The Constitution of Boundaries: How the Embeddedness of Organizational Users Structures the Transfer of their Knowledge

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5380/nocsi.v0i3.91149

Keywords:

organizational users, innovation, boundaries, knowledge transfer, social context, materiality

Abstract

Private and organizational users are widely treated as equal in the literature on the integration of users in innovation projects. Based on a practice-theoretical perspective, we argue in this paper that this equation is inconsistent and inadequate. While users are conceptualized as competent and embedded when it comes to the genesis of their user knowledge, both factors are ignored when their involvement in the innovation process is considered. Drawing on empirical findings on interorganizational knowledge transfer, we show that the social, formal, and material embeddedness of organizational users crucially structures their integration. By elaborating the role of different structural dimensions in detail, we highlight the distinctive features of organizational users. In doing so, we further develop a heuristic that enables a detailed and adequate analysis of their integration.

Author Biographies

Philip Roth, Chair of Sociology of Technology and Organization (STO), Institute of Sociology, RWTH Aachen University

Postdoctoral researcher at the Institute of Sociology at RWTH Aachen University since 2018. His work combines organizational, digitalization, network and innovation research. A particular focus of his work is the study of the emergence and development of social relations within and between organizations - especially in the context of innovation attempts. Previously, he earned his PhD at the Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research.

Nadine Diefenbach, Chair of Sociology of Technology and Organization (STO), Institute of Sociology, RWTH Aachen University

Research associate at the Institute of Sociology at RWTH Aachen University since 2020. Her research focuses on digitalization, datafication and technological assistance systems in organizations. In her PhD project, she is investigating how datafication is transforming small and medium-sized enterprises.

References

Berends, H., & Sydow, J. (Eds.). (2019). Research in the Sociology of Organizations: Vol. 64. Managing Inter-organizational Collaborations: Process Views. Emerald Publishing Limited.

Bhagat, R. S., Kedia, B. L., Harveston, P. D., & Triandis, H. C. (2002). Cultural Variations in the Cross-Border Transfer of Organizational Knowledge: An Integrative Framework. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 204-221. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2002.6588000

Bogers, M., Afuah, A., & Bastian, B. (2010). Users as Innovators: A Review, Critique, and Future Research Directions. Journal of Management, 36(4), 857-875. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309353944

Bogers, M., Zobel, A.‑K., Afuah, A., Almirall, E., Brunswicker, S., Dahlander, L., Frederiksen, L., Gawer, A., Gruber, M., Haefliger, S., Hagedoorn, J., Hilgers, D., Laursen, K., Magnusson, M. G., Majchrzak, A., McCarthy, I. P., Moeslein, K. M., Nambisan, S., Piller, F. T., Ter Wal, A. L. J. (2017). The open innovation research landscape: established perspectives and emerging themes across different levels of analysis. Industry and Innovation, 24(1), 8-40. https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2016.1240068

Borgatti, S. P., & Cross, R. (2003). A Relational View of Information Seeking and Learning in Social Networks. Management Science, 49(4), 432-445.

Brake, H. J., Walter, F., Rink, F. A., Essens, P. J., & Vegt, G. S. (2020). Multiple team membership and job performance: The role of employees’ information‐sharing networks. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 93(4), 967-987. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12326

Brem, A., Bilgram, V., & Gutstein, A. (2018). Involving Lead Users in Innovation: A Structured Summary of Research on the Lead User Method. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, 15(03), 1850022. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219877018500220

Burt, R. S. (2004). Structural Holes and Good Ideas. American Journal of Sociology, 110(2), 349-399.

Burt, R. S., & Knez, M. (1995). Kinds of Third-Party Effects on Trust. Rationality and Society, 7(3), 255-292. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043463195007003003

Carlile, P. R. (2002). A Pragmatic View of Knowledge and Boundaries: Boundary Objects in New Product Development. Organization Science, 13(4), 442-455.

Carlile, P. R., Nicolini, D., Langley, A., & Tsoukas, H. (Eds.). (2013). Perspectives on process organization studies: Vol. 3. How matter matters: Objects, artifacts and materiality in organization studies. Oxford University Press.

