IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-01629696.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Making nothing or something: corporate Fab Labs seen through their objects as they cross organizational boundaries

Author

Listed:
  • Matthew Fuller

    (DRM - Dauphine Recherches en Management - Université Paris Dauphine-PSL - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Albert David

    (DRM - Dauphine Recherches en Management - Université Paris Dauphine-PSL - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

Abstract

As large firms pursue their quest to support NPD and fuzzy front-end activities within their organizations, some have recently opted to create "corporate Fab Labs". These spaces, which regroup an innovation-oriented community and provide any employee with a physical setting and open access to digital fabrication tools are also the birthplace of objects. A lingering and recurring question among practitioners and decision makers is: what do these objects represent? In terms of innovation, are they something, or nothing?This paper is an initial response to these reactions and develops a theoretical and empirical study of objects made in corporate Fab Labs. Building upon empirical data collected from a series of photos, we contribute a rudimentary tool for identifying the maturity of corporate Fab Labs as their objects cross three organizational knowledge boundaries: syntax, semantic, and pragmatic.

Suggested Citation

  • Matthew Fuller & Albert David, 2017. "Making nothing or something: corporate Fab Labs seen through their objects as they cross organizational boundaries," Post-Print hal-01629696, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-01629696
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-01629696
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.science/hal-01629696/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. von Hippel, Eric, 1976. "The dominant role of users in the scientific instrument innovation process," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 5(3), pages 212-239, July.
    2. Paul R. Carlile, 2002. "A Pragmatic View of Knowledge and Boundaries: Boundary Objects in New Product Development," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(4), pages 442-455, August.
    3. Filipe M. Santos & Kathleen M. Eisenhardt, 2005. "Organizational Boundaries and Theories of Organization," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(5), pages 491-508, October.
    4. Mochon, Daniel & Norton, Michael I. & Ariely, Dan, 2012. "Bolstering and restoring feelings of competence via the IKEA effect," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 363-369.
    5. Ikujiro Nonaka, 1994. "A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(1), pages 14-37, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Meinel, Martin & Eismann, Tobias T. & Baccarella, Christian V. & Fixson, Sebastian K. & Voigt, Kai-Ingo, 2020. "Does applying design thinking result in better new product concepts than a traditional innovation approach? An experimental comparison study," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 661-671.
    2. Carmelina Bevilacqua & Yapeng Ou & Pasquale Pizzimenti & Guglielmo Minervino, 2019. "New Public Institutional Forms and Social Innovation in Urban Governance: Insights from the “Mayor’s Office of New Urban Mechanics” (MONUM) in Boston," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-24, December.
    3. Paul R. Carlile & Eric S. Rebentisch, 2003. "Into the Black Box: The Knowledge Transformation Cycle," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(9), pages 1180-1195, September.
    4. Torugsa, Nuttaneeya (Ann) & O’Donohue, Wayne, 2016. "Progress in innovation and knowledge management research: From incremental to transformative innovation," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 1610-1614.
    5. Mark A. Phillips & Jagjit Singh Srai, 2018. "Exploring Emerging Ecosystem Boundaries: Defining ‘The Game’," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 22(08), pages 1-21, December.
    6. Smita Prashant Chattopadhyay & Madhuchhanda Das Aundhe, 2021. "Vendor boundary spanning in Indian Information Technology (IT) companies," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 38(3), pages 1139-1177, September.
    7. Chris Kimble, 2013. "Knowledge management, codification and tacit knowledge," Post-Print halshs-00826911, HAL.
    8. Sylvain Lenfle & Jonas Söderlund, 2019. "Large-Scale Innovative Projects as Temporary Trading Zones: Toward an Interlanguage Theory," Post-Print hal-02390158, HAL.
    9. Alaimo, Cristina & Kallinikos, Jannis, 2022. "Organizations decentered: data objects, technology and knowledge," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 112470, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    10. Gülru F. Özkan-Seely & Cheryl Gaimon & Stylianos Kavadias, 2015. "Dynamic Knowledge Transfer and Knowledge Development for Product and Process Design Teams," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 17(2), pages 177-190, May.
    11. Meyer, Marc H. & Marion, Tucker J., 2013. "Preserving the integrity of knowledge and information in R&D," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 56(1), pages 51-61.
    12. Mahka Moeen & Rajshree Agarwal & Sonali K. Shah, 2020. "Building Industries by Building Knowledge: Uncertainty Reduction over Industry Milestones," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(3), pages 218-244, September.
    13. Youngjin Yoo & Richard J. Boland & Kalle Lyytinen & Ann Majchrzak, 2012. "Organizing for Innovation in the Digitized World," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(5), pages 1398-1408, October.
    14. Geiger, Susi & Finch, John, 2016. "Making incremental innovation tradable in industrial service settings," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(7), pages 2463-2470.
    15. ZHU Chen & MOTOHASHI Kazuyuki, 2024. "The Fundraising of AI Startups: Evidence from web data," Discussion papers 24021, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    16. Beth A. Bechky, 2003. "Sharing Meaning Across Occupational Communities: The Transformation of Understanding on a Production Floor," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(3), pages 312-330, June.
    17. Samer Faraj & Sirkka L. Jarvenpaa & Ann Majchrzak, 2011. "Knowledge Collaboration in Online Communities," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(5), pages 1224-1239, October.
    18. Ulrich Lichtenthaler & Eckhard Lichtenthaler, 2009. "A Capability‐Based Framework for Open Innovation: Complementing Absorptive Capacity," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(8), pages 1315-1338, December.
    19. Omid Omidvar & Roman Kislov, 2016. "R&D Consortia As Boundary Organisations: Misalignment And Asymmetry Of Boundary Management," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(02), pages 1-24, February.
    20. Forrest Briscoe, 2007. "From Iron Cage to Iron Shield? How Bureaucracy Enables Temporal Flexibility for Professional Service Workers," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(2), pages 297-314, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Organisational boundaries; corporate Fab Labs; open innovation;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-01629696. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.