In this paper, we argue that the literature on knowledge codification has been overly concerned with the economic properties of its outcomes, neglecting the importance of its underlying learning processes. Following Zollo and Winter [Organisation Science, 2001, in press], the paper distinguishes three learning processes: experience accumulation, knowledge articulation and knowledge codification and suggests a framework to analyse the learning abilities of project-based firms. We propose that mechanisms for inter-project learning draw upon these learning processes and can be found at various levels of the project-based firm. Using empirical evidence from six case studies, we discern three empirical patterns, that we defined learning landscapes, of such mechanisms. Implications for the literature and practice of knowledge codification are discussed.

Product development in high-technology industries is often carried out in projects. Managing such projects is a matter of both promoting creative knowledge generation processes and controlling progress towards global goals and time limits. From such a dual perspective, we discuss the meaning and suitability of organizing product development projects in a concurrent rather than a sequential fashion and the use of deadlines as control mechanisms. The empirical case is about the breakthrough in Japan for the Swedish company Ericsson. The system was to be fully operative in 1994. This project forced management to reconsider their traditional way of working with projects and to try a new one instead — labelled the 'fountain model' — which relied more on concurrent work and inter-functional cooperation. As a result, they managed to shorten development time quite considerably and deliver the system on time. The fountain model of project organization is interpreted as expressing a 'coupling logic' suitable for error detection in a systemic complexity context. We also suggest a model, identifying four different project organization logics, that may be used contingent upon the type of error problematic and complexity involved. Using the garbage-can metaphor, we also discuss how deadlines and other time-based controls may support the fountain model by promoting inter-functional responsiveness and 'global' reflection.

Search for external knowledge is vital for firms innovative activities. To understand search, we propose two knowledge search dimensions: search space (local or distant) and search heuristics (experiential or cognitive). Combining these two dimensions, we distinguish four search paths - situated paths, analogical paths, sophisticated paths, and scientific paths - which respond to recent calls to move beyond "where to search" and to investigate the connection with "how to search." Also, we highlight how the mechanisms of problem framing and boundary spanning operate within each search path to identify solutions to technology problems. We report on a study of 18 open innovation projects that used an innovation intermediary, and outline the characteristics of each search path. Exploration of these search paths enriches previous studies of search in open innovation by providing a comprehensive, but structured, framework that explains search, its underlying mechanisms, and potential outcomes. (C) 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Funding Agencies|ESADE Business School; NineSigma; Handelsbankens Research Foundations; Riksbankens Jubileumsfond

The purpose of the paper is to illuminate the costs and benefits of crossing firm boundaries in inbound open innovation (OI) by determining the relationships among partner types, knowledge content and performance. The empirical part of the study is based on a survey of OI collaborations answered by R&D managers in 415 Italian, Finnish and Swedish firms. The results show that the depth of collaboration with different partners (academic/consultants, value chain partners, competitors and firms in other industries) is positively related to innovation performance, whereas the number of different partners and size have negative effects. The main result is that the knowledge content of the collaboration moderates the performance outcomes and the negative impact of having too many different kinds of partners. This illustrates how successful firms use selective collaboration strategies characterized by linking explorative and exploitative knowledge content to specific partners, to leverage the benefits and limit the costs of knowledge boundary crossing processes.