Cepa, K., & Schildt, H. (2019). Technological Embeddedness of Inter-organizational Collaboration Processes. In J. Sydow & H. Berends (Eds.), Research in the Sociology of Organizations. Managing Inter-organizational Collaborations: Process Views (p. 91-115). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0733-558X20190000064007

Chen, H., Jiao, J., Yang, N., & Wang, X.‑H. F. (2021). How Identity Conflict and Identity Synergy Influence Innovative Performance of Employees With Multiple Team Membership. Psychological Reports, 124(2), 792-808. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294120916863

Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128-152. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393553

Cook, K. S., Cheshire, C., Rice, E. R. W., & Nakagawa, S. (2013). Social Exchange Theory. In J. DeLamater & A. Ward (Eds.), Handbooks of sociology and social research. Handbook of Social Psychology (p. 61-88). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6772-0_3

Cropanzano, R., Anthony, E. L., Daniels, S. R., & Hall, A. V. (2017). Social Exchange Theory: A Critical Review with Theoretical Remedies. The Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 479-516. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2015.0099

Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational Information Requirements, Media Richness and Structural Design. Management Science, 32(5), 554-571. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.32.5.554

Dennis, A. R., Fuller, R. M., & Valacich, J. S. (2008). Media, Tasks, and Communication Processes: A Theory of Media Synchronicity. MIS Quarterly, 32(3), 575-600.

DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The Iron Cage Revisted: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147-160.

Drach-Zahavy, A. (2011). Interorganizational teams as boundary spanners: The role of team diversity, boundedness, and extrateam links. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20(1), 89-118. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320903115936

Dyer, J. H., & Hatch, N. W. (2006). Relation-specific capabilities and barriers to knowledge transfers: creating advantage through network relationships. Strategic Management Journal, 27(8), 701-719. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.543

Fine, G. A. (1979). Small Groups and Culture Creation: The Idioculture of Little League Baseball Teams. American Sociological Review, 44(5), 733-745.

Giddens, A. (1979). Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure and Contradiction in Social Analysis. Macmillan.

Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Cambridge University Press.

Godin, B., & Vinck, D. (2017). Introduction: innovation – from the forbidden to a cliché. In B. Godin & D. Vinck (Eds.), Critical Studies of Innovation (p. 1-14). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781785367229.00007

Gold, B. (1969). The Framework of Decision for Major Technological Innovations. In K. Baier & N. Rescher (Eds.), Values and the future: An investigation into the impact of current technological advances on American values (p. 389-430). Free Press.

Granovetter, M. (1973). The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360. https://doi.org/10.1086/225469

Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481-510.

Hansen, M. T. (2002). Knowledge Networks: Explaining Effective Knowledge Sharing in Multiunit Companies. Organization Science, 13(3), 232-248. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.3.232.2771

Hansen, M. T., Mors, M. L., & Lovas, B. (2005). Knowledge Sharing in Organizations: Multiple Networks, Multiple Phases. Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 776-793.

Häußling, R. (2019). Techniksoziologie: Eine Einführung (2., überarbeitete und aktualisierte Auflage). utb Soziologie. Verlag Barbara Budrich.

Hu, N., Chen, Z., Gu, J., Huang, S., & Liu, H. (2017). Conflict and creativity in inter-organizational teams. International Journal of Conflict Management, 28(1), 74-102. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCMA-01-2016-0003

Inkpen, A. C. (2008). Knowledge transfer and international joint ventures: The case of NUMMI and General Motors. Strategic Management Journal, 29(4), 447-453. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.663

Inkpen, A. C., & Tsang, E. W. K. (2005). Social Capital, Networks, and Knowledge Transfer. The Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 146-165.

Inkpen, A. C., & Tsang, E. W. K. (2007). Learning and Strategic Alliances. The Academy of Management Annals, 1(1), 479-511. https://doi.org/10.5465/078559815

Joshi, A., & Roh, H. (2009). The Role of Context in Work Team Diversity Research: A Meta-Analytic Review. Academy of Management Journal, 52(3), 599-627.

