Organisational Forms to Leverage Knowledge

  • Klaus North
  • Gita Kumta
Chapter
Part of the Springer Texts in Business and Economics book series (STBE)

Abstract

This chapter addresses the issue of finding the right organisational form enabling organisational learning, innovation and «boundaryless» knowledge flows. The art of balancing stability and renewal as well as competition and cooperation is discussed. Here, using several case studies, different forms of organisations are described from the viewpoint of knowledge location and flows. The KM tool described at the end of the chapter is the «After Action Review».

References

  1. Bartlett, C. A., & Ghoshal, S. (1989). Managing across borders: The transnational solution. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bartlett, C. A., & Ghoshal, S. (1993). Beyond the M-form: Toward a managerial theory of the firm. Strateg Manage J, 14, 23–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bateson, M. C. (1994). Peripheral visions – Learning along the way. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  4. Bowersox, D. (1990). The strategic benefits of logistics alliances. Harvard Business Review, 68, 36–45.Google Scholar
  5. Burgelmann, R. A. (1994). Fading memories: A process theory of strategic business exit in dynamic environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 24–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ciborra, C. U. (1996). The platform organization: Recombining strategies, structures and surprises. Organization Science, 7(2), 103–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ghosh, L. (2010). How Eureka Forbes uses Indian parliamentary model to connect with its staff 12 Nov 2010, ET Bureau.Google Scholar
  8. Ghoshal, S., & Bartlett, C. A. (1995). Building the entrepreneurial corporation: New organisational processes, new managerial tasks. European Management Journal, 13, 139–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Goleman, D. (1997). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.Google Scholar
  10. Goold, M., & Campbell, A. (1998). Desperately seeking synergy. Harvard Business Review, 76, 131–142.Google Scholar
  11. Graham, A. B., & Pizzo, V. G. (1996). A question of balance: Case studies in strategic knowledge management. European Management Journal, 14(4), 338–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hansen, M. T. (2009). In Collaboration.; Boston (Mass.): Harvard Business Review (ed) (1998) (Ed.), Harvard business Review on knowledge management. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  13. Hedlund, G. (1994). A model of knowledge management and the N-form corporation. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 73–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Klodt, H., et al. (1997). Tertiarisierung in der deutschen Wirtschaft. Kiel: Institut für Weltwirtschaft an der Universität Kiel.Google Scholar
  15. Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3(3), 383–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Leonard-Barton, D. (1992a). Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development. Strateg Manage J, 13, 111–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Leonard-Barton, D. (1992b). The factory as a learning laboratory. Sloan Management Review, 34(1), 23–38.Google Scholar
  18. Nalebuff, B. J., & Brandenburger, A. M. (1996). Co-opetition. London: Harper Collins Business.Google Scholar
  19. Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge creating company. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. North, K. (1997). Localizing global production. Geneva: International Labour Office.Google Scholar
  22. O’Reilly, C. A., III, & Tushman, M. L. (2004). The ambidextrous organization. Harvard Business Review, 82(4), 74–81.Google Scholar
  23. Quinn, J. B., et al. (1996). Leveraging intellect. The Academy of Management Executive, 10(3), 7–27.Google Scholar
  24. Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management, 34(3), 375–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Probst, G., & Tushman, M. L. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: Balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Organization Science, 20(4), 685–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Richter, F.-J., & Wakuta, Y. (1993). Permeable networks: A future option for the European and Japanese car industries. European Management Journal, 11(2), 262–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Stadler, S. (1995). Gaining advantage by “leaking” information. European Management Journal, 13(2), 156–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1996). Ambidextreous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38(4), 8–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Valkokari, K. (2015). Business, innovation, and knowledge ecosystems: how they differ and how to survive and thrive within them. Technology Innovation Management Review, 5(8), 17–24.Google Scholar
  30. von Hipple, E. (1987). Cooperation between rivals: Informal know-how trading. Res Policy (Amsterdam), 16, 291–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Weick, K. E. (1993). Organization re-design as improvisation. In G. Huber & W. Glick (Eds.), Organizational change and redesign. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Womack, J. P., et al. (1990). The machine that changed the world. New York: Rawson.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Klaus North
    • 1
  • Gita Kumta
    • 2
  1. 1.Wiesbaden Business School, Hochschule RheinMainWiesbadenGermany
  2. 2.School of Business Management, SVKM’s Narsee Monj. Inst. of Management StudiesMumbaiIndia

Personalised recommendations