Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T21:14:42.667Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Knowledge Acquisition in Production Networks: Effective Strategies for System Integrators and Component Specialists

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 July 2016

Shu-Jou Lin ,
Hsing-Er Lin  and
Edward F. McDonough III
Shu-Jou Lin
Affiliation:
National Taiwan Normal University, Taiwan
Hsing-Er Lin*
Affiliation:
National Sun Yat-sen University, Taiwan
Edward F. McDonough III
Affiliation:
Northeastern University, USA
*
Corresponding author: Hsing-Er Lin (hsingerlin@cm.nsysu.edu.tw)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study provides new insight into the effectiveness of different knowledge acquisition strategies for organizations at different positions in a production network. Component specialists and systems integrators require a different knowledge repertoire in terms of knowledge depth and knowledge breadth. We show that a greater reliance on inter-organizational partnering than on intra-organizational acquiring is effective in the acquisition of knowledge breadth rather than knowledge depth. And the positive effect of a greater reliance on inter-organizational partnering on knowledge breadth is particularly strong for system integrators.

摘要:

摘要:

这项研究提供了在生产网络中不同位置的组织的不同知识获取策略有效性的新见解。组件专家和系统集成商在知识深度和知识广度方面需有不同的知识策划。我们显示, 与组织内部的获取相比, 更多地依靠组织间伙伴关系对获取知识广度而不是知识深度有效。而更多地依靠组织间伙伴关系对获取知识广度的积极作用对系统集成商特别强。

यह शोध उत्पादन संजालों में भिन्न स्थानों पर विद्यमान संगठनों में ज्ञानार्जन की पृथक रणनीतियों की प्रभाविता पर नूतन परिज्ञान देता है. तंत्र समन्वयक तथा अवयव विशेषज्ञ ज्ञान की परिसीमा व गहनता का भिन्न समन्वय मांगते हैं. हमारा शोध दिखाता है की अंतर्संगठनीय सहभागिता ज्ञान परिसीमा (बनाम ज्ञान गहनता) के अर्जन में अधिक प्रभावशाली है. अंतर्संगठनीय सहभागिता का ज्ञान परिसीमा बढ़ने में तंत्र समन्वयकों पर अधिक सुदृढ़ सकारात्मक प्रभाव है.

Sumário:

Sumário:

Este estudo fornece uma nova visão sobre a eficácia de diferentes estratégias de aquisição de conhecimento para organizações em diferentes posições em uma rede de produção.

Especialistas em componentes e integradores de sistemas requerem um repertório de conhecimento diferente em termos de profundidade de conhecimento e amplitude de conhecimento.

Mostramos que uma maior dependência na parceria interorganizacional do que na aquisição intraorganizacional é eficaz na aquisição da amplitude de conhecimento em vez da profundidade do conhecimento.

E o efeito positivo de uma maior dependência de parcerias interorganizacionais na amplitude do conhecimento é particularmente forte para os integradores de sistemas.

Аннотация:

АННОТАЦИЯ:

Это исследование дает новое представление об эффективности различных стратегий приобретения знаний для организаций на различных позициях в производственной сети. Специалистам компонентов и системным интеграторам требуется различный репертуар знаний с точки зрения глубины и широты знаний. Мы демонстрируем, что большая зависимость от партнерства между организациями, чем от приобретения знаний внутри организации, является эффективной для развития широты знаний, а не глубины знаний. При этом, положительное влияние межорганизационного партнерства на широту знаний, особенно значительно в случае системных интеграторов.

Resumen:

RESUMEN:

Este estudio proporciona una nueva visión sobre la efectividad de las diferentes estrategias de adquisición de conocimiento para las organizaciones en diferentes posiciones en una red de producción. Los especialistas en componentes y los integradores de sistemas requieren diferentes repertorios en términos de profundidad de conocimiento y amplitud de conocimiento. Mostramos que una mayor dependencia en colaboración intra-organizacional en lugar de adquisición intra-organizacional es efectiva en la adquisición de amplitud de conocimiento en lugar de profundidad de conocimiento. Y un efecto positivo de la dependencia en colaboración intra-organizacional en la amplitud de conocimiento es particularmente fuerte para los integradores de sistemas.

