工商管理英文论文翻译.doc

外文资料翻译AbstractThis paper introduces the concept of knowledge networks toexplain why somebusiness units are able to benefit from knowledgeresiding in other parts of the company while others arenot. The core premise of this concept is that a proper understandingof effective interunit knowledge sharing in a multiunitfirm requires ajoint consideration of relatedness in knowledgecontent among business units and the network of lateral interunitrelations that enables task units to access related knowledge.Results from a study of 120 new product developmentprojects in 41 business units of a large multiunit electronicscompany showed that project teams obtained more existingknowledge from other units and completed their projects fasterto the extent that they had short interunit network paths to unitsthat possessedrelated knowledge. In contrast, neither networkconnections nor extent of related knowledge alone explainedthe amount of knowledge obtained and project completion time.The results also showed a contingent effect of having directinterunit relations in knowledge networks: While establisheddirect relations mitigated problems of transferring noncodifiedknowledge, they were harmful when the knowledge to be transferredwas codified, because they were less needed but stillinvolved maintenancecosts. These findings suggest that researchon knowledge transfers and synergies in multiunit firmsshould pursue new perspectives that combine the concepts ofnetwork connections and relatedness in knowledge content.Why are some business unitsable to benefit from knowledgeresiding in other parts of the company while othersare not? Both strategic management and organization theoryscholars have extensively researched this question,but differences in focus between the various approacheshave left us with an incomplete understanding of whatcauses knowledge sharing to occur and be beneficialacross business units in multiunit firms. In oneline ofresearch, scholars have focused on similarity in knowledgecontent among business units, arguing that a firmand its business units perform better tothe extent thatunits possess related competencies that can be used bymultiple units (e.g., Rumelt 1974, Markides and Williamson1994, Farjoun 1998). While this knowledge content viewhas demonstrated the importance of relatedness in skillbase, it does not shed much light on the integrative mechanismsthat would allow one business unit to obtainknowledge from another (Ramanujam and Varadarajan1989, Hill 1994). When sharing mechanisms are consideredin this research, it is often assumed that the corporatecenter is able to identify and realize synergies arisingfrom similarity in knowledge content among businessunits, but this assumption is typically not tested empiricallyand excludes a consideration of lateral interunit relations(Chandler 1994, Markides and Williamson 1994,Farjoun 1998).In other lines of research, in contrast, scholars havedemonstrated the importance of havinglateral linkagesamong organization subunits for effective knowledgesharing to occur. Researchhas shown that a subunitsinformation processing capacity is enhanced by lateralinterunit integration mechanisms (e.g., Galbraith 1973,1994;Egelhoff 1993; Gupta and Govindarajan 2000),product innovation knowledge flows more efficientlythrough established relationships spanning subunitboundaries (Tushman 1977, Ghoshal and Bartlett 1988,Nobel and Birkinshaw 1998,Hansen 1999), and bestpractices are transferred more easily when a positive existingrelationship exists between the two parties to atransfer (Szulanski 1996). These lines of research on linkageshave, however, not incorporated opportunities forknowledge sharing based on commonality in knowledgecontent among subunits, but has taken this aspect asgiven.Yet the existence of both related knowledge in thefirmi.e., expertise in the firms business units that canbe useful for tasks performed in a focal business unitand a set of established linkages among business unitsseems necessary for interunit knowledge sharing to occurand be effective. In this paper, I consider both dimensionsand develop theconcept of task-specific knowledge networks,which comprise not only those business units thathave related knowledge for a focal task unit, but also theestablished direct and indirect interunit relations connectingthis subset of business units. I define establishedinterunit relations as regularly occurring informal contactsbetween groups of people from different businessunits in a firm, and I assume thattask units will be abletouse these relations to search for and access knowledgeresiding in other business units.I make two main arguments. First, with respect to indirectrelations (i.e., connections throughintermediaries),I argue that task teams in focal business units with shortpath lengths in a knowledge network (i.e., few intermediariesare needed to connect with other units) are likelyto obtain more knowledge from other business units andperform better than those with long path lengths becauseof search benefits accruing to business units with shortpath lengths. Long path lengths, in contrast, lead to informationdistortion in the knowledge network, makingsearch for useful knowledge more difficult. Second, I arguethat a focal units direct established relations in aknowledge network are a two-edged sword: While theyprovide immediate access to other business units that possessrelated knowledge, they are also costly to maintain.They are, therefore, most effective when they help teamssolve difficult transferproblems, as when the knowledgeto be transferred is noncodified (Szulanski 1996,Hansen1999). Whenthere is no transfer problem, they are likelyto be harmful fortask-unit effectiveness because of theirmaintenance costs.This knowledge network model seeks to advance ourunderstanding of knowledge sharing in multiunit companiesin several ways. First, by integrating the conceptsof related knowledge and lateral