the literature has been framed from three different perspectives, which affect the speed with which findings are transferred between these domains. These perspectives are that of a knowledge transfer problem, secondly as two separate ontologies and epistemologies and thirdly as a knowledge production problem, with the latter the outcome of the first two perspectives. Taken in combination it appears difficult to both generate applied uses and advance fundamental understanding simultaneously by research (van de Ven & Johnson 2006). The forms of knowledge generated by the practitioner and the academic are both partial and incomplete as they are perspectival, involving inherent bias and with unseen aspects (Poggi 1965; van de Ven & Johnson 2006). Lakomski (2004, p. S92)

advocates that a realistic approach is research that focuses ‘on people’s practical knowledge, constantly created while interacting with others and engaged in the solving of organizational tasks’. This thesis is thus investigating knowledge creation in the practice of collaborative ventures.

Regardless of whether an academic or a practitioner, it is apparent that managing to capture and transfer emerging knowledge within the hybrid communities that constitute the knowledge ecosystem of a collaborative venture is an essential activity, albeit difficult (Brown & Duguid 1998). Vinding (2004) finds that three indicators of human capital improve innovative ability, namely share of highly educated employees, application of HRM practices and development of closer relationships, with both vertical actors and knowledge institutions. However he finds that work experience of managers did not have a significant effect.

In contrast Beardsley, Johnson and Manyika (2006) suggest that to ensure that the tacit activities of managers’ complex problem solving are effective requires the fostering and development of experience, ability to understand multi-faceted information and its implications, judgements and creativity. Such abilities are required to develop inimitable talent-based competitive advantage, drawing on diverse forms of knowledge from different sources, including co-workers, customers and suppliers. To facilitate the development of these skills and abilities organisational barriers, such as silo mentality, have to be removed, trust enabled (Kumar 1996; Levin et al. 2004; Mentzer, Foggin & Golicic 2000), employee self- confidence engendered through HRM practices (Prieto & Pilar Pérez Santana 2012), and tools for decision making and communication provided, such as story-telling

(Boal & Schultz 2007; Snowden 2004; Swap et al. 2004), coaching (Bond & Seneque 2013; Ellinger & Bostrom 2002; Swart & Harcup 2013) and reflection (Zundel 2013). Creating conditions that allow emergence of innovation and allocating resources as it emerges and providing strategic direction is necessary, to guide the development of these initiatives.

The involvement of senior managers is crucial (Andraski 1998). Senior managers can enable knowledge creation and transfer by establishing complex networks, personal relationships and the common backgrounds that will enable the effective evaluation and propagation of emerging knowledge (Brown & Duguid 1998). Additionally the routines and procedures in place can be developed to recognise any emerging opportunities (Feldman & Pentland 2003). As each organisation involved in collaboration has separate and different ‘structures, incentives and management’ to ‘generate innovation and build their knowledge assets’ (Teece 1998, p. 62) how they individually and jointly create and recognise value from new knowledge creation varies. Critical factors include a translator, someone able to ‘frame the interests of one community in terms of another community’s interests’ (Brown & Duguid 1998, p. 103), absorptive capacity, context and business processes (Brown & Duguid 1998). Another critical aspect is the ability to sense, respond and learn (Butner 2007; Sinkula 1994). Lusch, Vargo and Tanniru (2010) advocate that adopting a service- centered frame of reference can be developed to sense changes in customers and the environment and learn from the changes. Their suggestions to develop this mental model include focus on serving rather than creating goods, more authentic conversation and dialogue, shifting to relational exchanges rather than transactional and recognising the strategic advantage in symmetric rather than asymmetric

information. Reflective conversations that support these relational exchanges ‘are crucial to co-operative collaboration across the boundaries of a company’ (Gratton 2006, p.2). Citing the different types of conversation that were used during the pre- acquisition phase when OgilivyOne acquired NoHo Digital, Gratton believes that a portfolio of conversation styles, including intimate and more rational, analytical conversations were utilised. The former built a deep trusting relationship between senior managers and the latter, the disciplined debate, was used for obvious commercial reasons throughout the acquisition (Gratton 2006). Creating time and space for conversations to occur, with new, relevant information feeding into the process so that the conversations can develop is vital (Gratton 2006). By developing these skills and providing direction on strategic intent, senior managers can enable the capture of the mutual benefits for their organisations in collaborative ventures. Of note is that all of these suggestions have a common core, the need for senior managers to both recognise their strategic value to knowledge processes and to provide direction. Strategic intent is thus a common factor.

