Skip to main content

A Situational Knowledge Network Nexus: Exploring Kernel Theory Extensions Using Design Science Research

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Design Science Research. Cases

Part of the book series: Progress in IS ((PROIS))

  • 3217 Accesses

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.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

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).

    Google Scholar 

  • Baskerville, R., & Dulipovici, A. (2006). The theoretical foundations of knowledge management. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 4(2), 83–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Batonda, G., & Perry, C. (2003). Approaches to relationship development processes in inter-firm networks. European Journal of Marketing, 37(10), 1457–1484.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Busquets, J. (2010). Orchestrating smart business network dynamics for innovation. European Journal of Information Systems, 19(4), 481–493.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dolińska, M. (2015). Knowledge based development of innovative companies within the framework of innovation networks. Innovation: Organization & Management, 17(3), 323–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregor, S., & Jones, D. (2007). The anatomy of a design theory. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8(5), 312–335.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanna, V., & Walsh, K. (2002). Small firm networks: A successful approach to innovation? R&D Management, 32(3), 201–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hedlund, G. (1994). A model of knowledge management and the N-Form corporation. Strategic Management Journal, 15(S2), 73–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 75–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keen, P. G. W. (1981). Information Systems and Organizational Change. Communications of the ACM, 24(1), 10.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, J. C. (1974). Social networks. Annual Review of Anthropology, 3(1), 279–299.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, l., Takeuchi, H., & Umemoto, K. (1996). A theory of organizational knowledge creation. International Journal of Technology Management, 11(7–8), 833–845.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orey, M. (Ed.). (2010). Bloom’s taxonomy. In Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology (pp. 41–48). Global Text.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polanyi, M., & Sen, A. (2009). The tacit dimension. Chicago and London: University of Chicago press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pries-Heje, J., & Baskerville, R. (2008). The design theory Nexus. MIS Quarterly, 32(4), 731–755.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, R. (2002). The skilled facilitator: A comprehensive resource for consultants, facilitators, managers, trainers, and coaches. San Fransisco: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsoukas, H. (2009). A dialogical approach to the creation of new knowledge in organizations. Organization Science, 20(6), 941–957.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jan Pries-Heje .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics