Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Organizing for sustained innovation: the role of knowledge flows within and between organizational communities

  • Article
  • Published:
Knowledge Management Research & Practice

Abstract

The capacity to innovate impacts organizational performance and is crucial for competitive advantage. However, as structural inertia sets in, large organizations tend to lose their ability to sustain continuous knowledge creation dynamics. Moreover, created knowledge is not always efficiently integrated into new marketable product offerings. As a consequence, organizations continually experiment with designs allowing them to combine both imperatives. Drawing on a longitudinal case study of a large firm operating in the highly competitive Specialty Chemicals industry, we explore how this organization has been able to conjugate the apparently contradictory processes of knowledge creation and integration. Our findings suggest that this capacity is enhanced by effective knowledge flows within and between the different organizational communities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Amin A and Roberts J (2008) Knowing in action: beyond communities of practice. Research Policy 37 (2), 353–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blanchet A and Gotman A (1992) L’Enquête et ses Méthodes: L’Entretien. Nathan, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borzillo S and Kaminska-Labbé R (2011) Unravelling the dynamics of knowledge creation in communities of practice though complexity theory lenses. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 9 (4), 353–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown JS and Duguid P (1991) Organizational learning and communities of practice: toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organization Science 2 (1), 40–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown JS and Duguid P (1998) Organizing knowledge. California Management Review 40 (3), 90–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown SL and Eisenhardt KM (1997) The art of continuous change: linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly 42 (1), 1–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgelman RA (1991) Intraorganizational ecology of strategy making and organizational adaptation: theory and field research. Organization Science 2 (3), 239–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgelman RA (2002) Strategy as vector and the inertia of coevolutionary lock-in. Administrative Science Quarterly 47 (2), 325–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coakes E and Smith P (2007) Developing communities of innovation by identifying innovation champions. The International Journal of Knowledge and Organizational Learning Management 14 (1), 74–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohendet P and Diani M (2003) L’organisation comme une communauté de communautés: croyances collectives et culture d’entreprise. REP 113 (5), 697–720.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohendet P and Llerena P (2003) Routines and incentives: the role of communities in the firm. Industrial and Corporate Change 12 (2), 271–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cox A (2005) What are communities of practice? A comparative review of four seminal works. Journal of Information Science 31 (6), 527–540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cummings JN (2004) Work groups, structural diversity, and knowledge sharing in a global organization. Management Science 50 (3), 352–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dannecker A and Lechner U (2007) Knowledge creation in virtual communities of patients: the role of quality assurance, Proc 13th Americas Conference on Information Systems, Keystone, Colorado, USA.

  • D’Aveni RA (1994) Hypercompetition: Managing the Dynamics of Strategic Manouvering. Free Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daft RL and Weick KE (1984) Toward a model of organizations as interpretation systems. Academy of Management Review 9 (2), 284–295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dougherty D (2008) Bridging social constraint and social action to design organizations for innovation. Organization Studies 29 (03), 415–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dubé L, Bourhis A and Jacob R (2005) The impact of structuring characteristics on the launching of virtual communities of practice. Journal of Organizational Change Management 18 (2), 145–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dubé L, Bourhis A and Jacob R (2006) Towards a typology of virtual communities of practice. Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge, and Management 1, 69–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duncan R (1976) The ambidextrous organization: designing dual structures for innovation. In The Management of Organization (Killman RH, Pondy LR and Sleven D, Eds), pp 167–188, North Holland, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt KM (1989) Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review 14 (4), 532–550.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt KM and Martin JA (2000) Dynamic capabilities: what are they? Strategic Management Journal 21 (10–11), 1105–1121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franke N and Shah S (2003) How communities support innovative activities: an exploration of assistance and sharing among end-users. Research Policy 32 (1), 157–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galunic DC and Eisenhardt KM (2001) Architectural innovation and modular corporate forms. Academy of Management Journal 44 (6), 1229–1249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gebert D, Boerner S and Kearney E (2010) Fostering team innovation: why is it important to combine opposing action strategies? Organization Science 21 (3), 593–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson CB and Birkinshaw J (2004) The antecedents, consequences and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal 47 (2), 209–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta AK, Smith KG and Shalley CE (2006) The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal 49 (4), 693–706.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Håkanson L (2007) Creating knowledge: the power and logic of articulation. Industrial and Corporate Change 16 (1), 51–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Håkanson L (2010) The firm as an epistemic community: the knowledge-based view revisited. Industrial and Corporate Change 19 (6), 1801–1828.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamel G (1994) The concept of core competencies. In Competence Based Competition (Hamel G and Heene A, Eds), pp 11–33, Wiley, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannan M and Freeman J (1984) Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociological Review 49 (2), 149–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haour G (2004) Resolving the Innovation Paradox: Enhancing Growth in Technology Companies. Palgrave Macmillan, New York.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • He Z-L and Wong P-K (2004) Exploration vs. exploitation: an empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science 15 (4), 481–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helfat C and Eisenhardt K (2004) Inter-temporal economies of scope, organizational modularity, and the dynamics of diversification. Strategic Management Journal 25 (13), 1217–1232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kogut B and Zander U (1992) Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science 3 (3), 383–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lave J and Wenger E (1991) Situated learning. Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, University Press, Cambridge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lee GK and Cole RE (2003) From a firm-based to a community-based model of knowledge creation: the case of the Linux kernel development. Organization Science 14 (6), 633–649.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindkvist L (2003) Knowledge communities and knowledge collectivities – different notions of group level epistemology, 5th International Conference on Organizational Learning and Knowledge, 30 May–2 June, Lancaster University, UK.

  • Lindkvist L (2005) Knowledge communities and knowledge collectivities: a typology of knowledge work in groups. Journal of Management Studies 42 (6), 1189–1210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lovas B and Ghoshal S (2000) Strategy as guided evolution. Strategic Management Journal 21 (9), 875–896.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lubatkin MH, Simsek Z, Ling Y and Veiga JF (2006) Ambidexterity and performance in small- to medium-sized firms: the pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration. Journal of Management 32 (5), 646–672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lumpkin GT and Dess GG (1996) Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review 21 (1), 135–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahr D and Lievens A (2012) Virtual lead user communities: drivers of knowledge creation for innovation. Research Policy 4 (1), 167–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March JG (1991) Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science 2 (1), 71–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDermott R and Archibald D (2010) Harnessing your staff’s informal networks. Harvard Business Review 88 (3), 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGrath R (2001) Exploratory learning, innovative capacity, and managerial oversight. Academy of Management Journal 44 (1), 118–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles MB and Huberman AM (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis. Sage, Thousand Oaks.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka I (1994) A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science 5 (1), 14–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly CA and Tushman ML (2004) The ambidextrous organization. Harvard Business Review 82 (4), 74–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly CA and Tushman ML (2008) Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: resolving the innovator’s dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior 28, 185–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Probst G and Borzillo S (2007) Piloter les communautés de pratique avec succès. Revue française de gestion (170), 135–153.

  • Probst G and Borzillo S (2008) Why communities of practice succeed and why they fail. European Management Journal 26 (5), 335–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puranam P, Singh H and Zollo M (2006) Organizing for innovation: managing the coordination-autonomy dilemma in technology acquisitions. Academy of Management Journal 49 (2), 263–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schiavone F (2012) Resistance to industry technological change in communities of practice: the ‘ambivalent’ case of radio amateurs. Journal of Organizational Change Management 25 (6), 784–797.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schreyögg G and Sydow J (2010) Organizing for fluidity? Dilemmas of new organizational forms. Organization Science 21 (6), 1251–1262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter J (1934) The Theory of Economic Development. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter J (1942) Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. Harper & Row, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheremata W (2000) Centrifugal and centripetal forces in radical new product development under time pressure. Academy of Management Review 25 (2), 389–408.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siggelkow N and Rivkin JW (2005) Speed and search: designing organizations for turbulence and complexity. Organization Science 16 (2), 101–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simsek Z (2009) Organizational ambidexterity: towards a multilevel understanding. Journal of Management Studies 46 (4), 597–624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith WK and Tushman ML (2005) Managing strategic contradictions: a top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science 16 (5), 522–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sorensen J and Stuart T (2000) Aging, obsolescence, and organizational innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly 45 (1), 81–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Storey J (2004) The Management of Innovation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sundaramurthy C and Lewis M (2003) Control and collaboration: paradoxes of governance. Academy of Management Review 26 (3), 397–415.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swan J, Scarbrough H and Robertson M (2002) The construction of ‘communities of practice’ in the management of innovation. Management Learning 33 (4), 477–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece DJ (2007) Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise advantage. Strategic Management Journal 28 (13), 1319–1350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tushman ML and O’Reilly CA (1997) Winning through Innovation: A Practical Guide to Leading Organizational Change and Renewal. Harvard University Press, Boston, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Maanen J (1988) Tales of the Field: On writing Ethnography. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Krogh G, Nonaka I and Aben M (2001) Making the most of your company’s knowledge: a strategic framework. Long Range Planning 34 (4), 421–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wenger E (1998) Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wiggins RR and Rueffi TW (2005) Schumpeter’s ghost: is hypercompetition making the best of times shorter? Strategic Management Journal 26 (10), 887–911.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin RK (2003) Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 3rd edn, Sage, London.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Strategy, SKEMA Business School, PACA, France

    Renata Kaminska & Stefano Borzillo

Authors
  1. Renata Kaminska
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stefano Borzillo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Renata Kaminska.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kaminska, R., Borzillo, S. Organizing for sustained innovation: the role of knowledge flows within and between organizational communities. Knowl Manage Res Pract 14, 46–54 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2014.31

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2014.31

Keywords

Search

Navigation