Control mechanisms and knowledge integration in exploitative project teams: a case study from the coal fired power plant industry

Abstract

Purpose -This paper aims to deal with knowledge integration in projects, focusing on teams that deal with exploitative nature of knowledge work and implement standard solutions with minor refinements developed over time. In the research the authors seek to analyze how the organizational control mechanisms adopted within project teams that deal with exploitative nature of knowledge work influence knowledge integration outcomes.Design/methodology/approach -The research unfolded considering a single case study, as this approach was considered useful in gaining in-depth, holistic understanding of the phenomenon studied. The authors started with a preliminary on-site observation done with the aim of making subsequent interviews simpler and more productive. They therefore conducted semi-structured interviews with the head of human resources and with two project managers and four members of two project teams.Findings -The results show how in coherence with Grant's classification it is possible to argue that in this context the main control mechanism to integrate knowledge is provided by different forms of standardization. In the case of the company under investigation, formal control mechanisms based on a calculative approach are seen as a way to rule out the process of product delivery and enable effective knowledge integration by clarifying tasks and responsibilities.Originality/value -This paper witnesses that, in exploitative project teams, formal control mechanisms may play the role of administering information exchange in order to achieve projects outcome and the desired level of knowledge integration.

The Role of Knowledge-Integration Practices in Service Innovation Projects

“…For the purposes of the study, we categorised these practices in four groups (see e.g., Grant, 1996;Munkvold, 2006;Canonico et al, 2012), which we discuss in this paper.…”

“…In conducting the study, we focus on research question of what kind of knowledge-integration practices help to facilitate service innovation projects through their different phases? In answering this question, we intend to contribute to the general discussion on the micro-foundations of knowledge sharing in organisations (Foss et al, 2010) and the discussion of knowledge-integration in organisations (Lang, 2004;Koch, 2011;Canonico et al, 2012;Tsou, 2012). We also complement the still-scant literature on service innovation and new service development from a knowledge-based perspective (Den Hertog, 2000;Amara et al, 2009;Ojanen et al, 2009).…”

“…Knowledge-integration can be defined as the utilisation and combination of existing, specialised knowledge. For the purposes of the present study, we categorise knowledge-integration practices in four groups: (1) Rules and directives, including plans, schedules, regulations, policies, and procedures that govern interaction among workers; (2) Sequencing as an effective way of minimising redundant communication among individuals; (3) Group problem-solving and decision-making linked to personal and communication-intensive forms of integration; and (4) Routines as habitual procedures embedded in work practices that enable complex interaction in the absence of other coordinating mechanisms (see e.g., Grant, 1996;Munkvold, 2006;Canonico et al, 2012). This paper is structured as follows.…”

Alternative control methods for exploiting subsidiary knowledge within an MNE: quantity versus quality

“…As noted by Canonico et al (2012), a few scholars have focussed on the direct relationship of control types (rather than control mechanisms) and knowledge sharing behaviour. Overall, however, it is largely only the term (i.e.…”

“…Drawing from this theory, research has made some enlightening contributions as to the characteristics of knowledge, typically reported as explicit or tacit, and individual or collective, and its transfer throughout the firm, typically through mechanisms of information communication technologies (ICTs) (Alavi and Tiwana, 2006;Zack, 1999) or social systems (Wenger and Snyder, 2000;Newell et al, 2009). Indeed, it is the transfer or sharing of knowledge throughout global subsidiaries that multinational enterprises (MNEs) seek as an avenue to SCA, and, as a result, significant investment has been made in understanding and using control systems to leverage strategic knowledge from one point in the organisation to others (Ferner, 2000;Canonico et al, 2012). This paper, grounded in the KBV, is situated within an MNE using human resource management (HRM) practices to control the leveraging of explicit subsidiary knowledge through the firms' ICT system.…”