Many papers have been published recently in the fields of strategy and international business research incorporating the role of organizational knowledge as a basis of firm competitive advantage. While such knowledge is normally developed within the firm, it is important that firms possess the ability to learn from others in order to meet the increasing pace of competition. Knowledge transfer, defined here as an event through which one organization learns from the experience of another, has thus become an important research area within the broader domain of organizational learning and knowledge management. This paper presents a theoretical framework, identifies key themes covered by the six articles included in the Special Issue on Inter-Organizational Knowledge Transfer, and then discusses priorities for future research. Copyright (c) Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2008.
In this paper we attempt to map the development of organizational learning as a field of academic study by examining the rise and fall of specific debates. This does not pretend to be a comprehensive review of the field since there is now far too much material available to allow full coverage in any single publication. Rather, we have identified some of the key debates, and these have been organized along the simplistic time-line of past, present and future. Our purpose is two-fold: first, to note how the nature and language of the key ideas in organizational learning have changed over time; and second, to locate the papers in this Special Issue within the context of the developing field. It is perhaps no accident that we see most of the papers as closely associated with new, and emerging, issues, but we also find it interesting to note that many of these current or emergent issues actually have roots within some of the earlier debates. Organizational learning is now an established field of study, and in this millennial year it is timely to review the state of this field. The papers published in this Special Issue of JMS represent important contributions to the field as currently constituted. They were selected from a collection of 102 papers submitted to the 3rd International Conference on Organizational Learning held at Lancaster University in June 1999. [4] From the original set, 48 papers were selected for presentation at the conference, and a sub-set of six were selected for this Special Issue.Our remarks will draw on the larger pool of papers, in addition to the six presented here. Our intent is to sketch a rough map, which will be both temporal and Address for reprints: Mark Easterby-Smith, Lancaster University Management School, Lancaster LA1 4YX.
The field of dynamic capabilities has developed very rapidly over the last ten years. In this paper we discuss the evolution of the concept, and identify two major current debates around the nature of dynamic capabilities and their consequences. We then review recent progress as background to identifying the contributions of the seven papers in this special issue, and discuss the relative merits of qualitative and quantitative studies for investigating dynamic capabilities. We conclude with recommendations for future research arguing for more longitudinal studies which can examine the processes of dynamic abilities over time, and for studies in diverse industries and national contexts.
The paper argues against attempts to create a single framework for understanding organizational learning. Relevant literature is reviewed from six disciplinary perspectives: psychology and OD; management science; sociology and organizational theory; strategy; production management; and cultural anthropology. It is argued that each discipline provides distinct contributions and conceptions of problems. Furthermore, a basic distinction between organizational learning and the new idea of the learning organization is noted. Whereas the former is discipline based and analytic, the latter is multidisciplinary and emphasizes action and the creation of an "ideal-type" of organization. Due to the diversity of purpose and perspective, it is suggested that it is better to consider organizational learning as a multidisciplinary field containing complementary contributions and research agendas.
Modern strategic management theories try to explain why firms differ, because new sources of competitive advantage are keenly sought in the dynamic and complex environment of global competition. Two areas in particular have attracted the attention of researchers: the role of dynamic capabilities, and the firm's abilities for knowledge management. In this paper, we argue that there is a link between these two concepts, which has not been fully articulated in the literature. The aim of the paper is therefore to ascertain the conceptual connection between them as a basis for future research. Our proposed framework acknowledges and critiques the distinct roots of each field, identifies boundaries, and proposes relationships between the constructs and firm performance.
Absorptive capacity is regarded as an important factor in both corporate innovation and general competitive advantage. The concept was initially developed largely from reviews of the literature and has subsequently been extended by empirical studies, although some people suggest that progress since 1990 has been disappointing. This article argues that this limited development results from the dominance of quantitative studies which have failed to develop insights into the processes of absorptive capacity, and builds on recent qualitative studies which have successfully opened up new perspectives. Using case studies drawn from three different sectors, the article argues that a process perspective on absorptive capacity should include the role of power in the way knowledge is absorbed by organizations, and provide better understanding of the nature of boundaries within and around organizations.
Organizational learning (OL) and knowledge management (KM) research has gone through dramatic changes in the last twenty years and, without doubt, the fi eld will continue to change in the next ten years. Our research suggests that Cyert and March were the fi rst authors to reference organizational learning in their publication of 1963. It was just twenty years ago that a conference was held at Carnegie Mellon University to honor March and his contribution to the fi eld of organizational learning. Many of these presentations were published in a special issue of Organization Science in 1991.Since that time we have seen a rapid expansion in the number of journal articlesboth academic and practitioner-devoted to organizational learning. Fields such as information technology, marketing and human resources have also jumped on the bandwagon. Doctoral programs are including seminars on organizational learning, and MBA courses on organizational learning are appearing. All of this refl ects acceptance of the concept that organizations have knowledge, do learn over time, and consider their knowledge base and social capital as valuable assets. It also reaffi rms the legitimacy of research on organizational learning and its practical applications to organizations.The fi rst edition of this Handbook was published in 2003 but most chapters were completed in 2001 or 2002. Our fi rst edition was widely used and it was clear-given the advancement of the fi eld-that a second edition was necessary. Some people might claim that it is foolhardy to seek to cover the full range of the literature within one volume. Our intent is to provide a resource that is useful to academics, practitioners, and students who want an overview of the current fi eld with full recognition that-to our delight-the fi eld continues to have major impact on research and management practices. Our response is C O P Y R I G H T E D M A T E R I A LMARK EASTERBY-SMITH AND MARJORIE A. LYLES 2 to highlight four features of the current literature, which provide a general rationale for compiling this Handbook.First is the novelty and speed of development of the fi eld. Overall, there was very little activity before 1990, and in some sub-areas almost everything dates after 1995. The speed of development, coupled with the lead times of publishing, means it is hard to develop a cumulative sense to the fi eld where studies and publications are able to build systematically on previous work. Many of the chapter authors show how the present position has evolved from prior work, and then proceed to speculate on potential future directions (for example, see Argote, Denomme, and Fuchs, Chapter 29; and Van Wijk, van den Bosch, and Volberda, Chapter 22).The second feature is the increasing diversity and specialization of the fi eld. This has led to tighter defi nitions and the isolation of problems such as the political implications of organizational learning and knowledge management; it has also led to developments taking place in parallel which result in limited awareness of wh...
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.