IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/halshs-00581218.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Contrôle et production de connaissance - Le cas des entreprises mondialisées

Author

Listed:
  • Olivier de Lavillarmois

    (UMR CNRS 8179 - Université de Lille, Sciences et Technologies - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • F. Firmanzah

    (CREG - Centre de recherche et d'études en gestion - UPPA - Université de Pau et des Pays de l'Adour)

  • Christophe Benavent

    (CREG - Centre de recherche et d'études en gestion - UPPA - Université de Pau et des Pays de l'Adour)

Abstract

Compte tenu de l'ampleur des investissements réalisés par les entreprises pour se développer à l'international, les modes de contrôle de ces opérations sont critiques. Toutefois, quels mécanismes utiliser pour ne pas annihiler tout effort d'adaptation aux marchés locaux ? Cette question n'est pas sans rappeler le dilemme intégration / différenciation mis en évidence par Lawrence et Lorsch. La grille de lecture des interactions contrôle / apprentissage organisationnel a été mobilisée pour répondre à cette question. Notre revue de la littérature nous conduira à proposer une grille d'analyse fondée sur deux critères : la phase du processus d'apprentissage (production et mobilisation de connaissances) et sa localisation (locale ou globale). Ainsi, quatre configurations sont distinguées : les systèmes de contrôle peuvent induire des apprentissages locaux ou globaux qui seront mobilisés localement ou globalement. Une proposition est formulée, c'est la combinaison de ces quatre types de mécanismes qui permet à l'entreprise mondialisée de dépasser le dilemme intégration / différenciation. La pertinence de cette grille sera testée au moyen d'études de cas de filiales d'entreprises mondialisées implantées en Indonésie.

Suggested Citation

  • Olivier de Lavillarmois & F. Firmanzah & Christophe Benavent, 2005. "Contrôle et production de connaissance - Le cas des entreprises mondialisées," Post-Print halshs-00581218, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:halshs-00581218
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://shs.hal.science/halshs-00581218
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://shs.hal.science/halshs-00581218/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anne-Wil Harzing, 2000. "An Empirical Analysis and Extension of the Bartlett and Ghoshal Typology of Multinational Companies," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 31(1), pages 101-120, March.
    2. William G. Ouchi, 1979. "A Conceptual Framework for the Design of Organizational Control Mechanisms," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(9), pages 833-848, September.
    3. James G. March, 1991. "Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 71-87, February.
    4. George P. Huber, 1991. "Organizational Learning: The Contributing Processes and the Literatures," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 88-115, February.
    5. Hofstede, Geert, 1981. "Management control of public and not-for-profit activities," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 6(3), pages 193-211, July.
    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. Julien Batac & Olivier de La Villarmois, 2003. "Les Interactions Controle / Apprentissage Organisationnel : Proposition D'Une Grille D'Analyse," Post-Print halshs-00582732, HAL.
    2. Colakoglu, Saba & Yamao, Sachiko & Lepak, David P., 2014. "Knowledge creation capability in MNC subsidiaries: Examining the roles of global and local knowledge inflows and subsidiary knowledge stocks," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 91-101.
    3. Sylvie Héroux & Mélanie Roussy, 2020. "Three cases of compliance with governance regulation: an organizational learning perspective," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 24(2), pages 449-479, June.
    4. Andrea Francesconi & Enrico Guarini, 2017. "Performance-based funding e sistemi di allocazione delle risorse ai dipartimenti: prime evidenze nelle universit? italiane," MANAGEMENT CONTROL, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2017(1), pages 113-134.
    5. Nicolai J. Foss, 1996. "Firms, Incomplete Contracts and Organizational Learning," DRUID Working Papers 96-2, DRUID, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies.
    6. Eelke Wiersma, 2007. "Conditions That Shape the Learning Curve: Factors That Increase the Ability and Opportunity to Learn," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(12), pages 1903-1915, December.
    7. Sirén, Charlotta & Kohtamäki, Marko, 2016. "Stretching strategic learning to the limit: The interaction between strategic planning and learning," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 653-663.
    8. Schilling, Melissa A. & Green, Elad, 2011. "Recombinant search and breakthrough idea generation: An analysis of high impact papers in the social sciences," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(10), pages 1321-1331.
    9. Daniela P. Blettner & Zi-Lin He & Songcui Hu & Richard A. Bettis, 2015. "Adaptive aspirations and performance heterogeneity: Attention allocation among multiple reference points," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(7), pages 987-1005, July.
    10. Mohammadi, Ali & Broström, Anders & Franzoni, Chiara, 2015. "Work Force Composition and Innovation: How Diversity in Employees’ Ethnical and Disciplinary Backgrounds Facilitates Knowledge Re-combination," Working Paper Series in Economics and Institutions of Innovation 413, Royal Institute of Technology, CESIS - Centre of Excellence for Science and Innovation Studies.
    11. Lee, Ruby P. & Johnson, Jean L. & Grewal, Rajdeep, 2008. "Understanding the antecedents of collateral learning in new product alliances," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 192-200.
    12. Frank T. Rothaermel & Maria Tereza Alexandre, 2009. "Ambidexterity in Technology Sourcing: The Moderating Role of Absorptive Capacity," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 759-780, August.
    13. Adrian S. Choo & Kevin W. Linderman & Roger G. Schroeder, 2007. "Method and Psychological Effects on Learning Behaviors and Knowledge Creation in Quality Improvement Projects," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(3), pages 437-450, March.
    14. Henri C. Dekker & Alexandra Van den Abbeele, 2010. "Organizational Learning and Interfirm Control: The Effects of Partner Search and Prior Exchange Experiences," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(6), pages 1233-1250, December.
    15. Mickaël David & Frantz Rowe, 2015. "Enterprise Systems Contribution to Organizational Routines Evolution Potential [Le rôle des systèmes d’information d’entreprise dans l’évolutivité des routines organisationnelles]," Post-Print hal-01559512, HAL.
    16. Olivier de La Villarmois & Hubert Tondeur, 1999. "Une Analyse Des Finalités Des Systèmes De Contrôle," Post-Print halshs-00587790, HAL.
    17. Giannoccaro, Ilaria, 2015. "Adaptive supply chains in industrial districts: A complexity science approach focused on learning," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 170(PB), pages 576-589.
    18. Bart Leten & Rene Belderbos & Bart Van Looy, 2016. "Entry and Technological Performance in New Technology Domains: Technological Opportunities, Technology Competition and Technological Relatedness," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(8), pages 1257-1291, December.
    19. Bhatti, Waheed Akbar & Larimo, Jorma & Coudounaris, Dafnis N., 2016. "The effect of experiential learning on subsidiary knowledge and performance," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 1567-1571.
    20. Anu Wadhwa & Isabel Maria Bodas Freitas & M. B. Sarkar, 2017. "The Paradox of Openness and Value Protection Strategies: Effect of Extramural R&D on Innovative Performance," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(5), pages 873-896, October.

    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:halshs-00581218. 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.