IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ororsc/v13y2002i3p303-320.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Islands of Shared Knowledge: Specialization and Mutual Understanding in Problem-Solving Teams

Author

Listed:
  • Steven Postrel

    (Edwin L. Cox School of Business, Southern Methodist University, P.O. Box 750333, Dallas, Texas 75275)

Abstract

Where should the boundaries of knowledge between economic actors be located in order to maximize the efficiency of their interactions? In particular, what circumstances determine whether it makes sense for adjacent stages in the value chain to invest in the development of common understanding, and when does it make sense for them to operate in mutual ignorance? To address these questions, it is necessary to construct a kind of production function which takes different forms of knowledge— specialist capability and trans-specialist understanding —as inputs and relates them to problem-solving output.Using a simple model of product design as a template, it is possible to derive such a production function. One can then use its properties in conjunction with plausible assumptions about the cost of acquiring different kinds of knowledge to develop general principles that explain when efficiency requires costly learning across specialties and when it is better to allow specialties to operate in mutual ignorance of one another's domains. The derived production function, contrary to some intuition and previous literature, implies that specialist capability can substitute for knowledge shared across specialties. This result in turn implies that the nature of learning costs, rather than the shape of knowledge benefits, plays the predominant role in determining when mutual ignorance is a good idea.The analysis also helps resolve the following paradox: The economy depends for its efficiency upon a drastic separation of knowledge across individuals and organizational units, yet studies of product development find that greater knowledge commonality is associated with better firm performance. An implication of the substitutability of specialized and trans-specialty knowledge is that situations where learning across specialties is desirable seem relatively rare in the economy as a whole. These situations are disproportionately common, however, in those areas where important managerial activity takes place. A key role of management is to attend to the strategic, operational, and governance needs of these “islands of shared knowledge in a sea of mutual ignorance.”

Suggested Citation

  • Steven Postrel, 2002. "Islands of Shared Knowledge: Specialization and Mutual Understanding in Problem-Solving Teams," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(3), pages 303-320, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:13:y:2002:i:3:p:303-320
    DOI: 10.1287/orsc.13.3.303.2773
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.3.303.2773
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/orsc.13.3.303.2773?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alchian, Armen A & Demsetz, Harold, 1972. "Production , Information Costs, and Economic Organization," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 62(5), pages 777-795, December.
    2. Gary S. Becker & Kevin M. Murphy, 1994. "The Division of Labor, Coordination Costs, and Knowledge," NBER Chapters, in: Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis with Special Reference to Education, Third Edition, pages 299-322, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Henderson, Rebecca., 1994. "The evolution of integrative capability : innovation in cardiovascular drug discovery," Working papers 3711-94., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    4. Liebeskind, Julia Porter, 1997. "Keeping Organizational Secrets: Protective Institutional Mechanisms and Their Costs," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 6(3), pages 623-663, September.
    5. Iansiti, Marco, 1995. "Technology integration: Managing technological evolution in a complex environment," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(4), pages 521-542, July.
    6. Demsetz, Harold, 1988. "The Theory of the Firm Revisited," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 4(1), pages 141-161, Spring.
    7. Kazuhiro Mishina, 1999. "Learning by New Experiences: Revisiting the Flying Fortress Learning Curve," NBER Chapters, in: Learning by Doing in Markets, Firms, and Countries, pages 145-184, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Eric von Hippel, 1994. ""Sticky Information" and the Locus of Problem Solving: Implications for Innovation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 40(4), pages 429-439, April.
    9. von Hippel, Eric, 1990. "Task partitioning: An innovation process variable," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 19(5), pages 407-418, October.
    10. Udo Zander & Bruce Kogut, 1995. "Knowledge and the Speed of the Transfer and Imitation of Organizational Capabilities: An Empirical Test," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 6(1), pages 76-92, February.
    11. David G. Hoopes & Steven Postrel, 1999. "Shared knowledge, “glitches,” and product development performance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(9), pages 837-865, September.
    12. Bruce Kogut & Udo Zander, 1996. "What Firms Do? Coordination, Identity, and Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 7(5), pages 502-518, October.
    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. John Seely Brown & Paul Duguid, 2001. "Knowledge and Organization: A Social-Practice Perspective," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(2), pages 198-213, April.
    2. Margit Osterloh & Bruno S. Frey, 2000. "Motivation, Knowledge Transfer, and Organizational Forms," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 11(5), pages 538-550, October.
    3. Andrew King, 1999. "Retrieving and Transferring Embodied Data: Implications for the Management of Interdependence Within Organizations," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 45(7), pages 918-935, July.
    4. Samina Karim & Aseem Kaul, 2015. "Structural Recombination and Innovation: Unlocking Intraorganizational Knowledge Synergy Through Structural Change," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(2), pages 439-455, April.
    5. Soufiane Mezzourh & Walid A Nakara, 2009. "Governance and innovation : A Knowledge-based approach [La gouvernance de l'innovation : une approche par la connaissance]," Post-Print halshs-01955966, HAL.
    6. Phanish Puranam & Harbir Singh & Saikat Chaudhuri, 2009. "Integrating Acquired Capabilities: When Structural Integration Is (Un)necessary," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(2), pages 313-328, April.
    7. Mahoney, Joseph T. & McNally, Regina C., 2004. "Explaining and Predicting the Choice of Organizational Form: Integrating Performance Ambiguity and Asset Specificity Effects," Working Papers 04-0109, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, College of Business.
    8. Der-Fang Hung, 2015. "Sustained Competitive Advantage and Organizational Inertia: The Cost Perspective of Knowledge Management," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 6(4), pages 769-789, December.
    9. Paul Walker, 2010. "The (Non)Theory Of The Knowledge Firm," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 57(1), pages 1-32, February.
    10. John C. Butler & Jovan Grahovac, 2012. "Learning, Imitation, and the Use of Knowledge: A Comparison of Markets, Hierarchies, and Teams," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(5), pages 1249-1263, October.
    11. Kannan Srikanth & Phanish Puranam, 2014. "The Firm as a Coordination System: Evidence from Software Services Offshoring," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(4), pages 1253-1271, August.
    12. Jeffrey T. Macher, 2006. "Technological Development and the Boundaries of the Firm: A Knowledge-Based Examination in Semiconductor Manufacturing," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(6), pages 826-843, June.
    13. Filipe M. Santos & Kathleen M. Eisenhardt, 2005. "Organizational Boundaries and Theories of Organization," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(5), pages 491-508, October.
    14. Jain, Amit, 2011. "Connaissance, ressources, concurrence et les frontières de l'entreprise," Economics Thesis from University Paris Dauphine, Paris Dauphine University, number 123456789/6403 edited by Thiétart, Raymond-Alain.
    15. Wanda J. Orlikowski, 2002. "Knowing in Practice: Enacting a Collective Capability in Distributed Organizing," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(3), pages 249-273, June.
    16. Nicholas S. Argyres & Teppo Felin & Nicolai Foss & Todd Zenger, 2012. "Organizational Economics of Capability and Heterogeneity," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(5), pages 1213-1226, October.
    17. Melissa A. Schilling & H. Kevin Steensma, 2002. "Disentangling the Theories of Firm Boundaries: A Path Model and Empirical Test," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(4), pages 387-401, August.
    18. Tobias Kretschmer & Phanish Puranam, 2008. "Integration Through Incentives Within Differentiated Organizations," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(6), pages 860-875, December.
    19. A. Willem & M. Buelens, 2003. "Making Competencies Cross Business Unit Boundaries: The Interplay between Inter-Unit Coordination, Trust and Knowledge Transferability," Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium 03/176, Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.
    20. Meier, Stephan & Stephenson, Matthew, 2015. "Culture of Trust and Division of Labor," IZA Discussion Papers 8974, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).

    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:inm:ororsc:v:13:y:2002:i:3:p:303-320. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.