Sunday, March 18, 2012

The Ripple Effect of Knowledge Transfer

Academic article: Locate, read and summarize an academic article that presents a related theory, case example, etc. Draw connections between the ideas in the article and those you read for class.

I have to say, as this semester progresses and the themes we study converge and intersect, my thoughts and opinions are crystallizing as I (and each of you) am improving as a critical thinker. It's a beautiful thing!

 Stream of consciousness, these are the themes I am thinking about at this moment that relate to each other: classical management theory in a static environment (Fayol, Taylor, Weber) à modern, dynamic business environments à contingency theory (Woodward, 1965) à built-to-change organizations (Worley & Lawler, 2006) à open “systems” thinking (Morgan, 1986) à horizontal information processing linkages (Daft, 2007) àsocial capital and informal networks à trust as a basis for successful knowledge transfer (Cross, Borgatti, & Parker, 2002) à INNOVATION.

 In this article, Nonaka and Kenney (1991) describe the innovation process as “semantic” information flow between the actors (or employees) in organizations who are the information creators and processors.  For a firm that is competing in an innovative industry “newly created information must [then] be diffused throughout the firm setting off further innovations (Nonaka & Kenney, p. 69).”  This process is labeled as a “ripple effect” and I think that this is a great analogy to apply to our intra-organizational readings.

 Canon was one such organization that employed this “ripple effect” to perfection.  In creating the Mini Copier they used an army of task forces that were taken from the company’s different units.  The Mini Copier contained technology that was newly created at Canon, and because so many people were involved in the project, this technology was subsequently used in several groundbreaking Canon devices for years to come.  Canon “made invisible work visible” by fostering collaboration and integration of units while breaking hierarchical boundaries with cross functional units (Cross, Borgatti, & Parker, 2002).  Not only was the explicit knowledge maintained in the blueprints and designs of the innovative products, the tacit knowledge – difficult to articulate and transfer – was spread across the firm since many employees had a direct role in the innovative process (Levin & Cross, 2004).  An organization that has a healthy communication network creates an environment that promotes continued innovation through the knowledge transfer of capable and creative employees.


References

Cross, R., Borgatti, S., and Parker, A. (2002) Making Invisible Work Visible: Using Social Network Analysis to Support Strategic Collaboration, California Management Review, Vol. 44, No. 2, pp. 25-46
Daft, R. (2007) "Fundamentals of Organizational Structure." Organization Theory and Design (9th ed.),   pp. 88-125.

Levin, D.Z., and Cross, R. (2004) The Strength of Weak Ties You Can Trust: The Mediating Role of Trust in Effective Knowledge Transfer, Management Science 50, pp. 1477-1490.
Nonaka, I. & Kenney, M. (1991).  Towards a new theory of innovation management:  A case study comparing Canon, Inc. and Apple Computer, Inc.  Journal of Engineering and Technology   Management, 8, 67-83.

Woodward, J. (1965).  Industrial organization: Theory and practice.  London, England:  Oxford     University Press.

Worley, C. & Lawler, E. (2006) Designing Organizations that are Built for Change, MIT Sloan          Management Review, 48(1), pp. 18-23


3 comments:

  1. Hi Casey,

    This is a great post. I agree. It is a beautiful thing to see all the readings and lessons come together and as you say, crystallize. I'm pleasantly surprised at how I'm able to apply so much of what we've learned to my career and how terms that I once thought I understood, like "network" now have a new, more clear meanging.

    Very interesting about Canon and the Mini-Cooper. I think informal networks and collaboration are key to making new projects work and to the growth of an organization. This, and our readings this week, takes me back to Follett. She was such a visionary, as she identified diagonal and eliptical lines of communication within an organization (Bassett, 2011). She saw informal networks and collaboration as the ways to nuture organizaions. Fayol also recognized the value of informal networks with his gang plank theory, allowing communications to cross lines of authority (Wren & Bedeian, 2009). This will create strong ties and create useful knowledge transfer successful knowledge transfer (Cross, Borgatti, & Parker, 2002).

    Thanks for the informative post, Casey.


    Bassett, D.,(2011). Mary Parker Follett: A public scholar far ahead of her time. Retrieved from: http://www.com.washington.edu/graduate/assets/publicservice/ps_bassett.html

    Cross, R., Borgatti, S., & Parker, A.(2002). Making invisible work visible: Using social network analysis to support strategic collaboration, California Management Review,44(2),25-46.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Lisa and Casey, I am glad you are already getting so much out of the program!

    Casey, I think this is an interesting example and one with many takeaways for other organizations. I particularly like your connection to the two different types of knowledge mentioned in Levin & Cross (2004). Building off of that same article, do you think trust had an important role in development of the Mini-Copier?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Courtney, interesting question. In the article there weren't any direct statements made about trust so I will read between the lines. The Levin and Cross (2004) reading states that "percieved trustworthiness mediates between strong ties and receipt of useful knowledge (p. 1479)." In other words, open lines of communication and collaboration, which leads to belief in one another's competence, can lead to a trusting work environment. If we were to judge Canon's culture along these lines, I think we would find that trust played an important role in the development. As to why/how that trust developed, I'd say it was more of a formal corporate driven trust, rather than an informal network trust, although I could be wrong. Japan's culture is so different from America's and I'm not sure if this culture promoted informal communication in the corporate setting.

      Delete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.