Contingent factors affecting network learning

Abstract

To increase understanding of the impact of individuals on organizational learning processes, this paper explores the impact of individual cognition and action on the absorptive capacity process of the wider network. In particular this study shows how contingent factors such as social integration mechanisms and power relationships influence how network members engage in, and benefit from, learning. The use of cognitive consistency and sensemaking theory enables examination of how these contingent factors influence the learning processes of two construction industry design teams embedded within more permanent home-organizational structures. A number of practical ways arise by which firms can facilitate organizational learning through their interactions with network partners. Enhancement of learning in and between organizations occurs when members are cognizant of the means by which they connect within a network to create shared meanings, and the way in which they forge ties and share expertise in the learning process they engage in.

Network learning: Episodes of interorganizational learning towards a collective performance goal

“…It aligns with the previous studies on network learning (Dyer and Nobeoka, 2000;Knight, 2002;Knight and Pye, 2004;Coghlan and Coughlan, 2015;Peters, Pressey and Johnston, 2016). It also shows that network learning is different from learning from organizations (organizational learning) within a network, in a process frequently identified as interorganizational learning (Crossan et al, 1995;Levinson and Asahi, 1995;Larsson et al, 1998).…”

“…Yet, some empirical studies have noted that although the initial interest of firms in entering a network might be to explore external sources of specialized knowledge, by working together these firms might be able to create new shared knowledge and jointly improve their working practices, technical knowledge and skills (Arikan 2009;Mariotti, 2011;Coghlan and Coughlan, 2015). This process has been identified as network learning (Dyer and Nobeoka, 2000;Knight, 2002;Knight and Pye, 2004;Peters, Pressey and Johnston, 2016). The term network-level learning has been initially defined by Dyer and Nobeoka (2000: 364) as '(a) knowledge development and acquisition that is useful in a specific network context, or (b) knowledge (e.g.…”

Sensemaking, sensegiving and absorptive capacity in complex procurements

“…In this, we argue that complexity affects sensemaking activities relative to the degree of buyer-supplier engagement at the dyadic level. These findings extend the view that social integration mechanisms allow development of shared meanings (Peters, Pressey, and Johnston, 2016) by identifying two sorts of 'levers' available to partner firms -buyer sensemaking investments and supplier collaboration approach -and by describing the implications of four different combinations of these mechanisms.…”

“…In this study, we conceptualize FLE-level knowledge exchange in complex procurement interaction processes as an interplay between the sensemaking endeavors of buyer firm FLEs and the sensegiving efforts of FLEs from buyer firms. In this, we focus on the practices of specific actors in their efforts to develop shared cognitions as these relate to task completion rather than network pictures in a general sense (Mouzas and Henneberg, 2015;Peters et al, 2016). Earlier studies show that complex procurement implementations are technically and socially complex enterprises that involve temporary organizational structures (Burke and Morley, 2016;Neely, 2014;Söderlund, Hobbs, and Ahola, 2014;Töllner, Blut, and Holzmüller, 2011).…”

Strategic B2B customer experience management: the importance of outcomes-based measures

“…As Peters et al (2016), drawing on the work of Bardone and Secchi (2019), note, through enactment, customers and firms do not simply represent objects as abstract mental structures, but in fact enact cognitive performance that "… can be viewed as the result of smart interplay between humans and the environment" (Bardone and Secchi, 2019, p. 191). …”