Download Thesis

ESST
The European Inter-University
Association on Society, Science and
Technology
Enhancing A Knowledge Strategy Through Informal
Arrangements
Christopher McCart
First University: LINKÖPINGS UNIVERSITET
Second University: LINKÖPINGS UNIVERSITET
Science Technology and Society/Systems of Innovation
2003
Word count: 16,019
LINKÖPINGS UNIVERSITET
ABSTRACT
ENHANCING A KNOWLEDGE
STRATEGY THROUGH
INFORMAL ARRANGEMENTS
By Christopher McCart
Chairperson of the Supervisory Committee: Professor Leif Hommen
Department of Tema T
Information Communication Technologies (ICT) have made the codification of
knowledge faster, cheaper and easier. This has led to a situation where it is
simple to transmit and distribute information, however, it is more difficult to
make sense and use this information. A firm in today’s technological society
must face the challenge of spreading the relevant knowledge in order to ensure
innovation and productivity. While the use of ICT may enhance a firm’s ability
to spread information, other strategies must be in place in order to comprehend
and actually use knowledge. A framework that allows companies to ‘manage’
their knowledge has become increasingly important in today’s economic
environment. This framework is often dominated by informal arrangements.
These informal practices that are ubiquitous serve to enhance a firm’s transfer of
knowledge. By understanding the culture, management style, and community, it
is clear that a firm can promote its informal arrangements in order to promote a
functioning knowledge strategy. The use of knowledge enablers/gatekeepers
serves as a valuable asset to the firm’s informal knowledge arrangements. This
study proposes that informal arrangements make up much of the knowledge
strategy in a firm. It analyzes the informal arrangements of a telecommunications
firm in Sweden. This firm is a producer of value added services and therefore is
very dependent on the knowledge that it currently holds, as well as the knowledge
that it creates. Due to this dependency, the company relies on a framework that
is conducive to the spread of knowledge.
The firm’s community has become
the most practical way to spread knowledge; this community must be promoted
in order to gain competitive advantages over other firms.
The CEO has
established himself a person who has a complete perspective of the firm and uses
this perspective to informally travel from department to department and person
to person, spreading relevant knowledge and information. His approach also
creates a flat hierarchal management structure because most employees feel
comfortable going directly to him for any reason. The method that was used for
this study was single case study. Text analysis and interviews were the main
sources of data. Systems of innovation approaches, knowledge management, and
communities of practice, were used as the theoretical framework. A theory was
presented and then tested with empirical data.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction………..…………………………………………………1
1.2 Relevance of the Study……………………….………………………..3
1.3 Empirical Background…..……………………………………………..4
1.4 Theoretical Background….……………………………………………4
1.5 Objectives…………………………………………….……………….5
1.6 Research Questions……………………………………...……………..5
CHAPTER 2: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
2.1 Systems of Innovation Approach………………………………………5
2.1.1 What is the Systems of Innovation?...............................................................6
2.2 Knowledge………………………………………………….………….8
2.2.1 Knowledge Within the Systems of Innovation………….……………..10
2.3.Knowledge and the Firm………….…………………………….………15
2.3.1 Knowledge Structure Within the Firm……………………………...….18
2.3.2 A Firm’s Learning Environment………………………………...……..20
2.4 The Importance of Culture Within a Firm………………………....…….21
2.5 Learning and the Firm……………………………………………..……23
2.6 Knowledge Gatekeepers/Enablers……………………….……...………26
2.7 Point of Departure………………………………………………...…….29
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH STRATEGY
3.1 Unit of Analysis…………………………………………………………31
3.2 Data Collection………………………………………………….………32
3.3 Analytical Technique…………………………………………….………34
3.4 Limitations……………………………………………………….……...35
CHAPTER 4 CASE STUDY OF TELIGENT AB
4.1 Company Profile………………………………………………………..36
4.1.1 History of Teligent……………………………………………………36
4.1.2 What are Value Added Services?.....................................................................38
4.1.3 Organization and Management Structure……………………………...39
4.1.4 Employees at Teligent………………………………………………...40
CHAPTER 5: ANALYSIS
5.1 Introduction………………………………………………………….…41
5.2 Do Informal Practices Promote Learning Within a Firm?.............................42
5.3 Does The Culture Of A Firm Influence The Learning Environment?........45
5.4 Does The Way A Firm Regards Knowledge Influence
The Firm’s ‘Knowledge Strategy’?.....................................................……..........….48
5.5 Do Individual Employees Act As ‘Knowledge Gate-Keepers’
By Informally Spreading Tacit As Well As Codified Knowledge
Throughout The Company?...........................................................................……51
CHAPTER 4: CONCLUSION
6.1 Informal Arrangements…………………………………………………54
6.2 Knowledge Creating Culture………………………………………….…55
6.3 Firm Trajectories to Innovation…………………………………………56
6.4 Findings at Teligent……………………………………………………...58
ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We are all products of the assistance we can accept I. A. Richards
The author wishes to thank first and foremost his wife Kristina. Without her
guidance and support throughout this process, none of it would have ever been
possible. Krissy and I have experienced a lot together in our four short years.
From traveling through South America to living in Mexico, it has been an
adventure around ever corner. The decision to return to home from Mexico led
to the opportunity to apply for the Ambassadorial Scholarship from the Rotary
Club. With the help of Krissy and her family, the dream to study in Scandinavia
for a year became a reality. We left job prospects and study opportunities and
headed off on another adventure. This was a chance for me to show Krissy an
area of the world that has been a part of my life for so long.
There are so many people who deserve gratification. The staff, students, and
lecturers at the University of Linköping made living in Sweden memorable.
While we would often find ourselves in the same room staring into a lit candle, it
was actually the warmth and friendship that really got us through those dark
Swedish days. The entire staff at Tema T was always friendly and willing to give
assistance. Most notable was Margaretta. She was very patient while helping me
learn Swedish, and she always offered a warm smile of encouragement. The
person who deserves many thanks is, of course, Leif. I often wonder how a
person can be so patient. Leif spent countless hours listening to my confusion
and guiding me onto the right path. Leif’s commitment to education is amazing.
Thank you for all of your help. Good luck at your new position in Lund. Erica
Johnsson must be mentioned in these acknowledgements. Her relaxed approach
to the subject was just what the STS program needs. She was always available to
iii
speak about the many cultural and educational issues that we were experiencing in
our short stint in Sweden. Erica is a valuable contribution to the academic world.
Thank you for your guidance. Good luck in Sweden, wish we were there.
iv
GLOSSARY
Knowledge Strategy: A set of variables that act in unison to spread information
and reinforce knowledge.
Informal Arrangements: Practices and procedures that are established without
the explicit arrangement of an organization. These often exist beyond the formal
structure of the organization.
v
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1
Introduction
This study investigates the informal arrangements of knowledge transfer within a
firm.
By studying the informal relationships, one can analyze how a firm
maintains competitiveness through innovation.
Often times, knowledge
transmission is accomplished with modern technologies such as Information
Communication Technologies (ICT), however, there is a tacit dimension to
learning that can not be transferred. For example, e-mail serves as a valuable tool
for transferring knowledge and information; however, it is not effective when the
knowledge is complex or tacit. This is where the importance of informal dialogue
and informal arrangements come into play. A firm must utilize this informal
means in order to develop a knowledge strategy that is conducive to learning and
thus innovation. The informal aspect must be realized and understood in order
for a firm to foster a ‘knowledge strategy’ or a learning environment that is
capable of innovation and growth. Knowledge is considered one of the most
important factors of production in the post cold war/post-industrialist
environment. It has become increasingly important to identify knowledge and
knowledge creation as endogenous variables to production and economic activity.
The role of knowledge is now becoming more widely accepted by scholars and
business leaders. This new predominance of knowledge in the economy has been
termed many things, however, the most notable term is documented by BengtÅke Lundvall (2002) is, ‘The Learning Economy’. It has become necessary for
individuals and firms to update their skills more often, as the economic
environment now changes more rapidly. Because of the rapid changes, the firm
must establish an environment that is conducive to learning. Learning and
understanding is a very important aspect to this, however, forgetting and being
able to adapt is also a very important necessity of many firms.
Firms are forced to compete at a global level. Liberal trade policies, Information
Communication Technologies (ICT), and factors of globalization have opened
doors to international competitors in every industry. The firm not only competes
with other firms in the region or nation it operates in, it also must realize
companies from abroad that are attempting to gain valuable market share.
Hence, firms must develop competitive advantages and maintain those
advantages over time. Joseph A. Schumpeter, a former Austrian Minister of
Finance and Harvard Business School professor, expressed the view, in his
classical work Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, that the essence of
capitalism is the process of “creative destruction”-the continuous cycle of tearing
down the old and less efficient product or service and replacing it with new, more
efficient ones.
Because of the increased competition, these occurrences of
creative destruction happen much faster than ever before. In order for a firm to
enhance its creative destruction and innovate faster than its competition, a
knowledge strategy must be implemented. It is often stated by firm leaders that
the knowledge the firm is already in possession of is the most important element
2
to a successful firm. It is then necessary to develop a plan that will promote such
knowledge strategies. In many instances, informal learning serves as a very
valuable asset to an efficient knowledge strategy.
1.2 Relevance of the Study
The rationale of this study is to analyze the informal acts occurring in a firm and
to examine how these acts affect the learning environment. This study also
attempts to isolate a firm as an actor within the “system of innovation.” The
majority of the study will be concentrated within a firm.
A major emphasis of
this study will be based on knowledge strategies of a firm and the informal
interaction between the various actors within the firm. The study will use the
systems of innovation approach, however, it will go beyond the basic elements of
systems of innovation by concentrating on the micro institutions of a firm. It is
an attempt to broaden the meaning and focus of the systems of innovation to
include such micro approaches.
It seems that the systems of innovation
approach has black boxed the internal operation of the firm. This study is an
attempt at opening this box up and investigating how the organization of the firm
enhances or hinders the institutions within the systems of innovation. “The most
important element in current innovation systems has to do with the learning
capability of individuals, organizations and regions. So far, the studies of national
systems of innovation have given too little emphasis to the sub-system related to
human resource development” (Lundvall, 1998). Therefore, understanding the
3
dynamics and the organization of knowledge creation and learning within the
firm is crucial and will be addressed by this study. A study such as this, within the
field of innovation systems, will be to broaden the analysis of economic
development in order to include a better understanding of the firm.
1.3 Empirical Background
The Telecommunications Industry has seen an increase in competitiveness in the
past ten years. This is an industry that requires constant innovation from a firm
for this firm to stay competitive. It is essential for a firm to establish a learning
environment in order to increase its success as a market player. A company that
has had to promote itself as a player in such a competitive industry has been
Teligent AB.
Teligent is a provider of ‘value-added services’ in the
Telecommunications industry. Its history has relied on a knowledge strategy that
has promoted learning and change in order to adapt to an ever, evolving market.
A loose formal structure has allowed the firm the flexibility to handle itself in the
ever changing Telecommunications Market. From this informal level, Teligent
has been able to increase its sales and expand regionally as well as globally.
1.4 Theoretical Background
The theoretical material involved in this study encompasses a broad range of
disciplines. Many of the theories towards knowledge creation and dispersion
come from the Systems of Innovation literature. However, there are also theories
from the fields of Knowledge Management, Organizational Learning, as well as
Sociology. The majority of the theoretical framework will be based on the
4
concepts of knowledge creation, informal learning, knowledge emphasis,
knowledge culture, employee empowerment, and knowledge enablers. It is from
these theoretical foundations that a knowledge strategy will be discussed. A
knowledge strategy is understood as an important aspect to the production and
diffusion of innovation.
1.5 Objectives
The objectives of this study are to…


Understand the informal arrangements involved in creating a
functioning ‘knowledge strategy’ that serves to create innovation
within a firm.
Understand how a firm coordinates its efforts in order to foster a
successful informal learning environment.
1.6 Research Questions




Do informal practices promote learning within a firm?
Does the culture of a firm influence the informal learning environment?
Does the way a firm treats knowledge and learning influence the firm’s
‘knowledge strategy’?
Do individual employees act as ‘knowledge gate-keepers’ by informally
spreading tacit as well as codified knowledge throughout the company?
CHAPTER 2: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
2.1 Systems of Innovation Approach
5
The systems of innovation treats the firm as an evolving and adapting agent. As
the firm adapts and changes to suit its surroundings, the other actors within the
system of innovation change as well. This co-evolution is the primary focus of
the systems of innovation. This approach allows a dynamic view of the forces
that are constantly interacting to promote or diffuse innovation. The Systems of
Innovation focuses on the interaction of all the agents in a nation. By placing the
firm as a major actor within the systems of innovation, we can hope to
understand how the firm interacts with other agents. It is essential to understand
how this firm operates within this system and what micro relationships exist
within the firm.
2.1.1 What is a “Systems of Innovation?”
The systems of innovation is not a theory. In fact, it is a concept that has its
historical origin with evolutionary economics. According to Castellacci (2003),
evolutionary theories had certain characteristics. Mainly, a focus on learning,
gradual change, and heterogeneous agents based on population thinking. Chris
Freeman first introduced the term in the early 1990’s. In the past thirteen years,
systems of innovation approaches have extended into many disciplines and
environments.
While learning is one of the most important elements to
economic growth, innovation, is at the center. The system uses history to
elaborate the differences between the systems of innovation of countries. It also
puts a strong emphasis on the interdependence of the actors and puts these
6
actors at the center of analysis. Unlike the linear innovation model, the systems
of innovation model stresses complexity. This complexity can be understood and
processed through the systems of innovation.
Unlike traditional innovation
models, the systems of innovation includes product as well as process
innovations. This is important to mention because there is often a negative
reaction to the employment destroying innovations in the process of economic
activity. The systems of innovation is a new concept and idea, it therefore has a
long way to go before it can gain positive momentum in the Social Sciences.
There are often times various issues even within the systems of innovation that
still must be clarified. For example, the group in Denmark may believe that
knowledge is what should be focused on within the system of innovation
theoretical assumptions, and the group in Sweden may feel like regional
development and collaboration should be the focal point. This is why more time
is needed and more consensuses established before a solid theoretical basis can be
promoted. Information cited from (Edquist, 1997).
2.2 Knowledge
An exact definition of knowledge is difficult to provide. The typical textbook
definition of knowledge is: Familiarity, awareness, or understanding gained
through experience or study (The American Heritage Dictionary, 1983). While
this covers a broad approach for how the word is used today, it capitulates much
of what the term means. The meaning of knowledge is different from person to
7
person and culture to culture. It is from the early Greek philosophical teachings
that the term knowledge has its roots. Knowledge is very much experience based
and much of its acquisition is learning by doing (Petersen, Pedersen, and Sharma,
2001). Many times, knowledge is embedded in individuals and this knowledge
must be transferred from one individual or group to another. How this is
accomplished is a difficult dilemma for learner and the teacher. Knowledge
philosophers have distinguished between different types of knowledge. The
distinction between tacit and codified knowledge has been given great
significance since Nonaka and Takeuchi´s The Knowledge Creating Company (1995)
was published, but was originally conceived by the earlier work of Michael
Polanyi (Gertler, 2003). Tacit knowledge is embedded in an individual or group
and can not be easily explained or transferred because it depends on ´the
observance of a set of rules which are not known as such to the person following
them` (Polanyi, 1958, page 49, Quoted from Gertler, 2003). An example of a
skilled swimmer has often been used to explain tacit knowledge, but extreme
skiing serves as a much better example. The experienced extreme skier not only
knows the basic skills that are required to complete a set of successful kick turns
down a steep face, but is also unconsciously aware of the characteristics of the
snow, the pitch of the mountain, and the timing of the landing after a 30 foot cliff
has been launched. When asked to explain all of these variables to a novice skier,
the extreme skier must first attempt to ´develop their own awareness of all of the
key components of success´ (Gertler, 2003). It is often the case that this full
8
awareness is never completely accomplished and the skier is unable to explain
how it is done. Often, learning by observing, by practice, or by doing is the only
way to transfer such knowledge (Polanyi, 1966; Nonaka, 1991; Maskell and
Malmberg 1999; Quoted from Gerler, 2003). Cognitively, tacit knowledge is
beyond conscious expression, yet it influences behavior. Polanyi was the first to
state that tacit knowledge is context-dependent and common rules, as well as
shared values, between the people involved with the transmission of such
knowledge, are important. To understand what he meant by this, it is useful to
analyze Etienne Wenger’s (1999) work on communities of practice. Wenger
states that the social practice is of extreme importance when dealing with the
transfer of knowledge. It is important for the explicit transfer of knowledge as
well as the tacit transfer of knowledge.
