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.


Knowledge governance SME Innovation capability Organisational design  Virtual elements 


  1. Barley SR, Tolbert PS (1997) Institutionalization and structuration: studying the links between action and institution. Organ stud 18(1):93–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barnatt C (1995) Office space, cyberspace and virtual organisation. J Gen Manag 20(4):78–92Google Scholar
  3. Buser M, Poschet L, Pulver B (2000) Télématique et nouvelles formes de travail. TA- report 35a. Conseil suisse de la science, BernGoogle Scholar
  4. Carlile P (2004) Transferring, translating, and transforming: an integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organ Sci 15(5):555–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Castells M (2000) The rise of the network society, 2nd edn. Blackwell, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  6. Choi CJ, Cheng P, Hilton B, Russell E (2005) Knowledge governance. J Knowl Manag 9(6):67–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cummings TG, Worley CG (2005) Organization development and change, 8th edn. Cengage, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Ensign PC (1998) Interdependence, coordination, and structure in complex organizations: implications for organization design. Mid Atlantic J Bus 34(1):5–23Google Scholar
  9. Foss NJ (2007) The emerging knowledge governance approach: challenges and characteristics. Organization 14(1):29–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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
  11. Grandori A (1997) Governance structures, coordination mechanisms and cognitive models. J Manag Gov 1:29–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hinds P, Kiesler S (2002) Distributed work: new ways of working across distance using technology. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  13. Jørgensen C (2010) Offshore supplier relations: knowledge integration among small businesses. Strateg Outsourcing Int J 3(3):192–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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
  15. Michailova S, Foss NJ (2009) Knowledge governance: themes and questions. In: Foss NJ, Michailova S (eds) Knowledge governance—processes and perspectives. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mintzberg H (1993) Structure in fives: designing effective organizations. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  17. Nonaka I, Takeuchi H (1995) The knowledge-creating company: how Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Okkonen J (2004) How virtuality affects knowledge work: points on performance and knowledge management. Int J Network Virtual Organ 2(2):153–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Peltokorpi V, Tsuyuki E (2006) Knowledge governance in Japanese project-based organization. Knowl Manag Res Pract 4:36–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pettigrew AM (1990) Longitudinal field research on change: theory and practice. Organ Sci 1(3):267–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Scarbrough H, Amaeshi K (2009) Knowledge governance for open innovation: evidence from an EU R&D collaboration. In: Foss NJ, Michailova S (eds) Knowledge governance: perspectives, processes and problems. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 220–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Van de Ven AH (2007) Engaged scholarship—a guide for organizational and social research. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  23. Wenger E (1998) Communities of practice. Cambridge University, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  24. Wenger E, McDermott R, Snyder WM (2002) Cultivating communities of practice: a guide to managing knowledge. Harvard Business School Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Aarhus UniversityHerningDenmark
  2. 2.Construction Management, Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringChalmers University of TechnologyGothenburgSweden

Personalised recommendations