Katz, R., & Allen, T. J. (1982). Investigating the Not Invented Here (NIH) syndrome: A look at the performance, tenure, and communication patterns of 50 R & D Project Groups. R and D Management, 12(1), 7-20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.1982.tb00478.x

Kilduff, M., & Tsai, W. (2011). Social Networks and Organizations. Sage.

Lamont, M., & Molnár, V. (2002). The Study of Boundaries in the Social Sciences. Annual Review of Sociology, 28(1), 167-195. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.28.110601.141107

Leonard-Barton, D. (1992). Core Capabilities and Core Rigidities: A Paradox in Managing New Product Development. Strategic Management Journal, 13(S1), 111-125.

Leonardi, P. M., & Treem, J. W. (2020). Behavioral Visibility: A new paradigm for organization studies in the age of digitization, digitalization, and datafication. Organization Studies, 41(12), 1601-1625. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840620970728

Leonardi, P. M., & Vaast, E. (2017). Social Media and Their Affordances for Organizing: A Review and Agenda for Research. The Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 150–188. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2015.0144

Leonardi, P. M., Bailey, D. E., & Pierce, C. S. (2019). The Coevolution of Objects and Boundaries over Time: Materiality, Affordances, and Boundary Salience. Information Systems Research, 30(2), 665-686. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2018.0822

Levina, N., & Vaast, E. (2005). The Emergence of Boundary Spanning Competence in Practice: Implications for Implementation and Use of Information Systems. MIS Quarterly, 29(2), 335. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148682

Lin, N. (1999). Building a Network Theory of Social Capital”. Connections, 22(1), 28-51.

Lin, N. (2001). Social capital: A theory of social structure and action. Cambridge University Press.

Margolis, J. (2020). Multiple Team Membership: An Integrative Review. Small Group Research, 51(1), 48-86. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496419883702

McEvily, B., Soda, G., & Tortoriello, M. (2014). More Formally: Rediscovering the Missing Link between Formal Organization and Informal Social Structure. The Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 299-345. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2014.885252

Milagres, R., & Burcharth, A. (2019). Knowledge transfer in interorganizational partnerships: what do we know? Business Process Management Journal, 25(1), 27-68. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-06-2017-0175

Morrill, C. (2008). Culture and Organization Theory. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 619(1), 15-40. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716208320241

Nakauchi, M., Washburn, M., & Klein, K. (2017). Differences between inter- and intra-group dynamics in knowledge transfer processes. Management Decision, 55(4), 766-782. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-08-2016-0537

Nilsson, M. (2019). Proximity and the trust formation process. European Planning Studies, 27(5), 841-861. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2019.1575338

Nilsson, M., & Mattes, J. (2015). The spatiality of trust: Factors influencing the creation of trust and the role of face-to-face contacts. European Management Journal, 33(4), 230-244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2015.01.002

Orlikowski, W. J. (2000). Using Technology and Constituting Structures: A Practice Lens for Studying Technology in Organizations. Organization Science, 11(4), 404-428. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.11.4.404.14600

Orlikowski, W. J. (2002). Knowing in Practice: Enacting a Collective Capability in Distributed Organizing. Organization Science, 13(3), 249-273. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.3.249.2776

Orlikowski, W. J., & Scott, S. V. (2021). Liminal innovation in practice: Understanding the reconfiguration of digital work in crisis. Information and Organization, 31(1), 100336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2021.100336

Phelps, C., Heidl, R., & Wadhwa, A. (2012). Knowledge, Networks, and Knowledge Networks. Journal of Management, 38(4), 1115-1166. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311432640

Piller, F. T., & West, J. (2017). Firms, Users, and Innovation: An Interactive Model of Coupled Open Innovation. In H. W. Chesbrough, W. Vanhaverbeke & J. West (Eds.), New frontiers in open innovation (p. 29-49). University Press.