Keywords

firm specializationknowledge acquisition strategyknowledge depthknowledge specializationproduction network
Type
Articles
Information
Management and Organization Review , Volume 12 , Issue 4 , December 2016 , pp. 659 - 686
Copyright
Copyright © The International Association for Chinese Management Research 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Abernathy, W. J., & Utterback, J. 1978. Patterns of industrial innovation. Technology Review, June-July: 40–47.Google Scholar
Alexander, C. A. 1964. Notes on the synthesis of form. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Allen, T. J., & Cohen, S. I. 1969. Information flow in research and development laboratories. Administrative Science Quarterly, 14 (1): 12–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Autio, E., Kanninen, S., & Gustafsson, R. 2008. First- and second-order additionality and learning outcomes in collaborative R&D programs. Research Policy, 37 (1): 59–76.Google Scholar
Baldwin, C. Y., & Clark, K. 2000. Design rules. The power of modularity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Berchicci, L. 2013. Towards an open R&D system: Internal R&D investment, external knowledge acquisition and innovative performance. Research Policy, 42 (1): 117–127.Google Scholar
Bergek, A., Tell, F., Berggren, C., & Watson, J. 2008. Technological capabilities and late shakeouts: Industrial dynamics in the advanced gas turbine industry, 1987–2002. Industrial and Corporate Change, 17 (2): 335–392.Google Scholar
Bierly, P., & Chakrabarti, A. 1996. Generic knowledge strategies in the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. Strategic Management Journal, 17(Winter Special Issue): 123–135.Google Scholar
Brusoni, S., & Prencipe, A. 2001a. Unpacking the black box of modularity: Technologies, products and organizations. Industrial and Corporate Change, 10 (1): 179–205.Google Scholar
Brusoni, S., & Prencipe, A. 2001b. Managing knowledge in loosely coupled networks: Exploring the links between product and knowledge dynamics. Journal of Management Studies, 38 (7): 1019–1035.Google Scholar
Brusoni, S., & Prencipe, A. 2006. Making design rules: A multi-domain perspective. Organization Science, 17 (2): 179–189.Google Scholar
Brusoni, S., Jacobides, M., & Prencipe, A. 2009. Strategic dynamics in industry architectures and the challenges of knowledge integration. European Management Review, 6 (4): 209–216.Google Scholar
Brusoni, S., Prencipe, A., & Pavitt, K. 2001. Knowledge specialization, organizational coupling, and the boundaries of the firm: Why do firms know more than they make? Administrative Science Quarterly, 46 (4): 597–621.Google Scholar
Burgelman, R. A. 1994. Fading memories: A process theory of strategic business exit in dynamic environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39 (1): 24–56.Google Scholar
Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. 1961. The management of innovation. London: Tavistock.Google Scholar
Carlile, P. R. 2002. A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development. Organization Science, 13 (4): 442–455.Google Scholar
Chandler, A. D. 1962. Strategy and structure: Chapters in the history of American industrial enterprise. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cockburn, I., & Henderson, R. 1998. Absorptive capacity, coauthoring behavior, and the organization of research in drug discovery. Journal of Industrial Economics, 46 (2): 157–182.Google Scholar
Dedrick, J., & Kraemer, K. 1998. Asia's computer challenge: Threat or opportunity for the United States and the world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ding, H. B., & Abetti, P. A. 2002. The entrepreneurial success of Taiwan: Synergy between technology, social capital and institutional support. In Libecap, G. D. (Ed.), Advances in the study of entrepreneurship, innovation and economic growth, Vol. 14: 91–124. UK: Emerald Group Publishing.Google Scholar
Donaldson, L. 2001. The contingency theory of organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Dyer, J., & Singh, H. 1998. The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23 (4): 660–679.Google Scholar
Ernst, D. 2000. Inter-organizational knowledge outsourcing: What permits small Taiwanese firms to compete in the computer industry? Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 17 (2): 223–255.Google Scholar
Faems, D., Van Looy, B., & Debackere, K. 2005. Interorganizational collaboration and innovation: Toward a portfolio approach. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22 (3): 238–250.Google Scholar
Fixson, S. K. 2005. Product architecture assessment: A tool to link product, process, and supply chain design decisions. Journal of Operations Management, 23 (3–4): 345–369.Google Scholar
Fixson, S. K., & Park, J. K. 2008. The power of integrality: Linkages between product architecture, innovation, and industry structure. Research Policy, 37 (8): 1296–1316.Google Scholar
Folta, T. B. 1998. Governance and uncertainty: The trade-off between administrative control and commitment. Strategic Management Journal, 19 (11): 1007–1028.Google Scholar
Fuller, D. B. 2008. The Cross-Strait economic relationship's impact on development in Taiwan and China: Adversaries and partners. Asian Survey, 48 (2): 239–264.Google Scholar
Garriga, H., von Krogh, G., & Spaeth, S. 2013. How constraints and knowledge impact open innovation. Strategic Management Journal, 34 (9): 1134–1144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Germunden, H. G., Ritter, T., & Heydebreck, P. 1996. Network configuration and innovation success: An empirical analysis in German high-tech industries. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 13 (5): 449–462.Google Scholar
