Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ordering disorders; linking organization design and knowledge integration

  • Article
  • Published:
Knowledge Management Research & Practice

Abstract

Studies addressing the connections between knowledge and organization structures can be divided into two classes. One class holds that a perspective on knowledge signals shortcomings of classical design principles and calls for flatter hierarchy and less specification of the production structure. Another class maintains that a knowledge perspective on organizations is at odds with any design perspective, whether classical or not, because the emergent, thoroughly social and practice-based nature of knowledge as knowing in action makes knowledge a useless and even dangerous beacon to designers: ex ante, knowledge is said to be fundamentally indeterminate and any attempt to ‘structure around knowledge’ may effectively drive out knowledge. To explore differences and possible bridges between these two calls of studies, the paper explores how both elements of the equation, organization structure and organizational knowledge, are to be conceived to ensure a meaningful connection between them. It is argued that the grouping focus in both defines the meeting place of organization structures and organizational knowledge, but shows that the involved knowledge and grouping concepts are not mutually compatible. It leads to a view where organization structures are seen as the ‘seeding’ background for knowledge integration processes that, in turn, constitute the patterns of work relationships envisioned in the designer's organizational decomposition and grouping. For illustration purposes, the paper presents the example of the Max Planck Institute that describes one possible way through the conceptual model presented in the paper.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Achterbergh J and Vriens D (2009) Organizations: Social Systems Conducting Experiments. Springer, New York.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Adler PS and Borys B (1996) Two types of bureaucracy: enabling and coercive. Administrative Science Quarterly 41 (1), 61–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Almeida P, Song JY and Grant RM (2002) Are firms superior to alliances and markets? An empirical test of cross-border knowledge building. Organization Science 13 (2), 147–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alvesson M (2004) Knowledge Work and Knowledge-intensive Firms. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Antonelli C (1999) The evolution of the industrial organisation of the production of knowledge. Cambridge Journal of Economics 23 (2), 243–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker MC (2001) Managing dispersed knowledge: organizational problems, managerial strategies, and their effectiveness. Journal of Management Studies 38 (7), 1037–1051.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birkinshaw J, Nobel R and Ridderstrale J (2002) Knowledge as a contingency variable: do the characteristics of knowledge predict organization structure? Organization Science 13 (3), 274–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blackler F (1995) Knowledge, knowledge work and organizations: an overview and interpretation. Organization Studies 16 (6), 1021–1046.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown JS and Duguid P (1991) Organizational learning and communities of practice: toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organization Science 2 (1), 40–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown JS and Duguid P (1998) Organizing knowledge. California Management Review 40 (3), 90–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown JS and Duguid P (2001) Knowledge and organization: a social-practice perspective. Organization Science 12 (2), 198–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cramton CD (2001) The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences for dispersed collaboration. Organization Science 12 (3), 346–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daft RL and Weick KE (1984) Toward a model of organizations as interpretation systems. Academy of Management Review 9 (2), 284–295.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Sitter LU (2000) Synergetisch produceren; Human Resources Mobilisation in de produktie: een inleiding in structuurbouw [Synergetic production; Human Resources Mobilisation in production: an introduction into organizational structuring]. Van Gorcum, Assen.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Sitter LU, Hertog JFD and Dankbaar B (1997) From complex organizations with simple jobs to simple organizations with complex jobs. Human Relations 50 (5), 497–534.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunbar RLM and Starbuck WH (2006) Learning to design organizations and learning from designing them. Organization Science 17 (2), 171–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faraj S and Sproull L (2000) Coordinating expertise in software development teams. Management Science 46 (12), 1554–1568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faraj S and Yan AM (2009) Boundary work in knowledge teams. Journal of Applied Psychology 94 (3), 604–617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garud R and Jain S (1996) The embeddedness of technological system. In Advances in Strategic Management (Baum J & Dutton J, Eds), pp 389–408, JAI Press, Greenwich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gherardi S (1999) Learning as problem-driven or learning in the face of mystery? Organization Studies 20 (1), 101–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghoshal S and Bartlett CA (1990) The multinational-corporation as an interorganizational network. Academy of Management Review 15 (4), 603–625.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gittell JH and Weiss L (2004) Coordination networks within and across organizations: a multi-level framework. Journal of Management Studies 41 (1), 127–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant RM (1996a) Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments: organizational capability as knowledge integration. Organization Science 7 (4), 375–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant RM (1996b) Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal 17 (Winter Special Issue), 109–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hedberg BL, Nystrom PC and Starbuck WH (1976) Camping on seesaws: Prescriptions for a self-designing organization. Administrative Science Quarterly 21 (1), 41–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hedlund G (1994) A model of knowledge management and the N-form corporation. Strategic Management Journal 15 (Summer Special Issue), 73–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hislop D (2009) Knowledge Management in Organizations: A Critical Introduction. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobides MG and Billinger S (2006) Designing the boundaries of the firm: from ‘make, buy, or ally’ to the dynamic benefits of vertical architecture. Organization Science 17 (2), 249–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kogut B and Zander U (1992) Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science 3 (3), 383–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lam A (2000) Tacit knowledge, organizational learning and societal institutions: an integrated framework. Organization Studies 21 (3), 487–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lanzara GF and Patriotta G (2001) Technology and the courtroom: an inquiry into knowledge making in organizations. Journal of Management Studies 38 (7), 943–971.