Pirkkalainen, H., & Pawlowski, J. M. (2014). Global social knowledge management – Understanding barriers for global workers utilizing social software. Computers in Human Behavior, 30, 637-647. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.07.041

Rivera, M. T., Soderstrom, S. B., & Uzzi, B. (2010). Dynamics of Dyads in Social Networks: Assortative, Relational, and Proximity Mechanisms. Annual Review of Sociology, 36(1), 91-115. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.34.040507.134743

Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations (5th ed). Free Press.

Roth, P. (2022). Why Serendipitous Informal Knowledge Sharing Interactions are Key to Boundary Spanning and Creativity. WORK: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment & Rehabilitation, ahead-of-print.

Schweisfurth, T. G. (2017). Comparing internal and external lead users as sources of innovation. Research Policy, 46(1), 238-248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.11.002

Seo, R. (2020). Interorganizational learning for R&D consortium performance: a social capital perspective. Journal of Knowledge Management, 24(2), 395-414. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-06-2019-0265

Seus, F. (2020). Standortverteilte Produktentwicklung: Eine Mehrfallanalyse zu Aufgaben- und Rollenverständnis in Headquater-Standort-Beziehungen. Dissertation, Karlsruher Instituts für Technologie.

Spanos, Y. E., Vonortas, N. S., & Voudouris, I. (2015). Antecedents of innovation impacts in publicly funded collaborative R&D projects. Technovation, 36-37, 53-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2014.07.010

Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional Ecology, ‘Translations’ and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387-420. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/030631289019003001

Tortoriello, M., Reagans, R., & McEvily, B. (2012). Bridging the Knowledge Gap: The Influence of Strong Ties, Network Cohesion, and Network Range on the Transfer of Knowledge Between Organizational Units. Organization Science, 23(4), 1024-1039. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0688

Tsang, E. W. K. (2002). Acquiring knowledge by foreign partners from international joint ventures in a transition economy: learning-by-doing and learning myopia. Strategic Management Journal, 23(9), 835-854. https://doi.org/10.1002/SMJ.251

Uzzi, B. (1997). Social Structure and Competition in Interfirm Networks: The Paradox of Embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 35-67. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2393808?origin=JSTOR-pdf

von Hippel, E. (1986). Lead Users: A Source of Novel Product Concepts. Management Science, 32(7), 791-805. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.32.7.791

von Hippel, E. (1994). “Sticky Information” and the Locus of Problem Solving: Implications for Innovation. Management Science, 40(4), 429-439. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.40.4.429

West, J., & Bogers, M. (2014). Leveraging External Sources of Innovation: A Review of Research on Open Innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(4), 814-831. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12125

Windeler, A. (2001). Unternehmungsnetzwerke: Konstitution und Strukturation. Westdeutscher Verlag.

Zahra, S. A., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive Capacity: A Review, Reconceptualization, and Extension. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 185-203. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2002.6587995

cover imagem of the third issue

Downloads

Published

2022-09-05

How to Cite

Roth, P., & Diefenbach, N. (2022). The Constitution of Boundaries: How the Embeddedness of Organizational Users Structures the Transfer of their Knowledge. NOvation - Critical Studies of Innovation, (3), 134–162. https://doi.org/10.5380/nocsi.v0i3.91149

Issue

No. 3 (2021): Popular users: why and how innovation research started to consider users in the innovation process

Section

Articles

License

NOvation is an open-access journal under a Creative Commons – CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 license, which allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement (and preservation) of the author's authorship and intellectual property rights.

To this extent, the authors who publish in this journal agree with the following terms:

1. Authors retain the rights and grant the journal the right of first publication, with the work published under the Creative Commons – CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 that allows [...].

2. Authors have authorization for distribution, of the version of the work published in this journal, in an institutional repository, thematic, databases and in other works as a book chapter, with acknowledgement of authorship and initial publication in the journal;

3. Papers published in this journal will be indexed in databases, repositories, portals, directories and other sources in which the journal is and will be indexed.

Ethical Responsibilities of Authors

This journal is committed to upholding the integrity of the scientific record.

Consent to submit has been received explicitly from all co-authors, as well as from the responsible authorities – tacitly or explicitly – at the institute/organization where the work has been carried out, before the work is submitted.