Grant, R. M. 1996. Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17 (WINTER): 109–122.Google Scholar
Grimpe, C. & Kaiser, U. 2010. Balancing internal and external knowledge acquisition: The gains and pains from R&D outsourcing. Journal of Management Studies, 47 (8): 1483–1509.Google Scholar
Gudykunst, W. B., Yoon, Y. C., & Nishida, T. 1987. The influence of individualism‐collectivism on perceptions of communication in group and outgroup relationships. Communications Monographs, 54 (3), 295–306.Google Scholar
Helfat, C. E. 1994. Evolutionary trajectories in petroleum firm R&D. Management Science, 40 (12): 1720–1747.Google Scholar
Henderson, J., & Nadvi, K. 2011. Greater China, the challenges of global production networks and the dynamics of transformation. Global Networks, 11 (3): 285–297.Google Scholar
Henderson, R. M., & Clark, K. B. 1990. Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35 (1): 9–30.Google Scholar
Henderson, R. M., & Cockburn, I. 1994. Measuring competence? Exploring firm effects in pharmaceutical research. Strategic Management Journal, 15 (S1): 63–84.Google Scholar
Hoetker, G. 2006. Do modular products lead to modular organizations? Strategic Management Journal, 27 (6): 501–518.Google Scholar
Hofstede, G. 2003. Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (2nd ed.). London: Profile Books Ltd.Google Scholar
Ireland, R. D., & Webb, J. W., 2007. Strategic entrepreneurship: Creating competitive advantage through streams of innovation. Business Horizons, 50 (1): 49–59.Google Scholar
Jaccard, J., & Turrisi, R. 2003. Interaction effects in multiple regression. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jansen, J. J. P., Van Den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. 2006. Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Management Science, 52 (11): 1661–1674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katila, R., & Ahuja, G. 2002. Something old, something new: A longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction. Academy of Management Journal, 45 (6): 1183–1194.Google Scholar
Khoury, T. A., & Pleggenkuhle-Miles, E. G. 2011. Shared inventions and the evolution of capabilities: Examining the biotechnology industry. Research Policy, 40 (7): 943–956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. 1992. Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3 (3): 383–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Köhler, C., Sofka, W., & Grimpe, C. 2012. Selective search, sectoral patterns, and the impact on product innovation performance. Research Policy, 41 (8): 1344–1356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laamanen, T. 2005. Dependency, resource depth, and supplier performance during industry downturn. Research Policy, 34 (2): 125–140.Google Scholar
Laursen, K. & Salter, A. 2006. Open for innovation: The role of openness in explaining innovation performance among U.K. manufacturing firms. Strategic Management Journal, 27 (2): 131–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. 1967. Organization and environment: Managing differentiation and integration. Boston, MA: Harvard University.Google Scholar
Levinthal, D., & March, J. 1981. A model of adaptive organizational search. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 2 (4): 307–333.Google Scholar
Liao, S.-H., & Hu, T.-C. 2007. Knowledge transfer and competitive advantage on environmental uncertainty: An empirical study of the Taiwan semiconductor industry. Technovation, 27 (6–7): 402–411.Google Scholar
Liebeskind, J. P., Oliver, A. L., Zucker, L., & Brewer, M. 1996. Social networks, learning, and flexibility: Sourcing scientific knowledge in new biotechnology firms. Organization Science, 7 (4): 428–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lorenzoni, G., & Lipparini, A. 1999. The leveraging of interfirm relationships as a distinctive organizational capability: A longitudinal study. Strategic Management Journal, 20 (4): 317–338.Google Scholar
March, J. G. 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2 (1): 319–340.Google Scholar
McMillan, G. S., Narin, F., & Deeds, D. L. 2000. An analysis of the critical role of public science in innovation: The case of biotechnology. Research Policy, 29 (1): 1–8.Google Scholar
Mowery, D., Oxley, J., & Silverman, B. 1996. Strategic alliances and interfirm knowledge transfer. Strategic Management Journal, 17(Winter Special Issue): 77–92.Google Scholar
Newman, K. L., & Nollen, S. D. 1996. Culture and congruence: The fit between management practices and national culture. Journal of International Business Studies, 27 (4): 753–779.Google Scholar
Nishiguchi, T. 1994. Strategic industrial sourcing. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ozman, M. 2010. The knowledge base of products: Implications for organizational structures. Organization Studies, 31 (8): 1129–1154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. 2003. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (5): 879–903.Google Scholar
Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., & SmithDoerr, L. 1996. Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41 (1): 116–145.Google Scholar
Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. 1990. The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 68 (3): 79–91.Google Scholar
Prencipe, A. 2000. Breadth and depth of technological capabilities in CoPS: The case of the aircraft engine control system. Research Policy, 29 (7–8): 895–911.Google Scholar
