The Antecedents of Organizational Knowledge-Bases
Why are there so many different types of knowledge-bases (Weick, 1991; Yayavaram and Ahuja, 2008)? Examining the literature that has developed along the six major dimensions of a knowledge-base it is natural to ask why organizations display so much variance between their knowledge bases. We next examine some of the leading organizational influences on organizational knowledge-bases.
Strategy
Organizational strategies are possibly the most salient influence in shaping several of the dimensional variations in knowledge-bases. Expansion into new geographic markets (Ahuja and Katila, 2004), seeking knowledge variety by tapping into different national contexts across the world (Luo, 1999; Tsang, 2002; Lahiri, 2005; Almeida and Phene, 2004; Alcácer and Chung, 2007; Chung and Yeaple, 2008; Meyer et al., 2009), and seeking research and development efficiencies and competitive advantage by knowledge-sourcing across low cost locations (Zhao, 2006) all contribute to knowledge-base differentiation as the organization distributes its research activities across geographic space. Knowledge-base differentiation may also emerge from foreign entry by acquisitions or joint ventures (Luo, 1999; Tsang, 2002; Almeida and Phene, 2004; Meyer et al., 2009).
Similarly, search for complementary skills and scale economies drive firms to seek collaborative alliances and these in turn affect several of the knowledge-base dimensions such as its de facto size (Ahuja, Lampert and Tandon, 2008); alliances with complementary partners may lead to increased specialization by organizations (Mowery, Oxley, and Silverman, 1996). The latter may thus alter knowledge-base content and may also potentially reduce the internal differentiation of their knowledge-bases (Nakamura, Shaver, and Yeung, 1996), though this last effect is yet to be conclusively established as evidence in the opposite direction has also been presented (Mowery, Oxley, and Silverman, 1996). Product market diversification and product portfolio expansion are also likely to be key drivers of knowledge-base differentiation (Helfat and Raubitschek, 2000). As firms expand the scope of their markets the research required to support the product–market activity may need to expand more than proportionately (Ethiraj, 2007; Brusoni et al., 2001). The need to obtain scope economies in research should then also serve to drive knowledge-base integration (Helfat and Raubitschek, 2000).
Organizational structure and systems
Organizational structure is likely to influence several knowledge-base dimensions (Van den Bosch, Volberda, and de Boer, 1999). Firms organized around product divisions are likely to develop differentiated knowledge-bases. However, the content dimension of knowledge-bases is also likely to be influenced by organization structure. As Argyres and Silverman (2004) show, research conducted by organizations with a centralized research and development structure is likely to differ in both the nature of search conducted as well as the impact of that search as measured by citations to the firm’s inventions compared to firms where research is organized in a more decentralized fashion. Different communities of practice within an organization may lead to the development of a differentiated knowledge-base (Brown and Duguid, 2001). Conversely, the characteristics of the knowledge-base itself may affect the organizational structure. For instance Birkinshaw, Nobel, and Ridderstråle (2002) suggest that the observability and the system embeddedness of the knowledge-base impacts on the organizational structure.
Organizational systems, culture, and staffing practices
Organizational systems, culture, and staffing practices are additional sources of influence that are likely to shape organization knowledge-bases. For instance, Turner and Makhija (2006) establish that the type of control mechanism adopted (clan, outcome, process) may affect the usage of knowledge in an organization. An organizational climate of knowledge-sharing can provide a natural mechanism for integration as shared beliefs that constitute the core of the culture can perform the role of a coordination mechanism (Smith, Collins, and Clark, 2005; Collins and Smith, 2006) or formal interventions in micro level interactions can increase knowledge flexibility and enable integration within the organization (Okhuysen and Eisenhardt, 2002). By the same token, adoption of some organizational practices such as total quality management, while leading to a growth in one dimension of the knowledge-base and good performance outcomes by some metrics may lead to reduced experimentation, slower growth of the knowledge-base, and reduced innovation (Benner and Tushman, 2002; 2003). Similarly, a focus on reliable outputs may restrict innovative search and limit breakthrough inventions (Ahuja and Lampert, 2001). Decentralized interpersonal learning, however, can help in overcoming possible rigidities brought on by an organization-level emphasis on exploitation and aversion to experimentation (Miller, Zhao, and Calantone, 2006).
The mobility of knowledge workers can also serve to enhance differentiation in knowledge-bases as they carry with them imprints of their own informational environment which is distinctive from that of their new employers (Rosenkopf and Almeida, 2003; Corredoira and Rosenkopf, 2010). Culture and staffing practices can also serve as a complement to transactive interfaces, especially in the context of high embeddedness knowledge-bases. With key individuals serving as the repositories of indexing knowledge and as gate-keepers the effectiveness of the routines and artifacts that constitute the transactive system can be enhanced (Postrel, 2002).