“It includes what is said and what is left unsaid;
what is represented and what is assumed. It
includes the language, tools, documents, images,
symbols, well-defined roles, specified criteria. It
also includes all the implicit relations, tacit
conventions, subtle cues, untold rules of thumb,
recognizable intuitions, specific perceptions, welltuned sensitivities, embodied understandings,
underlying assumptions, and shared world views.
Most of these may never be articulated, yet they
are unmistakable signs of membership in
communities of practice and are crucial to the
success of their enterprises” (Wenger, 1999).
It is through the shared trust and understanding created in the communities that
foster tacit knowledge transfer.
This mutual engagement that communities
9
provide is an ideal way to promote the sharing of the tacit dimension. There is a
meaning to the spread of tacit knowledge. If one does not understand the
meaning of certain things related to the spread of certain knowledge, it becomes
impossible for this knowledge to be spread.
For example, two people are
attempting to sell prescription drugs to the same doctor in the same
neighborhood. The new salesperson observes the competition walking out of a
doctor’s office laughing and carrying on a great rapport with the doctor. There is
a hidden meaning in this situation. The sale has already been made. If the new
salesperson fails to see this meaning and attempts to peddle prescription drugs to
the doctor, it will be counterproductive and a waste of resources. Hence there is
a constant process of negotiating meaning, which lies at the heart of knowledge
creation and transfer. As we are in the various situations in life, we are constantly
building our competencies and tacit knowledge by observing and placing meaning
on different things. It is through the, often unobservable, placement of meaning
that we develop our craft, whether your craft is working as a PhD student or
teaching at an inner city high school. It is realized that tacit knowledge and its
antonym codified knowledge are essential to the development of knowledge,
there is a social context of shared values, language, and (Gertler, 2003).
2.2.1 Knowledge Within the System of Innovation
Knowledge has always played a crucial role in developing material wealth. List
(1885) emphasized the importance of knowledge when he stated “the more
10
mental producers succeed in promoting morality, religion, enlightenment,
increase of knowledge, extension of liberty and of perfection of political
institutions-security of persons and property within the state, and the
independence and power of the nation externally-so much greater will be the
production of material wealth” (List, 1885). While knowledge has previously
been treated as an exogenous variable in the production function of neo-classical
economics, it has re-surfaced to become one of the most important aspects of an
economic system. The propensity to understand and comprehend knowledge
will ultimately lead to a well performing society, and this society will be more able
to extend itself in all areas.
The link between knowledge and economic
performance is also discussed by Bengt-Ǻke Lundvall and Susana Borrás (1997).
They state that today’s increasingly competitive/globalized markets depend on
the learning ability of individuals, firms, regions and countries (1997, page 13).
“Most advanced economies are encouraging their industries to make changes that
will enhance worker productivity. The changes include: the introduction of
competency-based standards for workers in work-based learning; experiential
learning; and recognition of prior learning demands from government, business
and trade unions for 'greater relevance' of formal tertiary education courses to
industry requirements” (Garrick, 2001).
Lundvall (1992) also explains that
knowledge is the most fundamental resource in the modern economy, and
accordingly, the most important process is learning. What must be emphasized is
the increased need for lifelong learning capabilities (Swedish Technology
11
Foresight, 2000).
“Information technology and globalization will force far-
reaching reforms in traditional production systems. They must be reformed in
ways that enable them to cope with rapid changes and to take advantage of
greater mobility and access to information” (Swedish Technology Foresight,
2000). The current business environment places an increased importance on
knowledge, learning, and knowledge acquisition. To ensure competitiveness,
actors must respond to market factors quickly and be able to adapt to the
dynamic process of changes.
“Human knowledge doubles every five
years”(Gausemeier, Fink, Schlake, 1998), thus demanding one to constantly learn
and adapt in order to have relevant employment in the information age.
“Information Communication Technologies (ICT) simultaneously make
redundant the routine information handling workers, while creating more
demand for non-routine information handling workers” (Martin, 1999). The
workplace has become more dynamic and multiple skill based. This causes the
need for workers to be agile and motivated to continually learn and strive.
Lundvall (1998) defines the term social capital as the production and efficient use
of intellectual capital and states that it is the most important aspect in the creation
of a vibrant economic system. Social capital needs to be developed and the
knowledge of such capital should be nurtured and spread. The development of a
solid knowledge base is one of the most important aspects to the foundation of
competitive advantage for a firm. The shift in science based production causes
competitive advantages to shift from natural resources to a high-qualified
12
workforce (Cooke, 2001). Hence, knowledge is vital in order to cope with the
increased demands in the economic system because there is an importance of
knowledge is at every level of the economic system.