network connections thatenable knowledge sharing, the model seeks to extend extantresearch that has addressed only one of these aspects.Second, while extant research on knowledge transferstends to focus on direct relations (i.e., the dyadic linkbetween a recipient and a source unit of knowledge), Ialso consider the larger organization context of indirectrelations, which are conduits for information about opportunitiesfor knowledge sharing (cf. Ghoshal and Bartlett1990). This approach enables a richer understanding ofsearch processes forknowledge use in multiunit firms.Third, while scholars often consider the positive effectsof network relations on knowledge sharing, I also considermaintenance costs of networks byincorporating thistime commitment in analyzing the impact of interunitnetworkrelations on knowledge-sharing effectiveness inmultiunit firms.Knowledge Networks in Multiunit FirmsThe joint consideration of related knowledge and lateralinterunit relations of a knowledge network is illustratedin Figure 1 for a new product development team, whichis the unit of analysis in this paper. Diagram 1a illustratesa network of relations among all business units in a firm,but does not partition these units into those that have relatedknowledge for the focal new product developmentteam, A (i.e., a pure network consideration). Diagram 1b,in contrast, partitions the business units in the firm intothose that have related knowledge for the focal productdevelopment team (A) and those that have not, but thereis no consideration of thenetwork among the units (i.e.,a pure related knowledge consideration). Diagram 1 illustratesa project-specific knowledge network: Businessunits are partitioned into those that have related knowledgefor the focal product development team (A), and thecomplete set of network ofrelations among them are included,including bothdirect and indirect relations (i.e.,intermediarylinks connecting the focal unit with othersin the knowledge network). Both the indirect and directrelations affect the extent to which a focal product developmentteam is able to obtain knowledge from otherbusiness units and use it to perform better.Effects of Indirect Relations in Knowledge NetworksA product development teams direct and indirect interunitrelations in its knowledge network affect the effectivenessof its search for useful knowledge by beingimportantconduits for information about opportunitiesthe existence, whereabouts, and relevance of substantiveknowledge residing in other business units. While businessunits in the network may not be able to pass onproduct-specific knowledge directly, as such knowledgeoften requires direct interaction with the source to beextracted,a focal team that hears about opportunitiesthrough the network can contact the source directly toobtain the knowledge. Sucknowledge,as defined here,includes product-specific technical know-how, knowledgeabout technologies and markets, as well as knowledgeembodied in existing solutions, such as already developedhardware and software.Although direct relations in the knowledge networkprovide immediate access and hence areespecially usefulfor a focal team inquiring about opportunities, indirectrelations are beneficialas well, because information aboutopportunities is likely to be passed on by intermediaryunits and eventually reach the focal team, provided thatbusiness units in the knowledge networkare reachable.1The idea that intermediaries pass on messages and thatthey help forge connections has been well supported incommunications and social network research. Studies investigatingthe “small-world” phenomenon demonstratedthat the path length (i.e., the minimum number of intermediaries)needed to connect two strangers from differentstates in theUnited Stateswas remarkably short and consistedof about five to seven intermediaries (Milgram1967, Kochen 1989, Watts 1999). Early work on innovationresearchshowed that new product developmentteams benefited from having a gatekeeper or boundaryspanner, that is, a person who scans and interprets theteams environment and then passes on information to therest of the tea (Allen 1977, Katz and Tushman 1979).In social network research, Granovetter (1973) showedthat intermediary persons who are weakly tied to a focalperson are uniquely placed to pass on information aboutnew job opportunities because they are more likely thanstrongly tied connections to possess nonredundant information.The common thread in these lines of work is thatindirect relations are pervasive conduits for information.Intermediaries help forge connections and pass on messagesthat bridge two otherwise disconnected actors.However, indirect interunit relations may not be perfectconduits of informationabout opportunities. As informationgets passed on across people from different units,there is likely to be some degree of imperfect transmissionof the message about opportunities for knowledgeuse. In particular, when information about opportunitieshas to be passed on through many intermediaries (i.e.,through long paths, cf.Freeman 1979), it is likely to becomedistorted (Bartlett 1932, March and Simon 1958).People who exchange such information are prone to misunderstandingeach other, forgetting details, failing tomention all that they know to others, filtering, or deliberatelywithholding aspects of what they know (Collinsand Guetzkow 1964Huberand Daft 1987, Gilovich1991). The distortion may be unintentional or deliberate(OReilly 1978). Huber (1982) relates a dramatic example,originally providedby Miller (1972), of a mistakemade during the Vietnam War. The chain of messageswas as follows: The order from headquarters to the brigadewas “on no occasion must hamlets be burned down,”the brigade radioed the battalion “do not burn down anyhamlets unless you are absolutely convinced that the VietCong are inthem;” the battalion radioed the infantry companyat the scene “if you think thereare any Viet Congin the hamlet, burn it