Organization Science
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


ORGANIZATION SCIENCE
Vol. 13, No. 3, May-June 2002, pp. 232-248
DOI: 10.1287/orsc.13.3.232.2771
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hansen, M. T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content

Knowledge Networks: Explaining Effective Knowledge Sharing in Multiunit Companies

Morten T. Hansen

Harvard Business School, Morgan Hall, Soldiers Field Park, Boston, Massachusetts 02163
mhansen{at}hbs.edu

This paper introduces the concept of knowledge networks to explain why some business units are able to benefit from knowledge residing in other parts of the company while others are not. The core premise of this concept is that a proper understanding of effective interunit knowledge sharing in a multiunit firm requires a joint consideration of relatedness in knowledge content among business units and the network of lateral interunit relations that enables task units to access related knowledge. Results from a study of 120 new product development projects in 41 business units of a large multiunit electronics company showed that project teams obtained more existing knowledge from other units and completed their projects faster to the extent that they had short interunit network paths to units that possessed related knowledge. In contrast, neither network connections nor extent of related knowledge alone explained the amount of knowledge obtained and project completion time. The results also showed a contingent effect of having direct interunit relations in knowledge networks: While established direct relations mitigated problems of transferring noncodified knowledge, they were harmful when the knowledge to be transferred was codified, because they were less needed but still involved maintenance costs. These findings suggest that research on knowledge transfers and synergies in multiunit firms should pursue new perspectives that combine the concepts of network connections and relatedness in knowledge content.

Key Words: Knowledge Networks; Multiunit Firms; Organization Capabilities; Synergy; Knowledge Management



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Management ScienceHome page
B. Gokpinar, W. J. Hopp, and S. M. R. Iravani
The Impact of Misalignment of Organizational Structure and Product Architecture on Quality in Complex Product Development
Management Science, March 1, 2010; 56(3): 468 - 484.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Organization ScienceHome page
J. J. P. Jansen, M. P. Tempelaar, F. A. J. van den Bosch, and H. W. Volberda
Structural Differentiation and Ambidexterity: The Mediating Role of Integration Mechanisms
Organization Science, July 1, 2009; 20(4): 797 - 811.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Information Systems ResearchHome page
A. Tiwana
Governance-Knowledge Fit in Systems Development Projects
Information Systems Research, June 1, 2009; 20(2): 180 - 197.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Organization ScienceHome page
M. A. McFadyen, M. Semadeni, and A. A. Cannella Jr.
Value of Strong Ties to Disconnected Others: Examining Knowledge Creation in Biomedicine
Organization Science, May 1, 2009; 20(3): 552 - 564.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Information Systems ResearchHome page
G. C. Kane and M. Alavi
Casting the Net: A Multimodal Network Perspective on User-System Interactions
Information Systems Research, September 1, 2008; 19(3): 253 - 272.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Strategic OrganizationHome page
J. Bae and Jun Koo
Information loss, knowledge transfer cost and the value of social relations
Strategic Organization, August 1, 2008; 6(3): 227 - 258.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Journal of ManagementHome page
S. Raisch and J. Birkinshaw
Organizational Ambidexterity: Antecedents, Outcomes, and Moderators
Journal of Management, June 1, 2008; 34(3): 375 - 409.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Journal of ManagementHome page
S.-S. Wong, V. T. Ho, and Chay Hoon Lee
A Power Perspective to Interunit Knowledge Transfer: Linking Knowledge Attributes to Unit Power and the Transfer of Knowledge
Journal of Management, February 1, 2008; 34(1): 127 - 150.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Journal of Information ScienceHome page
A. Jashapara
Moving beyond tacit and explicit distinctions: a realist theory of organizational knowledge
Journal of Information Science, December 1, 2007; 33(6): 752 - 766.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Organization ScienceHome page
F. Murray and S. O'Mahony
Exploring the Foundations of Cumulative Innovation: Implications for Organization Science
Organization Science, November 1, 2007; 18(6): 1006 - 1021.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
J Public Adm Res TheoryHome page
A. Willem and M. Buelens
Knowledge Sharing in Public Sector Organizations: The Effect of Organizational Characteristics on Interdepartmental Knowledge Sharing
J. Public Adm. Res. Theory., October 1, 2007; 17(4): 581 - 606.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Information Systems ResearchHome page
N. Saraf, C. S. Langdon, and S. Gosain
IS Application Capabilities and Relational Value in Interfirm Partnerships
Information Systems Research, September 1, 2007; 18(3): 320 - 339.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Management ScienceHome page
M. A. Schilling and C. C. Phelps
Interfirm Collaboration Networks: The Impact of Large-Scale Network Structure on Firm Innovation
Management Science, July 1, 2007; 53(7): 1113 - 1126.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
OrganizationHome page
N. J. Foss
The Emerging Knowledge Governance Approach: Challenges and Characteristics
Organization, January 1, 2007; 14(1): 29 - 52.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Management LearningHome page
T. Mooradian, B. Renzl, and K. Matzler
Who Trusts? Personality, Trust and Knowledge Sharing
Management Learning, December 1, 2006; 37(4): 523 - 540.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Management ScienceHome page
J. J. P. Jansen, F. A. J. Van Den Bosch, and H. W. Volberda
Exploratory Innovation, Exploitative Innovation, and Performance: Effects of Organizational Antecedents and Environmental Moderators
Management Science, November 1, 2006; 52(11): 1661 - 1674.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Organization StudiesHome page
R.-L. Hsiao, S. D.-H. Tsai, and C.-F. Lee
The Problems of Embeddedness: Knowledge Transfer, Coordination and Reuse in Information Systems
Organization Studies, September 1, 2006; 27(9): 1289 - 1317.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Management ScienceHome page
M. R. Haas
Knowledge Gathering, Team Capabilities, and Project Performance in Challenging Work Environments
Management Science, August 1, 2006; 52(8): 1170 - 1184.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Strategic OrganizationHome page
R. M. Salomon
Spillovers to foreign market participants: assessing the impact of export strategies on innovative productivity
Strategic Organization, May 1, 2006; 4(2): 135 - 164.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Management ScienceHome page
M. E. Sosa, S. D. Eppinger, and C. M. Rowles
The Misalignment of Product Architecture and Organizational Structure in Complex Product Development
Management Science, December 1, 2004; 50(12): 1674 - 1689.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Management ScienceHome page
J. N. Cummings
Work Groups, Structural Diversity, and Knowledge Sharing in a Global Organization
Management Science, March 1, 2004; 50(3): 352 - 364.
[Abstract] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2002 by INFORMS.