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larsen JN (2001) Knowledge, human resources and social practice: the knowledge-intensive business service firm as a distributed knowledge system. Service Industries Journal 21 (1), 81–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lave J and Wenger E (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lindkvist L (2005) Knowledge communities and knowledge collectivities: a typology of knowledge work in groups. Journal of Management Studies 42 (6), 1189–1210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March JG (1991) Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science 2 (1), 71–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mintzberg H (1983) Structure in Fives: Designing Effective Organizations. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris T and Empson L (1998) Organisation and expertise: an exploration of knowledge bases and the management of accounting and consulting firms. Accounting, Organizations and Society 23 (5–6), 609–624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson R and Winter S (1982) An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newell S, Robertson M, Scarbrough H and Swan J (2009) Managing Knowledge Work and Innovation. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka I (1994) A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science 5 (1), 14–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka I and Takeuchi H (1995) The Knowledge-creating Company. Oxford University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka I and Takeuchi H (1997) A new organizational structure. In Knowledge in Organizations; Resources for the Knowledge-based Economy (Prusak L, Ed), pp 99–133, Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski WJ (2002) Knowing in practice: enacting a collective capability in distributed organizing. Organization Science 13 (3), 249–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penrose ET (1959) The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. Blackwell, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porac J, Thomas H and Baden-Fuller C (1989) Competitive groups as cognitive communities: The case of Scottish knitwear manufacturers. Journal of Management Studies 26 (4), 397–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell WW (1990) Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organization. In Research in Organizational Behavior (Staw BM & Cummings LL, Eds), pp 295–336, JAI Press, Greenwich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quinn JB (1992) Intelligent Enterprise: A Knowledge and Service based Paradigm for Industry. The Free Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez R and Mahoney JT (1996) Modularity, flexibility, and knowledge management in product and organization design. Strategic Management Journal 17 (Winter Special Issue), 63–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sewell G (2005) Nice work? Rethinking managerial control in an era of knowledge work. Organization 12 (5), 685–704.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siggelkow N and Rivkin JW (2005) Speed and search: designing organizations for turbulence and complexity. Organization Science 16 (2), 101–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sole D and Edmondson A (2002) Situated knowledge and learning in dispersed teams. British Journal of Management 13 (S2), S17–S34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sorrells-Jones J and Weaver D (1999) Knowledge workers and knowledge-intense organizations, part 3 implications for preparing healthcare professionals. Journal of Nursing Administration 29 (10), 14–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spender JC (1996) Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal 17 (Winter Special Issue), 45–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece DJ (1996) Firm organization, industrial structure, and technological innovation. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 31 (2), 193–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece DJ (1999) Design issues for innovative firms: bureaucracy, incentives, and industrial structure. In The Dynamic Firm – The Role of Technology, Strategy, Organization, and Regions (Chandler AD, Hagstrom P and Sölvell Ö, Eds), pp 134–165, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Teece DJ (2000) Strategies for managing knowledge assets: the role of firm structure and industrial context. Long Range Planning 33 (1), 35–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teigland R (2003) Knowledge Networking: Structure and Performance in Networks of Practice. Stockholm School of Economics, Stockholm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson GF (2003) Between Hierarchies and Markets: The Logic and Limits of Network Forms of Organization. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson JD (1967) Organizations in Action: Social Science Bases of Administrative Theory. McGraw-Hill, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson M (2005) Structural and epistemic parameters in communities of practice. Organization Science 16 (2), 151–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsoukas H (1996) The firm as a distributed knowledge system: a constructionist approach. Strategic Management Journal 17 (Winter Special Issue), 11–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsoukas H (2003) Do we really understand tacit knowledge? In The Blackwell Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management (Easterby-Smith M and Lyles MA, Eds), pp 410–427, Blackwell, Malden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Un CA and Cuervo-Cazurra A (2004) Strategies for knowledge creation in firms. British Journal of Management 15 (S1), S27–S41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Sluijs E and Fruytier BGM (1994) The Grass Is Always Greener … : Comparative Study on HRM in Five European Public Research Institutes and Universities. IVA Tilburg, Tilburg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick KE (1995) Sensemaking in Organizations. Sage, Thousand Oaks.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick KE and Roberts KH (1993) Collective mind in organizations: heedful interrelating on flight decks. Administrative Science Quarterly 38 (3), 357–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weick KE, Sutcliffe KM and Obstfeld D (2005) Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science 16 (4), 409–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wendt A (2001) Driving with the rearview mirror: on the rational science of institutional design. International Organization 55 (4), 1019–1049.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woolley AW (2009) Putting first things first: outcome and process focus in knowledge work teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior 30 (3), 427–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zack MH (1999) Developing a knowledge strategy. California Management Review 41 (3), 125–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zander U and Kogut B (1995) Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation of organizational capabilities – an empirical test. Organization Science 6 (1), 76–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Nijmegen School of Management, Radboud University Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    Paul H J Hendriks & Ben G M Fruytier

Authors
  1. Paul H J Hendriks
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ben G M Fruytier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul H J Hendriks.

About this article

Cite this article

Hendriks, P., Fruytier, B. Ordering disorders; linking organization design and knowledge integration. Knowl Manage Res Pract 12, 48–61 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2012.51

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2012.51

Keywords

Search

Navigation