down;” the company commanderorderedhis troops “burn down that hamlet.” Thus, themore intermediaries needed, the higher the chances ofsuch distortion, and hence the less precise is the informationthat is passed on (Miller 1972, Huber 1982).The implication of receiving imprecise information inthis context is that a project team cannot easily focus ona few opportunities that are especially relevant, but mustinstead check anumber of imprecise leads to verifywhether they are relevant for the team, resulting in a moreelaborate interunit search process that takes time. For example,a project manager in my study told me that he hadbeen told by a third party in the company about a groupof engineer in another unit who were supposed to havesome useful technical know-how, but when he was ableto reach them after trying for a while, it turned out thatthe know-how was not relevant for the project. Such fruitlesssearches not only take time, but also cause delays inthe project to the extent that the needed knowledge inputholds up the completion of other parts of he project.Because of the problem of information distortion whenrelying on intermediary units, a focal team is likely tobenefit from shortpath lengths in the knowledge network(i.e., few intermediaries required to connect a team in afocal unit with other units). Short path lengths enable theteam to know about precisely described opportunities involvingrelated knowledge and allowit to discard informationabout irrelevant opportunities. The team can thenfocus onopportunities with a high degree of realizationpotential and can quickly contact people in these unitsand begin working with them to extract and incorporatetheir knowledge into the focal project. Thus, less time isspent evaluating and pursuingopportunities, reducing effortsdevoted to problemistic search, including search effortsthat establish that no useful opportunities exist(Cyert and March 1992). Teamswith short path lengthsare thus more likely than teams with long path lengths tohear about more opportunities that overall yield more usefulknowledge, to the extent that opportunities are notredundant to one another. All else equal, this benefitshould reduce a focal teams time to complete the project.The arguments can besummarized in two hypotheses.HYPOTHESIS 1. The shorter a teams path lengths inthe knowledge network, the more knowledge obtainedfrom other business units by the team.HYPOTHESIS 2. The shorter a teams path lengths inthe knowledge network, the shorter th project completiontime.Effects of Direct Relations in Knowledge NetworksThe shortest possible path length is to have an establisheddirect relation to allother business units in a knowledgenetwork. Such a network position does not require anyintermediary units and should remove the informationdistortion caused by using intermediaries. However, unlikeindirect relations, which are maintained by intermediarybusiness units, direct interunit relations need to bemaintained by people in the focal business unit, possiblyincluding focal team members, and require their own setof activities that take time. In the company I studied, forexample, product developers spent time outside of theirprojects traveling to other business units on a regular basisto discuss technology developments, market opportunities,and their respective product development programs.Such interunit network maintenancecan be adistraction from completing specific project tasks: Timespent on maintaining direct contacts is time not spent oncompleting project-related tasks.Although direct interunit relations involve maintenancecosts, they also provide a benefit incertain situations:Established direct relations between a focal team andanotherbusiness unit may be helpful when the team identifiesknowledge that requires effort to be moved from thesource unit and incorporated into the project. For example,in a number of projects in my sample, team memberswere frequently able to obtain software code from engineersin other business units, but sometimes the engineerswho wrote the code needed to explain it and help the teamto incorporate the code into the new project. Receivingsuch help was often much easier when the team and theengineers providing the code knew each other beforehand.This likely positive aspect of direct relations needsto be compared with their maintenance costs.Direct relations are especially helpful when a team isexperiencing transfer difficultiesi.e., spending significanttime extracting, moving, and incorporating knowledgefrom other subunitsbecause the knowledge is noncodified,which is defined as knowledge that is difficultto adequately articulate in writing (Zander and Kogut1995, Hansen 1999). Relying on establisheddirect relationsmayease the difficulties of transferring noncodifiedknowledge, because the team and people in the directlytied unit have most likely worked with each other beforeand have thus established some heuristics for workingtogether, reducing the time ittakes to explainthe knowledgeand understand one another (Uzzi 1997, Hansen1999). When a focal team experiences significant transferdifficulties because of noncodified knowledge, having establisheddirect relations to related business units is likelyto reduce the amount of time spent transferring knowledge,which may offset the costs of maintaining such relationsand shortening project completion time. In particular,having a number of direct relations in a knowledgenetwork increases the likelihood that a team will be ableto use one of them in transferring noncodified knowledge.Thus, while indirect relations are beneficial to the extentthat they serve as intermediaries that provide a focal unitwith nonredundant information, direct relationsare beneficialto transferring noncodified knowledge, implyingthat the benefit of having intermediaries supplying nonredundantinformation is relative (cf. Burt 1992).In contrast, this transfer benefit of direct relations isless important when a foca