Knowledge and Learning in Professional Service Firms

Abstract

It is difficult to understand the form, management, markets, and ultimately the services produced by PSFs without analysis of the characteristics of knowledge and learning in such organizations. This chapter highlights how three fundamental lines of research about PSFs are intimately related to the key characteristics of knowledge and learning in such organizations: (a) organizational form, management, and governance, (b) the roles and effects of knowledge networking via databases versus knowing in practice through communities, and (c) the jurisdiction of a firm and claims about exclusive rights over a market. These areas of research are all contested domains in terms of optimum modes of organizing and trajectories of change due to the ambiguous and heterogeneous nature of knowledge. The chapter frames key future research questions which relate primarily to the constant dynamics that define both the nature of knowledge in PSFs, and their influence on questions of organization and management.

Perspectives from mainland China, Hong Kong and the UK on the development of China’s auditing firms: implications and a research agenda

“…So future research will need to explore how international firms, that may in future be increasingly dominated by constituents that come from China's 'control' culture and remain closely regulated by CICPA, MoF, and CSRC, may thereby undergo new changes in the relationships between their linked ecologiestheir clients, competitors, national regulators, professional bodies, international standard setters, universities and other actors in a variety of international arenasas compared to how those have been reshaped globally over recent years (cf. Cooper and Robson 2006, Suddaby et al 2007, Gillis et al 2014, Samsonova-Taddei and Humphrey 2014, 2015. Noting in 2011 that the then (Australian) chairman of KPMG International was based in Hong Kong, and that the mainland Chinese firm of KPMG Huazhen would (following localisation) in future be headed by a Chinese CPA, our senior interviewee there commented that:…”

The interplay between organizational capabilities and individual skills : Studies of technical and engineering consulting firms

“…The concept of knowledge includes expertise and know-how in addition to the knowledge that firms and individuals develop about their clients over time. The combination of these two types of knowledge leads to the co-production of knowledge with the clients (Faulconbridge, 2015;Fincham, 2006). The third characteristic, governance, focuses on the fact that professionals within PSFs require extensive levels of individual autonomy, which is linked to low levels of managerial authority and intervention.…”

“…The authors argue that prior research concerning knowledge management in non-partnership PSFs, such as public or private corporations, has been scarce. Faulconbridge (2015) argues that in order to understand how PSFs are organized and managed, there is a need to analyze the characteristics of knowledge and learning in PSFs. The author claims that three questions are relevant to ask in order to discern the nature of knowledge and learning in PSFs: (i) what form does knowledge take in PSFs?…”

“…and (iii) how can PSFs generate the conditions for new expertise to emerge? (Faulconbridge, 2015: 428) The first question requires that attention be paid to the relationship between data, information, and knowledge in order to gain a deeper understanding of how knowledge might exist and be developed within PSFs (Faulconbridge, 2015). In other words, the distinction between "know what" and "know how" is relevant in answering the first question.…”

“…In other words, the distinction between "know what" and "know how" is relevant in answering the first question. "Know what" is related to the knowledge that graduates bring to the PSF through their accredited qualifications, while "know how" concerns the knowledge that the professional has accrued through experience of working with the production and delivery of services and can be likened to expertise (Faulconbridge, 2015). This distinction corresponds strongly with the distinction between explicit and tacit knowledge (Tywoniak, 2007).…”