IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/indcch/v32y2023i6p1352-1371..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Internal versus external knowledge sourcing of organizational rules: an exploratory study of CPGs in a healthcare organization

Author

Listed:
  • Kejia Zhu
  • Martin Schulz

Abstract

In this study, we examine how organizational rules source knowledge. By knowledge sourcing of a rule, we mean the formation of reference ties from the rule to knowledge sources located outside of the focal rule. Rules can source knowledge from sources within the organization (e.g., other rules) and outside (e.g., research publications, policies, standards, etc.). Our theoretical model proposes that knowledge sourcing of rules is driven by inherent incompleteness of rules as a result of bounded rationality of rule makers and rule making process. Incomplete rules can lead to experiences of insufficient rule knowledge, termed “knowledge gaps,” which are shaped by rule dynamics at the levels of individual rules, the rule system, and rule networks. Our theoretical model leads to several hypotheses that we test with longitudinal archival data of clinical practice guideline (CPG) changes in a Canadian healthcare organization. The findings support our theoretical model of incomplete organizational rules which encounter knowledge gaps and close them through internal and external knowledge sourcing. The theoretical and practical implications of the findings are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Kejia Zhu & Martin Schulz, 2023. "Internal versus external knowledge sourcing of organizational rules: an exploratory study of CPGs in a healthcare organization," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 32(6), pages 1352-1371.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:indcch:v:32:y:2023:i:6:p:1352-1371.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/icc/dtad055
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    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:oup:indcch:v:32:y:2023:i:6:p:1352-1371.. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/icc .

    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.