Quintana-García, C. & Benavides-Velasco, C. A. 2008. Innovative competence, exploration and exploitation: The influence of technological diversification. Research Policy, 37 (3): 492–507.Google Scholar
Rosenkopf, L., & Almeida, P. 2003. Overcoming local search through alliances and mobility. Management Science, 49 (6): 751–766.Google Scholar
Rosenkopf, L., & Nerkar, A. 2001. Beyond local search: Boundary spanning, exploration, and impact in the optical disk industry. Strategic Management Journal, 22 (4): 287–306.Google Scholar
Rosenkopf, L., Metiu, A., & George, V. 2001. From the bottom up? Technical committee activity and alliance formation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46 (4): 748–772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenkopf, L., & Tushman, M. L. 1998. The coevolution of community networks and technology: Lessons from the flight simulation industry. Industrial and Corporate Change, 7 (2): 311–346.Google Scholar
Rothaermel, F. T., & Alexandre, M. T. 2009. Ambidexterity in technology sourcing: The moderating role of absorptive capacity. Organization Science, 20 (4): 759–780.Google Scholar
Rothermael, F. T., & Deeds, D. L. 2006. Alliance type, alliance experience and alliance management capability in high-technology ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, 21 (4): 429–460.Google Scholar
Ryle, G. 1984. The concept of mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Sanchez, R., & Mahoney, J. T. 1996. Modularity, flexibility, and knowledge management in product and organization design. Strategic Management Journal, 17 (4): 63–76.Google Scholar
Shan, W. & Song, J. 1997. Foreign direct investment and the sourcing of technological advantage: Evidence from the biotechnology industry. Journal of International Business Studies, 28 (2): 267–284.Google Scholar
Simon, H. 1957. A behavioral model of rational choice, in models of man, social and rational: Mathematical essays on rational human behavior in a social setting. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Simon, H. 1991. Bounded rationality and organizational learning. Organization Science, 2 (1): 125–134.Google Scholar
Sørensen, J. B., & Stuart, T. E. 2000. Aging, obsolescence, and organizational innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45 (1): 81–112.Google Scholar
Sosa, M. E., Eppinger, S. D., & Rowles, C. M. 2004. The misalignment of product architecture and organizational structure in complex product development. Management Science, 50 (12): 1674–1689.Google Scholar
Stuart, T. E., & Podolny, J. M. 1996. Local search and the evolution of technological capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 17(Summer Special Issue): 21–38.Google Scholar
Sturgeon, T., & Lee, J.-R. 2005. Industry co-evolution: A comparison of Taiwan and North America's electronics contract manufacturing in North America and Taiwan. In Berger, S. & Leste, R. K. (Eds.), Global Taiwan: Building competitive strengths in a new international economy: 33–75. New York: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.Google Scholar
Tagliaventi, M. R., & Mattarelli, E. 2006. The role of networks of practice, value sharing, and operational proximity in knowledge flows between professional groups. Human Relations, 59 (3): 291–319.Google Scholar
Takeishi, A. 2002. Knowledge partitioning in the interfirm division of labor: The case of automotive product development. Organization Science, 13 (3): 321–338.Google Scholar
Thompson, J. D. 1967. Organizations in action. McGraw-Hill: New York.Google Scholar
Tsai, K.-H., & Wang, J.-C. 2008. External technology acquisition and firm performance: A longitudinal study. Journal of Business Venturing, 23 (1): 91–112.Google Scholar
Tsai, W. 2002. Social structure of ‘coopetition’ within a multiunit organization: Coordination, competition, and intra-organizational knowledge sharing. Organization Science, 13 (2): 179–190.Google Scholar
Tushman, M., L., & Anderson, P. 1986. Technological discontinuities and organizational environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31 (3): 439–465.Google Scholar
Ulrich, K. 1995. The role of product architecture in the manufacturing firm. Research Policy, 24 (3): 419–440.Google Scholar
Van de Ven, A. H., & Drazin, R. 1985. The concept of fit in contingency theory. In Cummings, L. L. & Staw, B. M. (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior: 333–365. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Von Krogh, G. 2002. The communal resource and information systems. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 11 (2): 85–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, Q., & von Tunzelmann, N. 2000. Complexity and the functions of the firm: Breadth and depth. Research Policy, 29 (7-8): 805–818.Google Scholar
Wenger, E. 2000. Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organization, 7 (2): 225–246.Google Scholar
Womack, J. P., Jones, D. T., & Roos, D. 1990. The machine that changed the world. New York: Harper Perennin.Google Scholar
Wu, J. F., & Shanley, M. T. 2009. Knowledge stock, exploration, and innovation: Research on the United States electromedical device industry. Journal of Business Research, 62 (4): 474–483.Google Scholar
Yin, X., & Zajac, E. J. 2004. The strategy/governance structure fit relationship: Theory and evidence in the franchising agreements. Strategic Management Journal, 25 (4): 365–383.Google Scholar
Zajac, E. J., Kraatz, M. S., & Bresser, R. K. F. 2000. Modeling the dynamics of strategic fit: A normative approach to strategic change. Strategic Management Journal, 21 (4): 429–453.Google Scholar