Advertisement

Exploring Depth Versus Breadth in Knowledge Management Strategies

  • Scott F. Turner
  • Richard A. Bettis
  • Richard M. Burton
Article

Abstract

This paper provides an early attempt at operationalizing and testing the concept of knowledge strategy. Using a computer-simulated product development process, we compare the performance of generalist and specialist knowledge management strategies under conditions of market turbulence. The generalist knowledge strategy emphasizes breadth of knowledge in product development teams, while the specialist strategy focuses on depth of knowledge. Our generalist and specialist strategies are grounded in Eastern and Western perspectives of knowledge management, respectively. A primary difference between these two approaches is the strong emphasis on cross-learning, or learning across team members, in the Eastern perspective relative to the Western perspective. As such, we examine the performance implications of different modes of cross-learning for teams utilizing the generalist knowledge strategy. Specifically, we examine three modes of cross-learning, which are reflected in the use of three learning decision rules: (1) averaging, (2) majority, and (3) hot hand. A learning decision rule indicates how decision-makers learn from their fellow team members. Under the first rule, the decision-maker adopts an average of the beliefs held by fellow team members. Under the second rule, if a majority of fellow team members agree on a particular solution, then the decision-maker adopts the beliefs held by the majority. Under the third rule, the decision-maker learns from the team member whose beliefs have been consistent with market desires most recently. Surprisingly, we find that specialist strategies outperform generalist strategies under conditions of low and high market turbulence. We also find that cross-learning can be beneficial or detrimental, contingent upon the mode of learning. Generalist teams utilizing the averaging decision rule perform significantly worse, while generalist teams utilizing the hot hand decision rule perform significantly better.