National policies must be aimed at the creation and support of a well trained
labor force that is able to acquire new knowledge and sustain this knowledge
throughout time. As Edquist (1997) states, innovation policy should be aimed at
learning new things in new ways. The system of innovation approach is an ideal
way to promote a knowledge framework that will help build such knowledge
foundations. It provides a structure for which we can analyze the knowledge
infrastructure and compare this infrastructure to innovative capability.
“There might be an intimate relation between learning
theories and evolutionary theories in the sense that
learning is one mechanism through which diversity is
created. Learning might even be an element in the
processes of selection” (Edquist, 1997).
The systems of innovation approach is a perfect model for analyzing the
importance of knowledge creation and interactive learning. By setting up the
various actors and explaining these actors and the institutions between them, we
can use the system of innovation to gain a more complete perspective of
innovation. NIS is ideal for integrating the various processes involved with the
creation, management, and coordination of knowledge because of its wide range
of variables, and its non-linear perspective.
Smith (1997) states that the
knowledge infrastructure is the support system for innovation and that it serves
13
lots of users, is generic: basic knowledge, and is indivisible: complete sets of
systems. Therefore, we can see that policies supporting knowledge infrastructure
are ideal, and that they lead to the development of an innovative environment.
“The cohesion of any system thus appears to rest on two sets of infrastructure:
physical infrastructures, usually related to energy and communications, and sciencetechnology or knowledge infrastructures, such as universities, publicly supported
technical institutes, regulatory agencies, libraries and databanks, or even
government ministries” (Smith, 1997). Knowledge and learning lie at the center
of the NIS approach. The micro institutions of the firm are very important to
the cohesion of a system. While knowledge and learning greatly depend on the
macro framework of the NIS, the micro firm level knowledge and structure need
to be looked at.
A firm’s trajectories, cultures, organizations, routines,
communities, and knowledge flows are mutually dependent on the institutional
framework of the systems of innovation.
Not only do they influence one
another, they also compliment one another.
One should note, first of all, that the central actors of
Innovation Systems are private firms. This is not to
neglect the fundamental role played by other agents and
organizations in affecting innovative activities and in
setting rules of competition, as pointed out by both the
National Innovation Systems and Technological Systems
perspectives, but simply to accent the fact that
competition and selection processes involve firms with
different capabilities and innovative performances”
(Breschi and Malerba, 1997).
14
2.3 Knowledge and the Firm
It must be mentioned that there are a number of different concepts and theories
that exist when it comes to studying knowledge at the firm level. These theories
are by no means completely represented in this study; however, there are a
number of ideas that must be expressed. The various concepts included are,
knowledge structure, communities of practice, learning environment, culture, as
well as knowledge enablers or gatekeepers. The purpose of this section is to
evaluate some of these concepts and to see how such concepts affect the
evaluation of his study. By such an analysis, it becomes possible to clarify the
similarities and differences in order to apply these concepts and approaches to
this study of a firm.
A firm’s knowledge strategy process must be analyzed and understood before we
can attempt to understand how a firm organizes innovative activity.
“Organizations differ widely, but we have learned over time about some of the
factors which make for a more or less supporting context. These include the
structure of the organization, the roles played by key individuals, the training and
development of staff, the way in which work is organized (teamwork, projects,
etc.), the extent to which people are involved in innovation, and how the
organization itself goes about learning and sharing knowledge” (Tidd, Bessant,
Pavitt, 2001).
Dosi and Teece (1998) speak of the competencies of the firm.
15
They state that the properties of coordinating the learning routines of an
organization must be understood (Dosi and Teece, 1998). For example, I was
once working at United Parcel Service (UPS). At this job, there were a variety of
individuals who had the responsibility of establishing and maintaining “rules of
thumb,” as well as processes and techniques for doing the job more efficiently.
Once it was established that these people were the ones that coordinated learning
routines, the employees understood that these are the people to go to if there is a
problem in the learning process, or if they knew something that would make the
job easier and or productive. The efficiency of the firm is determined by its
ability to coordinate its learning capabilities. Firms need to concentrate on
internal knowledge structures because this will help them develop new capabilities
(Dosi and Teece, 1998). Often times, it is the firm, that develops and utilizes its
knowledge that is able to promote innovation. This, in turn, leads to economic
stimulation. There are a variety of ways a firm can manage its knowledge. Some
include learning by doing, organizational learning, learning based on external
associations, and learning based on directed internal processes such as research
and development. Knowledge coordination and distribution is an important
aspect of an efficiently running firm. “Knowledge coordination can be defined as
the design and use of organized and purposeful strategies to control knowledge
distribution and dissemination across organizations” (Correˆa da Silva and
Agustý´-Cullel, 2003).
It is vital that the firm understands its knowledge
coordination in order to promote its knowledge base. Interactive learning in the
16
internal organization of a firm determines the firm’s innovative capacity. The
internal organization of the firm determines the flow of information which is
usually codified and the learning processes of the firm promotes the non-codified
tacit knowledge. A proper knowledge structure must be established within the
firm in order to develop affective learning.
A firm may treat knowledge in different ways. If knowledge is regarded as a
resource that will benefit and actually grow when it is distributed, shared or made
accessible, then different organizational practices are likely (Styhre, 2002). The
essence of the firm is in its capacity to complete organizational coordination and
learning in complex environments (Dosi and Teece, 1998). While it is important
to organize a collaborative environment, firms can learn through experience,
repetition, trial and error, or learning by using (Arrow, 1962 Maskell et al, 1998,
Nelson and Winter, 1982, and von Hippel, 1988, cited in Feldman, 1998). The
knowledge base of the firm has a variety of characteristics that should be
understood in order to understand how knowledge is transmitted. Often times, a
firm has a variety of knowledge types and it must deal with each type differently.
For example, there is more of an emphasis on informal learning when the
knowledge is tacit, complex, or interdependent. Whereas, when the knowledge is
specific, codified, independent and simple, more of a formal strategy can be used.
It is due to this phenomenon that various knowledge strategies must be
17
developed in order to promote the efficient distribution and use of a firm’s
knowledge.
2.3.1 Knowledge Structure Within the Firm
Porter (2001) states that companies must innovate in order to maintain
competitive advantage. If a firm can develop new competencies, then it is more
likely to survive (Dosi and Teece, 1998). It is the constant improvement that sets
a firm ahead of its competitors and maintains its market share, whether this
market share is local or global. If a firm stops innovating and changing its
competencies, it will ultimately “run aground.” It seems like the only way a firm
can avoid falling prey is by increasing its competitive advantages. In most cases,
knowledge is a key advantage to a firm. “For instance, the widely accepted
assertion that industry and workplace reforms are required to compete
successfully in international markets links market economics and the skillformation requirements of the workforce. These links are meant to enable
companies to become more flexible, innovative and competitive” (Garrick, 2001).
It is also important to recognize the fact that purely introducing technology into
the system will not work unless there is drastic stimulation within the knowledge
strategy structure.
“Learning and knowledge are tied to people, and if the
people cannot keep pace, there is little point in having
access to advanced machinery or advanced computer
programs. Not least experience with the application of
information technology has shown that without employee
training and without organizational change, the use of
technology can lead to dramatic reductions in efficiency.
18
The need to stimulate investment in human resources and
organizational change at the firm level has become more
widely recognized” (Lundvall, Borrás, 1997).
Edquist (1997) also states that different kinds of actors and agents in the system
of innovation are involved in these learning processes, and that it is the everyday
experiences and activities of employees that matters. How a firm organizes its
knowledge structures can determine how it can cope with such a volatile global
market. “Factors that influence the coordination and learning capabilities of each
firm, shape their competencies” (Dosi and Teece, 1998:pg. 301). There are many
approaches to increasing the innovativeness of a firm.
“Structural elements include the human resource
dimensions-the quality, age, experience, flexibility, etc. of
the workforce, the way in which work is organized, the
ways in which the contribution of different functions is
coordinated, the communication patterns within the
factory and the overall command and control
infrastructure. Finally, the underlying culture-the set of
shared beliefs and the values, which shape the behavior of
people-represents a key element in the infrastructure”
(Tidd, Bessant, and Pavitt, 2001).
Knowledge is an ongoing and very much embedded process that can be
embraced for benefit, or stifled for detriment. It is the firm’s rationality in terms
of knowledge handling that will determine its modus operandi. If it bases its beliefs
on sharing and an abundance of knowledge flows, and it organizes itself as such,
then it will be in line with the knowledge-based economies’ ethical foundation,
which is founded on the ethics of sharing, an ethics of giving (Styhre, 2002). The
element of a successful firm is its ability to utilize its knowledge base and to
19
promote an environment that will lead to the growth of knowledge. A major
element in any learning organization is the discovery and sharing of new
knowledge (Tidd, Bessant, Pavitt, 2001). The need for knowledge is ubiquitous
throughout the firm, especially since much of the knowledge of today is technical.
2.3.2 A Firm’s Learning Environment
Technical knowledge requires understanding, especially when it comes to the
absorptive capacity of such technical know-how. A broad array of skills is
required in order for an economy to create the absorptive capacity necessary to
exploit technologies (Mowry and Oxley, 1997). It was assumed that within the
East Asian super-exporters that the education levels enabled them to rapidly
accumulate technical know-how. Pack (1992) argued that high education levels
were important for the four tigers in obtaining rapid growth in manufacturing.
“Methods of production that would have been technically infeasible became
viable because of the presence of highly educated managers and technicians”
(Pack, 1992). This proves that the knowledge infrastructure, of a nation as well as
a firm, is necessary for the absorption of new knowledge. Knowledge that would
save the world from abuses is useless if the organization receiving it does not
know how to comprehend it. A structure must be set up within the firm that
establishes a learning environment. These need to be recognized in a firm’s
approach to training and development. Not only does a firm need to spread the
essential codified knowledge, but it also needs to establish an environment that
can extend its tacit knowledge base.
Rainbird for one notes that in many
20
instances: the process of learning the skills required for a new job occurs
informally (Garrick, 2001). The cultural structure is a very important element to
creating an environment that will be suitable for absorptive capacities.
2.4 The Importance Of The Culture Within A Firm
The culture of the firm is a main element for promoting an innovative
environment. The firms' culture represents the process of the way things are
done. Corporate culture is the core factor, but it must also fit with organizational
structure, management of human resources, leadership style, and knowledge
strategy systems (Forcadell and Guadamillas, 2002).
“Since many process
innovations represent major changes in ‘the way we do things around here’ the
question of managing cultural change and overcoming resistance to innovation
needs to be addressed” (Tidd, Bessant, Pavitt, 2001). There is a human element
in the culture of a firm that cannot be ignored and is the determinant in effective
business performance and management of change (Handy, 1989). “To change an
organization’s culture, peoples’ values, norms and attitudes must be amended so
that they make the right contribution to the collective culture of the organization”
(Moffett, McAdam, and Parkinson, 2002). The right contribution is necessary
because too drastic of a shift can affect the organized behavior or the established
routines in very negative ways. Another aspect that must be understood is that
each firm requires a different set of cultural values. If a firm is dealing with
ambiguous situations that require a variety of insights, then there is a higher need
21
for flexibility (Tidd, Bessant, Pavitt, 2001). Thus, a culture, must be established
that enables each firm to operate within its knowledge demands. What must be
emphasized here is that each firm has a different environment that requires
specialization. “It is an artifact of what people believe and how they behave; if
there is a good fit, it will enable and reinforce innovative behavior. If it is
contradictory to these beliefs-for example, restricting communication, stressing
hierarchy-then it is likely to act as a brake on creativity and innovation” (Tidd,
Bessant, Pavitt, 2001).
If a firm’s culture is centered on learning, and its structure is such, that the actors
within the firm can transmit knowledge, then employees are more likely to feel
empowered to learn. It is important for a firm to establish an environment that is
capable of creating and renovating its knowledge in order to keep pace with
innovation.
“A knowledge-orientated culture challenges people to share
knowledge throughout the organization” (Davenport and Prusak, 1998). A firm
can promote and reinforce an environment that enables learning, and hence leads
to innovative capacities, through its cultural framework. How this is done is
going to be determined by the makeup and management style of each firm. What
must be remembered is that each firm has its own set of variables that must be
taken into account.
Establishing a “learning culture” is going to require a
different process and procedure to match the criteria. The management can
promote its firm as a learning establishment and develop cultural norms that
22
mitigate this cause. However, the establishment of a learning culture is not
enough. Firms must proactively regenerate the emphasis on learning and adapt
this emphasis through changing times. Another part of the establishment of the
firm as a learning organization is the fact that it must be ubiquitous. That is, the
culture of learning today must involve every single employee. An example of a
firm that has accomplished a learning culture is the Irizar company, a maker of
luxury coach bodywork. Forcadell and Guadamillas (2002) outline the success of
Irizar in their case study titled, The Implementation of A Knowledge
Management Strategy Oriented to Innovation. This is a company that has,
through its corporate cultural, been able to establish itself as the most efficient
company in the world in its sector. The authors explain that a culture has been
established at Irizar that is characterized by cooperation between groups,
employee involvement, active participation, trust in people, open communication
and information, as well as empowerment. “All work was to be organized in
multi-disciplinary teams, with wide autonomy and limited supervision” (Forcadell
and Guadamillas, 2002). The company then promoted a self evaluation criteria
that allowed the teams the opportunity to assess their own performance based on
a set of principles of a certain quality model.
2.5 Learning and the Firm
A learning environment ought to be established within a firm. It might also be
necessary to change existing practices in order to promote this learning
environment.
Knowledge strategies cannot take place effectively without
23
extensive behavioral, cultural and organizational change.
Bourdreau and
Couillard (1999) proposed the use of new organizational structures, designed
around teamwork, self-managed teams, and overlapping responsibilities to
facilitate knowledge sharing and development” (Carrillo and Anumba, 2002).
When a firm instills the importance of learning, then the ability to advance is
much greater. One of the major issues is employee empowerment. The culture
within the firm must put emphasis on employee abilities. “Companies can create
an impetus for innovation treating the employees as permanent in order to
stimulate upgrading of skills and productivity” (Porter 2001). By treating the
employees as permanent members, firm leaders can promote a structure of
empowerment and enthusiasm. This enthusiasm can in turn lead to goal-oriented
learning. By creating an environment such as this, the firm can create an impetus
of individual motivation to expand skills. The best situation is one that charts the
broad corporate strategies and establishes the broad corporate culture to “get the
balls rolling” on the right paths and then allow those closest to the customers and
to the rapidly changing marketplace manage those balls on their own (Friedman,
2000).
It is through learning that change and innovation can be fostered.
Training and development permits employees to take more responsibility and
initiative to accomplish jobs (Tidd, Bessant, Pavitt, 2001). How a firm organizes
its knowledge framework is an important part of how its culture influences the
behavior of its employees.
Ehn (1988) outlined the psychological job
requirements in the Norwegian version of the socio-technical approach. Listed
24
was the need for being able to learn on the job and go on learning, which implies
known and appropriate standards, and knowledge of results (Ehn, 1988). Since
employees are the most important actors, there must be an emphasis on
developing their knowledge base. A solid base will allow the individuals the
opportunity to utilize the various information required to build a stronger
knowledge structure. This will lead to an environment where the firm is able to
adapt and change in order to meet the demands of an ever advancing and
innovating global market.
People want to personally develop their abilities.
characteristic to strive for achievement and success.
It is a natural human
“A recent survey of
continuous improvement in the UK (essentially concerned with increasing levels
of participation in innovation) found that the opportunity for personal
development was ranked higher than financial motivators as a reward
mechanism” (Tidd, Bessant, Pavitt, 2001). Hence equipping people with skills
that enable them to succeed in an innovating world may be the most important
way to achieve success. Training and development is essential. It enables people
to take on more responsibility and demonstrate more initiative (Tidd, Bessant,
Pavitt, 2001).