More recently Berghman, Matthyssens and Vandenbempt (2012) consolidate some of the connections between strategy, absorptive capacity and learning by exploring deliberate learning mechanisms (Zollo 2009). Targeting the different dimensions of absorptive capacity, namely recognition, assimilation and exploitation, with deliberate learning mechanisms, Berghman, Matthyssens and Vandenbempt (2012) found that mechanisms for intra- and inter-organisational learning are not isolated, there are interconnections (Holmqvist 2004). These findings support the notion that different ways of learning may interact.

Of interest is the paucity of research that links organisational learning with strategy (Kaleka & Berthon 2006; McGuinness & Morgan 2005; Paisittanand, Digman & Lee 2007; Santos-Vijande, Lopez-Sanchez & Trespalacios 2012; Wu & Cavusgil 2006). Organisational learning links the business ecosystem, strategy alignment, recognition of opportunities and innovation (Beer et al. 2005; Lumpkin & Lichtenstein 2005), particularly through an organisation’s capacity to adapt (Madhavaram & Hunt 2008; Santos-Vijande, Lopez-Sanchez & Trespalacios 2012) and its memory (Cross et al. 2004). There is an implied strategic dimension (Crossan, Lane & White 1999), being represented as the emergence of shared concepts, which embrace new ways of thinking and behaving that assist the organisation to achieve its goals. Strategy implementation, with few widely accepted definitions, is an interpersonal process amongst co-workers in an organisation (Noble 1999). Noble (1999) reviews several current definitions which focus on either implementation as an activity to control and monitor, or an activity to executing the strategic plan or detailed planning to operationalise the strategic plan. The emergent nature of strategy is thus overlooked. Noble (1999, p. 120) suggests that implementation can be better defined as ‘the communication, interpretation, adoption, and enactment of strategic plans’. Santos- Vijande, Lopez-Sanchez and Trespalacios (2012) argue that there are few links with strategy implementation and organisational learning, concurring with Paisittanand, Digman and Lee (2007) who suggest that there are few empirical studies investigating relationships between strategy implementation and organisational knowledge. In the dynamic knowledge economy, traditional strategy implementation processes need to adapt (Paisittanand, Digman & Lee 2007). All activities within an organisation are impacted by strategy implementation, which is little researched (Beers 1996; Noble 1999; Walker & Ruekert 1987). Given that ‘Successful

organizational synthesis of knowledge requires discovering knowledge as it emerges in practice’ (Brown & Duguid 1998, p. 100), recognising different levels and kinds of knowledge in organisations affects the strategic management of knowledge flows (Sanchez 1996). Of note is that Paisittanand, Digman and Lee (2007) comment linkages between strategy implementation and leveraging the capability to create new knowledge from existing knowledge are few, despite the potential for interactions and influences between them. Moreover Al-Laham (2011) indicates that interaction effects between stocks and flows of knowledge and absorptive capacity need further investigation. Being complex phenomena, there is a need for ‘applying multimethods and mixed research teams with multidisciplinary knowledge to achieve multiple perspectives’ (Jakubik 2011, p. 398). Dierkes, Berthoin Antal, Child and Nonaka (2001) suggest that an emerging challenge in knowledge management research includes the role of learning as strategic intent, to which this study seeks to contribute.

4.7 Summary

Knowledge, knowledge transfer and knowledge creation are inextricably linked through interactivity. Knowledge effects arise when interactions occur between people, routines and the knowledge artefacts. These knowledge effects enable new knowledge to be created which can be utilised for competitive advantage in the knowledge economy. Knowledge is a dynamic, evolving resource, which cannot be separated from practice due to the tacit component. Considering knowledge as knowing better exemplifies the practice of knowledge as being in a context and action occurring.

Within a collaborative venture, regardless of the purpose for collaborating, there will be knowledge effects that enable knowledge creation to occur. These occur in situ so that the context cannot be removed from the process. A significant element of the context is the absorptive capacity of an organisation. Both absorptive capacity and knowledge effects are dynamic, contributing to the dynamic capability of the organisation through becoming to know. For maximising strategic benefits of absorptive capacity and knowledge effects they are best managed as part of the strategy implementation process.

A major issue associated with the key concepts discussed in this chapter has been their lack of research cohesion despite some obvious links and the uneven developments of aspects of each. This is even more noticeable when looking at the corollary of knowledge creation and transfer, namely organisational learning. Such lack of research cohesion adds complexity to understanding the underlying issues to enable effective strategic management practices. What is of interest to this study is how senior managers affect the nature of the interactions and the transformative process through strategic intent, affecting dominant logic and knowledge creation outcomes in collaborative ventures. The following chapter introduces the research methodology chosen to investigate these complex relationships and practices.