knowledge management product development organizational learning computer simulation decision-making specialist generalist 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ashby, W.R. (1956), An Introduction to Cybernetics. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  2. Axelrod, R. (1997), “Advancing the Art of Simulation in the Social Sciences,” Presented at the International Conference on Computer Simulation and the Social Sciences (Cortona, Italy, September 22–25).Google Scholar
  3. Baldwin, C.Y. and K.B. Clark (2000), Design Rules: The Power of Modularity, Vol. 1. MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  4. Baum, J.A.C. (1999), “Organizational Ecology,” in S. R. Clegg and C. Hardy (Eds.) Studying Organization, Sage Publications, London, pp. 71–108.Google Scholar
  5. Besen, S.M. and J. Farrell (1994), “Choosing howto Compete—Strategies and Tactics in Standardization,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(2), 117–131.Google Scholar
  6. Bower, G.H. and E.R. Hilgard (1981), Theories of Learning. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
  7. Brown, S.L. and K.M. Eisenhardt (1997), “The Art of Continuous Change: Linking Complexity Theory and Time-Paced Evolution in Relentlessly Shifting Organizations,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 1–34.Google Scholar
  8. Burns, T. and G.M. Stalker (1961), The Management of Innovation. Tavistock Publications Limited, London.Google Scholar
  9. Burton, R.M. and B. Obel (1995), “The Validity of Computational Models in Organization Science: From Model Realism to Purpose of the Model,” Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 1(1), 57–71.Google Scholar
  10. Carley, K. (1992), “Organizational Learning and Personnel Turnover,” Organization Science, 3, 20–46.Google Scholar
  11. Carley, K.M. (1995), “Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory: Perspectives and Directions,” Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 1(1), 39–56.Google Scholar
  12. Carley, K.M. and J. Lee (1998), “Dynamic Organizations: Organizational Adaptation in a Changing Environment” in J. Baum (Ed.) Advances in Strategic Management, Vol. 15, JAI Press, London, pp. 269–297.Google Scholar
  13. Carley, K.M. and Z. Lin (1997), “A Theoretical Study of Organizational Performance Under Information Distortion,” Management Science, 43(7), 976–997.Google Scholar
  14. Christensen, C.M. (1992), The Innovator's Challenge: Understanding the Influence of Market Environment on Processes of Technology Development in the Rigid Disk Drive Industry, DBA Dissertation, Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University.Google Scholar
  15. Christensen, C.M. (1997), The Innovator's Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Harvard Business School Press, Boston.Google Scholar
  16. Cohen, D. (1998), “Toward a Knowledge Context: Report on the First Annual U. C. Berkeley Forum on Knowledge and the Firm,” California Management Review, 40, 22–39.Google Scholar
  17. Daft, R. and K. Weick (1984), “Toward a Model of Organizations as Interpretation Systems,” Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 284–295.Google Scholar
  18. Donaldson, L. (1999), “The Normal Science of Structural Contingency Theory,” in S.R. Clegg and C. Hardy (Eds.) Studying Organization, Sage Publications, London, pp. 51–70.Google Scholar
  19. Dougherty, D. (1992), “Interpretive Barriers to Successful Product Innovation in Large Firms,” Organization Science, 3(2), 179–202.Google Scholar
  20. Gersick, C.J.G. (1988), “Time and Transition in Work Teams: Toward a New Model of Group Development,” Academy of Management Journal, 31(1), 9–41.Google Scholar
  21. Gersick, C.J.G. (1991), “Revolutionary Change Theories:AMulti-Level Exploration of the Punctuated Equilibrium Paradigm,” Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 10–36.Google Scholar
  22. Gigone, D. and R. Hastie (1993), “The Common Knowledge Effect: Information Sharing and Group Judgment,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 959–974.Google Scholar
  23. Gilovich, T., R. Vallone and A. Tversky (1985), “The Hot Hand in Basketball: On the Misperception of Random Sequences,” Cognitive Psychology, 17, 295–314.Google Scholar
  24. Grant, R.M. (1996), “Toward a Knowledge-Based Theory of the Firm,” Strategic Management Journal, 17, 109–122.Google Scholar
  25. Griffin, A. and J.R. Hauser (1996), “Integrating R&D and Marketing: A Review and Analysis of the Literature,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 13, 191–215.Google Scholar
  26. Hambrick, D.C. (1983), “High Profit Strategies in Mature Capital Goods Industries: A Contingency Approach,” Academy of Management Journal, 26(4), 687–707.Google Scholar
  27. Hannan, M.T. and J. Freeman (1977), “The Population Ecology of Organizations,” American Journal of Sociology, 82, 929–964.Google Scholar
  28. Hannan, M.T. and J. Freeman (1989), Organizational Ecology. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  29. Holloman, C.R. and H.W. Hendrick (1972), “Adequacy of Group Decisions as a Function of the Decision-Making Process,” Academy of Management Journal, 15(2), 175–184.Google Scholar
  30. Iansiti, M. (1993), “Real-world R&D: Jumping the Product Generation Gap,” Harvard Business Review, 71(3), 138–147.Google Scholar
  31. Ilgen, D.R., D.A. Major, J.R. Hollenbeck and D.J. Sego (1995), “Raising an Individual Decision-Making Model to the Team Level: A New Research Model and Paradigm,” in R.A. Guzzo, E. Salas and Associates (Eds.) Team Effectiveness and Decision Making in Organizations, Josey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, pp. 113–148.Google Scholar
  32. Imai, K., I. Nonaka and H. Takeuchi (1985), “Managing the New Product Development Process: How Japanese Companies Learn and Unlearn,” in K.B. Clark, R.H. Hayes and C. Lorenz (Eds.) The Uneasy Alliance: Managing the Productivity-Technology Dilemma, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, pp. 337–375.Google Scholar
  33. Lawrence, P.R. and J.W. Lorsch (1967), Organization and Environment. Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University, Boston.Google Scholar
  34. Leonard, D. (1995), Wellsprings of Knowledge. Harvard Business School Press, Boston.Google Scholar
  35. Levinthal, D. and J.G. March (1981), “AModel of Adaptive Organizational Search,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 2(4), 307–333.Google Scholar
  36. Levinthal, D.A. and J.G. March (1993), “The Myopia of Learning,” Strategic Management Journal, 14, 95–112.Google Scholar
  37. Lin, Z. and K.M. Carley (1997), “Organizational Response: The Cost PerformanceTradeoff,”Management Science, 43(2), 217–234.Google Scholar
  38. Madhavan, R. and R. Grover (1998), “From Embedded Knowledge to Embodied Knowledge: New Product Development as Knowledge Management,” Journal of Marketing, 62, 1–12.Google Scholar
  39. March, J.G. (1991), “Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning,” Organization Science, 2, 71–87.Google Scholar
  40. March, J.G. and H. Simon (1958), Organizations. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  41. McGrath, J.E. (1982), “Dilemmatics: The Study of Research Choices and Dilemmas,” in J.E. McGrath, J. Martin and R.A. Kulka (Eds.) Judgment Calls in Research, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, pp. 69–102.Google Scholar
  42. Miller, J.H. (1998), “Active Nonlinear Tests (ANTs) of Complex Simulation Models,” Management Science, 44(6), 820–830.Google Scholar
  43. Nonaka, I. (1990), “Redundant, Overlapping Organization: A Japanese Approach to Managing the Innovation Process,” California Management Review, 32(3), 27–38.Google Scholar
  44. Nonaka, I. and H. Takeuchi (1995), The Knowledge-Creating Company. Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  45. Norman, P.M. and R.A. Bettis (1997), “Technological Complexity and the New Architecture of Competition,” in H. Thomas, D. O'Neal and R. Alvarado (Eds.) Strategic Discovery: Competing in New Arenas, JohnWiley and Sons, New York, pp. 5–22.Google Scholar
  46. Rulke, D.L. and J. Galaskiewicz (2000), “Distribution of Knowledge, Group Network Structure, and Group Performance,” Management Science, 46(5), 612–625.Google Scholar
  47. Sanchez, R. and J.T. Mahoney (1996), “Modularity, Flexibility, and Knowledge Management in Product and Organization Design,” Strategic Management Journal, 17, 63–76.Google Scholar
  48. Sastry, M.A. (1997), “Problems and Paradoxes in a Model of Punctuated Organizational Change,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 237–275.Google Scholar
  49. Shukla, R.K. (1982), “Influence of Power Bases in Organizational Decision Making: A Contingency Model,” Decision Sciences, 13(3), 450–470.Google Scholar
  50. Simon, H.A. (1997), Administrative Behavior. Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
  51. Spender, J.-C. and R.M. Grant (1996), “Knowledge and the Firm: Overview,” Strategic Management Journal, 17, 5–9.Google Scholar
  52. Sun Tzu (1963), The Art of War. translation by S.B. Griffith, Oxford University Press, London.Google Scholar
  53. von Hippel, E. (1990), “Task Partitioning: An Innovation Process Variable,” Research Policy, 19, 407–418.Google Scholar
  54. Williamson, O.E. (1975), Markets and Hierarchies. Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
  55. Wittenbaum, G.M. and G. Stasser (1996), “Management of Information in Small Groups,” in J.L. Nye and A.M. Brower (Eds.) What's Social About Social Cognition?, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, pp. 3–28.Google Scholar
  56. Wooldridge, B. and S.W. Floyd (1990), “The Strategy Process, Middle Management Involvement, and Organizational Performance,” Strategic Management Journal, 11(3), 231–241.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Scott F. Turner
    • 1
  • Richard A. Bettis
    • 1
  • Richard M. Burton
    • 2
  1. 1.Kenan-Flagler Business SchoolUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillChapel HillUSA
  2. 2.Fuqua School of BusinessDuke UniversityDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations