IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ororsc/v23y2012i5p1467-1484.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Digital Science and Knowledge Boundaries in Complex Innovation

Author

Listed:
  • Deborah Dougherty

    (Department of Management and Global Business, Rutgers Business School, Rutgers University, Newark, New Jersey 07101)

  • Danielle D. Dunne

    (Schools of Business, Fordham University, New York, New York 10019)

Abstract

Drug discovery is a complex innovation process in which scientists need to make sense of ambiguous findings and grapple with numerous unpredictable interdependencies over many years of product development. Digitalization has combined with expanding science to address this complexity, creating new ways to measure, analyze, and model chemical compounds, diseases, and human biology. We interviewed 85 scientists and managers working on drug discovery to understand how they deal with complexity. We find a major knowledge fault line between digital scientists, who use computers as laboratories and manipulate signs, and therapy scientists, who use conventional laboratories and manipulate physical material. We build on research on epistemic cultures and knowing in practice to develop empirically grounded theory for the role of digital science in complex innovation. We propose that digitalization creates a new form of knowledge that provides essential complementary insights for complex innovation that cannot exist otherwise. However, digitalization also creates new knowledge boundaries that concern central activities of innovation. These boundaries highlight challenges of complex innovation that digital sciences can help address, but only if the innovation activities are transformed so that digital and therapy sciences can integrate their complementary knowledge.

Suggested Citation

  • Deborah Dougherty & Danielle D. Dunne, 2012. "Digital Science and Knowledge Boundaries in Complex Innovation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(5), pages 1467-1484, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:23:y:2012:i:5:p:1467-1484
    DOI: 10.1287/orsc.1110.0700
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0700
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/orsc.1110.0700?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. Mark Dodgson & David M. Gann & Ammon Salter, 2007. "“In Case of Fire, Please Use the Elevator”: Simulation Technology and Organization in Fire Engineering," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(5), pages 849-864, October.
    2. James G. March, 1991. "Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 71-87, February.
    3. Paul R. Carlile, 2004. "Transferring, Translating, and Transforming: An Integrative Framework for Managing Knowledge Across Boundaries," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(5), pages 555-568, October.
    4. Richard J. Boland & Kalle Lyytinen & Youngjin Yoo, 2007. "Wakes of Innovation in Project Networks: The Case of Digital 3-D Representations in Architecture, Engineering, and Construction," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(4), pages 631-647, August.
    5. Deborah Dougherty, 1992. "Interpretive Barriers to Successful Product Innovation in Large Firms," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 3(2), pages 179-202, May.
    6. Herbert A. Simon, 1996. "The Sciences of the Artificial, 3rd Edition," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262691914, December.
    7. Nightingale, Paul, 1998. "A cognitive model of innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(7), pages 689-709, November.
    8. Anna Grandori, 2010. "A rational heuristic model of economic decision making," Rationality and Society, , vol. 22(4), pages 477-504, November.
    9. 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.
    10. Wanda J. Orlikowski, 2002. "Knowing in Practice: Enacting a Collective Capability in Distributed Organizing," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(3), pages 249-273, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Pershina, Raissa & Soppe, Birthe & Thune, Taran Mari, 2019. "Bridging analog and digital expertise: Cross-domain collaboration and boundary-spanning tools in the creation of digital innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    2. Julia M. Kensbock & Christoph Stöckmann, 2021. "“Big brother is watching you”: surveillance via technology undermines employees’ learning and voice behavior during digital transformation," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 91(4), pages 565-594, May.
    3. Klein, Amarolinda & Sørensen, Carsten & Freitas, Angilberto Sabino de & Pedron, Cristiane Drebes & Elaluf-Calderwood, Silvia, 2020. "Understanding controversies in digital platform innovation processes: The Google Glass case," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    4. 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.
    5. Satish Nambisan, 2017. "Digital Entrepreneurship: Toward a Digital Technology Perspective of Entrepreneurship," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 41(6), pages 1029-1055, November.
    6. Ola Henfridsson & Youngjin Yoo, 2014. "The Liminality of Trajectory Shifts in Institutional Entrepreneurship," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(3), pages 932-950, June.
    7. Burström, Thommie & Wilson, Timothy L. & Wincent, Joakim, 2020. "Dynamics of after-sales managers’ strategizing work: What, why and how," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 119-131.
    8. Cheng, Cong & Wang, Limin, 2022. "How companies configure digital innovation attributes for business model innovation? A configurational view," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    9. Belitski, Maksim & Korosteleva, Julia & Piscitello, Lucia, 2023. "Digital affordances and entrepreneurial dynamics: New evidence from European regions," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    10. Xinfeng Chang & Jian Su & Zihe Yang, 2022. "The Effect of Digital Economy on Urban Green Transformation—An Empirical Study Based on the Yangtze River Delta City Cluster in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-19, October.
    11. Anne-Laure Fayard & Emmanouil Gkeredakis & Natalia Levina, 2016. "Framing Innovation Opportunities While Staying Committed to an Organizational Epistemic Stance," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 27(2), pages 302-323, June.
    12. Bhandari, Krishna Raj & Zámborský, Peter & Ranta, Mikko & Salo, Jari, 2023. "Digitalization, internationalization, and firm performance: A resource-orchestration perspective on new OLI advantages," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 32(4).
    13. Barbara Brenner, 2018. "Transformative Sustainable Business Models in the Light of the Digital Imperative—A Global Business Economics Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-25, November.
    14. Blandinieres, Florence, 2019. "Anatomy of the medical innovation process: What are the consequences of replicability issues on innovation?," ZEW Discussion Papers 19-011, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    15. Malin Sundström, 2019. "Climate of Data-driven Innovation Within E-business Retail Actors," FIIB Business Review, , vol. 8(2), pages 79-87, June.
    16. Verhoef, Peter C. & Broekhuizen, Thijs & Bart, Yakov & Bhattacharya, Abhi & Qi Dong, John & Fabian, Nicolai & Haenlein, Michael, 2021. "Digital transformation: A multidisciplinary reflection and research agenda," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 889-901.
    17. Cezar-Petre Simion & Cătălin-Alexandru Verdeș & Alexandra-Andreea Mironescu & Florin-Gabriel Anghel, 2023. "Digitalization in Energy Production, Distribution, and Consumption: A Systematic Literature Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(4), pages 1-30, February.
    18. Haeussler, Carolin & Assmus, Anne, 2021. "Bridging the gap between invention and innovation: Increasing success rates in publicly and industry-funded clinical trials," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(2).
    19. Hannes Rothe & Katharina Barbara Lauer & Callum Talbot-Cooper & Daniel Juan Sivizaca Conde, 2023. "Digital entrepreneurship from cellular data: How omics afford the emergence of a new wave of digital ventures in health," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 33(1), pages 1-17, December.
    20. Bongsug (Kevin) Chae, 2022. "Mapping the Evolution of Digital Business Research: A Bibliometric Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-13, June.
    21. Li, Shenxue & Clark, Timothy & Sillince, John, 2018. "Constructing a strategy on the creation of core competencies for African companies," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 204-213.
    22. Feng Guo & Yijun Li & Likoebe M. Maruping & Adi Masli, 2023. "Complementarity Between Investment in Information Technology (IT) and IT Human Resources: Implications for Different Types of Firm Innovation," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 34(3), pages 1259-1275, September.
    23. Norbert Kawęcki, 2021. "Organizowanie na rzecz innowacji w zdigitalizowanym świecie," Nowoczesne Systemy Zarządzania. Modern Management Systems, Military University of Technology, Faculty of Security, Logistics and Management, Institute of Organization and Management, issue 3, pages 81-92.
    24. Hilda Bø Lyng & Eric Christian Brun, 2020. "Innovating with Strangers; Managing Knowledge Barriers Across Distances in Cross-Industry Innovation," International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management (IJITM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(01), pages 1-33, February.

    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. Caccamo, Marta & Pittino, Daniel & Tell, Fredrik, 2023. "Boundary objects, knowledge integration, and innovation management: A systematic review of the literature," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    2. Caroline A. Bartel & Raghu Garud, 2009. "The Role of Narratives in Sustaining Organizational Innovation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(1), pages 107-117, February.
    3. Pier Vittorio Mannucci, 2017. "Drawing Snow White and Animating Buzz Lightyear: Technological Toolkit Characteristics and Creativity in Cross-Disciplinary Teams," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(4), pages 711-728, August.
    4. Luciana D’Adderio, 2014. "The Replication Dilemma Unravelled: How Organizations Enact Multiple Goals in Routine Transfer," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(5), pages 1325-1350, October.
    5. Ferguson, J.E. & Huysman, M.H., 2009. "Between ambition and approach: towards sustainable knowledge management in development organizations," Serie Research Memoranda 0003, VU University Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics, Business Administration and Econometrics.
    6. Cacciatori, Eugenia, 2008. "Memory objects in project environments: Storing, retrieving and adapting learning in project-based firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(9), pages 1591-1601, October.
    7. Hong, Jacky Fok Loi & Snell, Robin Stanley & Easterby-Smith, Mark, 2009. "Knowledge flow and boundary crossing at the periphery of a MNC," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 18(6), pages 539-554, December.
    8. Davide Nicolini & Jeanne Mengis & Jacky Swan, 2012. "Understanding the Role of Objects in Cross-Disciplinary Collaboration," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(3), pages 612-629, June.
    9. Natalia Levina, 2005. "Collaborating on Multiparty Information Systems Development Projects: A Collective Reflection-in-Action View," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 16(2), pages 109-130, June.
    10. Ceci, Federica & Prencipe, Andrea, 2013. "Does Distance Hinder Coordination? Identifying and Bridging Boundaries of Offshored Work," Journal of International Management, Elsevier, vol. 19(4), pages 324-332.
    11. Victor P. Seidel & Siobhán O’Mahony, 2014. "Managing the Repertoire: Stories, Metaphors, Prototypes, and Concept Coherence in Product Innovation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(3), pages 691-712, June.
    12. Linda Argote & Ella Miron-Spektor, 2011. "Organizational Learning: From Experience to Knowledge," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(5), pages 1123-1137, October.
    13. Marco Tortoriello & Ray Reagans & Bill McEvily, 2012. "Bridging the Knowledge Gap: The Influence of Strong Ties, Network Cohesion, and Network Range on the Transfer of Knowledge Between Organizational Units," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(4), pages 1024-1039, August.
    14. Maggie Chuoyan Dong & Yulin Fang & Detmar W. Straub, 2017. "The Impact of Institutional Distance on the Joint Performance of Collaborating Firms: The Role of Adaptive Interorganizational Systems," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 28(2), pages 309-331, June.
    15. Becker, Markus C. & Rullani, Francesco & Zirpoli, Francesco, 2021. "The role of digital artefacts in early stages of distributed innovation processes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(10).
    16. Deborah Dougherty & Danielle D. Dunne, 2011. "Organizing Ecologies of Complex Innovation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(5), pages 1214-1223, October.
    17. Torsten Ringberg & Markus Reihlen, 2008. "Towards a Socio‐Cognitive Approach to Knowledge Transfer," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(5), pages 912-935, July.
    18. Sung‐Choon Kang & Scott A. Snell, 2009. "Intellectual Capital Architectures and Ambidextrous Learning: A Framework for Human Resource Management," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(1), pages 65-92, January.
    19. Burgers, J. Henri & Jansen, Justin J.P. & Van den Bosch, Frans A.J. & Volberda, Henk W., 2009. "Structural differentiation and corporate venturing: The moderating role of formal and informal integration mechanisms," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 206-220, May.
    20. Johann Piet Hausberg & Peter S. H. Leeflang, 2019. "Absorbing Integration: Empirical Evidence On The Mediating Role Of Absorptive Capacity Between Functional-/Cross-Functional Integration And Innovation Performance," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 23(06), pages 1-37, August.

    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:23:y:2012:i:5:p:1467-1484. 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.