SMEs De- or Reorganising Knowledge When Offshoring?
A growing number of Danish manufacturing companies feel compelled to offshore greater or smaller parts of their organisation. Drawing on organisational theory and, the concept of knowledge governance, this chapter examines two SMEs in the textile and the furniture sector, highlighting the knowledge-management intersection. The two case studies show one SME reorganising its processes and integrating knowledge through a mainly captive knowledge governance set-up; the other deorganises, disintegrates and, to a certain extent, “compensates” with virtual organisational elements: exercising knowledge governance through IT systems as well as through the establishment of an offshored physical intermediary control element. Furthermore, both case companies work with so-called soft knowledge governance approaches, in one case through the introduction of corporate social responsibility in the new captive set-up and in the other case through the specific selection of new suppliers and their capability/competence building over time. Organisation design approaches would focus on the initial diagnosis, choice and implementation of a “new” organisation. However, the organisations studied experience emergent organisational design elements over time. Furthermore, they are involved in dynamically tackling the learning of the organisational players as well as the dynamics of their relationships with cooperating partners regarding maintaining and developing their innovation capability. To manage these challenges, both case companies choose to revisit the organisational design elements and reconfigure their organisational design set-up, indicating a need to reinstate the classic design components along with a more dynamic perspective.
KeywordsKnowledge governance SME Innovation capability Organisational design Virtual elements
- Barnatt C (1995) Office space, cyberspace and virtual organisation. J Gen Manag 20(4):78–92Google Scholar
- Buser M, Poschet L, Pulver B (2000) Télématique et nouvelles formes de travail. TA- report 35a. Conseil suisse de la science, BernGoogle Scholar
- Castells M (2000) The rise of the network society, 2nd edn. Blackwell, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Cummings TG, Worley CG (2005) Organization development and change, 8th edn. Cengage, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Ensign PC (1998) Interdependence, coordination, and structure in complex organizations: implications for organization design. Mid Atlantic J Bus 34(1):5–23Google Scholar
- Foss NJ, Husted K, Michailova S, Pedersen T (2003) Governing knowledge processes: theoretical foundations and research opportunities. In: CKG working paper 1/2003, the center for knowledge governance, Copenhagen Business School, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
- Hinds P, Kiesler S (2002) Distributed work: new ways of working across distance using technology. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Koch C, Buser M (2003) Getting hold of the disappearing worker?—managerial issues of distance work. In: Zedtwitz MV, Haour G, Khalil T, Lefebvre L (eds) Management of technology: growth through business, innovation and entrepreneurship. Pergamon Press, Oxford, pp 481–495Google Scholar
- Mintzberg H (1993) Structure in fives: designing effective organizations. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
- Nonaka I, Takeuchi H (1995) The knowledge-creating company: how Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Van de Ven AH (2007) Engaged scholarship—a guide for organizational and social research. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- Wenger E (1998) Communities of practice. Cambridge University, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Wenger E, McDermott R, Snyder WM (2002) Cultivating communities of practice: a guide to managing knowledge. Harvard Business School Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar