Communities of Practice versus Organizational Climate: Which One Matters More to Dispersed Collaboration in the Front End of Innovation?^*

Abstract

Dispersed collaboration provides many benefits such as members' closeness to local cultures and markets and reachability of talent worldwide. Hence, it is no surprise that dispersed collaboration is frequently being used by product development teams. A necessary but not sufficient condition for innovation performance is the sharing of tacit, noncodified and explicit, codified knowledge by the team. Situated learning theory, however, predicts that tacit knowledge sharing will be largely prevented by ''decontextualization.'' Therefore, increasing usage of dispersed collaboration will decrease levels of tacit knowledge-crucial to innovation and organizational performance-in the business unit. This research investigates the moderating role of mechanisms believed to enable tacit knowledge transfer in the front end of innovation. Using data from 116 business units, the moderating role of communities of practice and organizational climate on the relationship between the proficiency of dispersed collaboration and front end of innovation performance is investigated. Encouragement of communities of practice is found to moderate the relationship between proficiency of dispersed collaboration and front end of innovation performance on the business unit level. More specifically, proficiency of dispersed collaboration is not related at all to front end of innovation performance in business units with low support for communities of practice; but a positive relationship exists in business units with high support for communities of practice. This study does not provide support for the moderating effect of organizational climate on the relationship between proficiency in dispersed collaboration and front end of innovation performance. However, supportiveness of climate has a significant direct effect on front end of innovation performance. The findings of this study suggest that managers should simultaneously invest in increasing proficiency in dispersed collaboration and supporting communities of practice. Either one by itself is insufficient. Because of its significant direct effect, managers should also nurture an open climate favoring risk taking, trust, and open interaction.

Technology transfer within China and the role of location choices

“…The managerial implications of the finding of a negative linear rather than an inverted U-shaped curvilinear effect of network concentration are as follows. Business groups with higher levels of network concentration should introduce management practices that will strongly encourage their units to share technologies with one another (e.g., Bertels et al, 2011). Equally, multi-unit businesses can enhance the benefits of intra-group technology transfer by specific configuration of the breadth of their networks of units.…”

The Influence Factors of Knowledge Usage in Online Informal Community of Practice

“…Community of practice can be separated into two forms of social relation, which are formal community of practice and informal community of practice [11]. Formal community of practice refers to communities which are treated as a knowledge management tool in organizations.…”

“…Members of a group interact with each other based on the norms and culture of the group . Group work often involves some type of negotiation in which the members attempt to reach an agreement relative to a particular view or make a decision regarding an idea [10].Community of practice can be separated into two forms of social relation, which are formal community of practice and informal community of practice [11]. Formal community of practice refers to communities which are treated as a knowledge management tool in organizations.…”

Formalisation versus tacitness: keys for creating and sharing knowledge in innovative large organisations

“…Innovation, as a process, follows a similar logic, since the higher their efficiency, the higher their impact on competitiveness in terms of the rate of successful outcomes (BERTELS et al, 2011). Therefore, knowledge and learning play a critical role in boosting the efficiency of both processes (NONAKA et al, 2006).…”

“…The problem arises from the clash between the required formalised procedures underlying large organisations and the inherent creativity and latitude within CoP seeking to innovate (SWAN et al, 2002;BERTELS et al, 2011).…”