Abstract
When organizations realize that they need to innovate, they often have their knowledge workers participate in inter-organizational “knowledge networks” that have the purpose of developing their participants’ skills and competencies through facilitated meetings. The main problem of knowledge networks is that it can be difficult to evaluate whether the network group is “healthy” and follows its purpose and whether its participants gain any value as a result, so the design problem faced in this study was “How to design a tool to assist network coordinators with the continuous development of network groups.” The problem was broken into three sub-problems: identifying the types of knowledge networks, identifying a tool for gauging a knowledge network’s “health,” and identifying a process through which knowledge networks can be effectively established, maintained, and ended. The problem was complicated by the need to identify common interests among the knowledge networks’ main stakeholders, for whom the solution had to provide value. The stakeholder groups were identified as network sponsors, network facilitators, and network participants. Three artifacts were designed to solve the problems identified. Artifact 1 was a visualization of the process of how to establish, maintain, operate, and evaluate and/or end a knowledge network. To support this process, two additional interactive artifacts were designed. The second artifact was a document called a “network charter” to be used by the facilitator and network participants at the beginning of and during the knowledge network process. The third artifact was an assessment tool for assessing seven key parameters of the selected knowledge network using a radar chart. Three main lessons were learned in the DSR project. First, we found that the DSR approach can be beneficial in creating new kernel theories, not just design theory. The concept of knowledge network archetypes was extracted through a combination of a literature review on knowledge networks and through the empirical activities involved in uncovering participant value and network facilitators’ evaluation of the artifacts. Second, we learned that designing artifacts that provide value to various stakeholders with asymmetric power relationship on multiple levels should be pursued by DSR researchers. Third, DSR can be used to provide situational solutions, not just normative ones.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Avison, D., & Pries-Heje, J. (2008). Flexible information systems development: Designing an appropriate methodology for different situations. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems 2007 (pp. 212–224).
Baskerville, R., & Dulipovici, A. (2006). The theoretical foundations of knowledge management. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 4(2), 83–105.
Batonda, G., & Perry, C. (2003). Approaches to relationship development processes in inter-firm networks. European Journal of Marketing, 37(10), 1457–1484.
Brown, J., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organization Science, 2(1), 40–57.
Busquets, J. (2010). Orchestrating smart business network dynamics for innovation. European Journal of Information Systems, 19(4), 481–493.
Connell, J., & Voola, R. (2007). Strategic alliances and knowledge sharing: Synergies or silos? Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(3), 52–66. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270710752108.
Cook, S. D. N., & Brown, J. S. (1999). Bridging epistemologies: The generative dance between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing. Organization Science, 10(4), 381–400.
Dolińska, M. (2015). Knowledge based development of innovative companies within the framework of innovation networks. Innovation: Organization & Management, 17(3), 323–340.
Ghisi, F. A., & Martinelli, D. P. (2006). Systemic view of interorganisational relationships: An analysis of business networks. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 19(5), 461–473.
Gregor, S., & Jones, D. (2007). The anatomy of a design theory. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8(5), 312–335.
Gruenfeld, D. H., Mannix, E. A., Williams, K. Y., & Neale, M. A. (1996). Group composition and decision making: How member familiarity and information distribution affect process and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67(1), 1–15.
Hanna, V., & Walsh, K. (2002). Small firm networks: A successful approach to innovation? R&D Management, 32(3), 201–207.
Hansen, M. R. P., & Pries-Heje, J. (2016). Out of the bottle: Design principles for GENIE tools (Group-Focused Engagement and Network Innovation Environment). In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology (pp. 131–146). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39294-3_9.
Hansen, M. R. P., & Pries-Heje, J. (2017). Value creation in knowledge networks. Five design principles. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 29(2), 26.
Hedlund, G. (1994). A model of knowledge management and the N-Form corporation. Strategic Management Journal, 15(S2), 73–90.
Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 75–105.
Jack, S., Moult, S., Anderson, A. R., & Dodd, S. (2010). An entrepreneurial network evolving: Patterns of change. International Small Business Journal, 28(4), 315–337. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242610363525.
Keen, P. G. W. (1981). Information Systems and Organizational Change. Communications of the ACM, 24(1), 10.
Kirkels, Y., & Duysters, G. (2010). Brokerage in SME networks. Research Policy, 39(3), 375–385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.005.
Klerkx, L., Hall, A., & Leeuwis, C. (2009). Strengthening agricultural innovation capacity: Are innovation brokers the answer? International Journal of Agricultural Resources and Ecology, 8(5/6), 409. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijarge.2009.032643.
Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in higher education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(2), 193–212.
Lee, A. S., & Baskerville, R. L. (2003). Generalizing generalizability in information systems research. Information Systems Research, 14(3), 221–243. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.14.3.221.16560.
Mitchell, J. C. (1974). Social networks. Annual Review of Anthropology, 3(1), 279–299.
Möller, K., Rajala, A., & Svahn, S. (2005). Strategic business nets – Their type and management. Journal of Business Research, 58(9), 1274–1284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2003.05.002.
Nonaka, l., Takeuchi, H., & Umemoto, K. (1996). A theory of organizational knowledge creation. International Journal of Technology Management, 11(7–8), 833–845.
Orey, M. (Ed.). (2010). Bloom’s taxonomy. In Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology (pp. 41–48). Global Text.
Polanyi, M., & Sen, A. (2009). The tacit dimension. Chicago and London: University of Chicago press.
Porras, S. T., Clegg, S., & Crawford, J. T. (2004). Trust as networking knowledge: Precedents from Australia. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 21(3), 345–363.
Pries-Heje, J., & Baskerville, R. (2008). The design theory Nexus. MIS Quarterly, 32(4), 731–755.
Pries-Heje, J., & Hansen, M. R. P. (2016). Net up your innovation value. In U. Lundh Snis (Ed.), Nordic contributions in IS research (pp. 70–85). Springer.
Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169.
Schwarz, R. (2002). The skilled facilitator: A comprehensive resource for consultants, facilitators, managers, trainers, and coaches. San Fransisco: Wiley.
Smart, P., Bessant, J., & Gupta, A. (2007). Towards technological rules for designing innovation networks: A dynamic capabilities view. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 27(10), 1069–1092. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570710820639.
Tsoukas, H. (2009). A dialogical approach to the creation of new knowledge in organizations. Organization Science, 20(6), 941–957.
Zhao, X., Frese, M., & Giardini, A. (2010). Business owners network size and business growth in China: The role of comprehensive social competency. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 22(7–8), 675–705. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985620903171376.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hansen, M.R.P., Pries-Heje, J. (2020). A Situational Knowledge Network Nexus: Exploring Kernel Theory Extensions Using Design Science Research. In: vom Brocke, J., Hevner, A., Maedche, A. (eds) Design Science Research. Cases. Progress in IS. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46781-4_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46781-4_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-46780-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-46781-4
eBook Packages: Business and ManagementBusiness and Management (R0)