Another aspect that many firms must deal with is the fact that their employees
may not know how to learn. Establishing the ability to learn is just as important
as the training programs themselves. By training the employees how to learn, the
25
organization will be promoting the discovery, and sharing of new knowledge in a
continued learning process (Tidd, Bessant, Pavitt, 2001). Once this is established,
the employees can benefit and pursue their own learning initiatives. They will
also be empowered to become more involved with the organization. As Tidd,
Bessant and Pavitt (2001) have discussed, innovation is about information, and
the success is associated with good information flow and communication. When
employees are used to learning, an environment to learn will naturally be
established. Moreover, these information links will be strengthened by formal
and informal knowledge links. The type of training and development must be
understood by realizing the differences in knowledge.
2.6 Knowledge Gatekeepers/Enablers
An element that has been gaining increasing importance within firms is the use of
key individuals to promote knowledge. Often times, firms need to bring a wide
range of knowledge to the various actors across many cultural, geographical, and
institutional barriers. There is a vast amount of uncertainty and complexity
within the modern firm when it comes to knowledge. Most proponents of the
information society state that more and more knowledge is becoming codified
and transmittable.
Thus making the costs per unit of reproducing such
knowledge diminishes. However, there seems to be an issue once again with the
tacit knowledge phenomenon. A question that is raised is whether or not the
tacit dimension of knowledge can ever be codified. How important is tacit
knowledge to the knowledge of a firm? Lundvall states that there is a great
26
importance and states that codification is actually having a positive effect for
proponents of the tacit knowledge debate.
“It may appear paradoxical, but information
technology may in fact have led to a situation in
which tacit competence has become more vital in
the economy. This could take place in two ways.
First, the enormous wealth of information leads
to a situation in which there will be strong
demand for competencies to select relevant
information and to use it wisely; these
competencies cannot be computerized or
otherwise made automatic” (Ernst and Lunvall,
1997, quoted from Lundvall, 2002).
While technology serves to make certain types of knowledge easily codified and
transmittable, the non-codified knowledge actually becomes more important.
“Tacit knowledge must be learned by demonstration, imitation, performance, and
shared experience” (Gertler, 2003). A tool that firms have implemented to
handle this issue has most recently been termed ‘knowledge enablers’ (KE). “The
key role of knowledge enablers, that is, knowledge activists who aim to span
boundaries within the organization, acting as agents for the diffusion of tacit
knowledge, normally with at least partial codification in the process of
transmission” (Gertler, 2002). These individuals, or groups of people work
within the firm and travel around from area to area and person to person and act
as a narrator of knowledge. Tidd, Bessant, and Pavitt (2001) call these actors key
individuals or information gatekeepers. Their role is virtually the same regardless
of the name they are given. They operate effectively by passing on tacit as well as
codified knowledge throughout the firm. “Innovation is about information and
27
success is strongly associated with good information flow and communication.
Research has shown that key individuals or groups within the informal structure
of an organization often facilitate networking. These individuals or groups act as
‘gatekeepers-collecting information from various sources and passing it on to the
relevant people who will be best able or most interested to use it (Tidd, Bessant,
Pavitt, 2001). It has been stated that these knowledge gatekeepers/enablers are
becoming very relevant, due to the interpersonal element of knowledge. Often
times, they employ simple acts of ‘storytelling’ in order to promote their tacit
knowledge. KE are essential when it comes to creating an environment that is
more suitable to the transfer of knowledge. The role of the KE is to act as a
connecting element between the actors of the firm. It is often stated that
knowledge is diverse and very difficult to understand or even recognize. The
enablers act as the missing link in a chain of knowledge and they provide valuable
enforcement to the firm’s knowledge strategy.
They also unite sectors of the
firm that would usually be isolated from each other. Sometimes, organizations
are forced to deal with geographical and cultural differences due to the variety of
markets and products. The KE act as an informal link with such complexities. It
is through this type of person or group that a firm can develop a knowledge
strategy that is beneficial to the entire organization, while also continue to be
relevant to the actors within. Often times the KE is at the management level, but
there can also be a variety of informal KE at the lower levels of a firm. It is said
that an organization can enhance its formal knowledge strategies by
28
implementing formal levels of knowledge enabling. The KE often relies on
direct face-to-face interaction and communication; therefore, the KE is circulated
between head office and branch locations (or between different branches) around
the globe (Gertler, 2003).
2.4 Point of Departure
Since firms are considered actors within the systems of innovation framework,
the informal arrangements within a firm will be the point of departure in this
study. It will attempt to determine how firms use informal means to organize
their knowledge operations. Studying the informal practices of a firm will be
beneficial because the firm needs to incorporate a knowledge strategy that will
most efficiently use and disperse its knowledge.
CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH STRATEGY
In this research it was very important to determine what the study was about.
While analyzing the research questions, it became clear that the study was
exploratory. The theory was firmly based and explained; it was then important to
determine how, why, or even if, these theories were used in contemporary
practice. Siverman (1993) states that there must be a theory (a set of explanatory
concepts), a Hypothesis (a testable proposition), a Methodology (a general
approach to studying research topics) and a Method (A specific research
technique). This study was set upon these same basic research guidelines. It was
necessary to observe, analyze, and interview within a firm in order to understand
29
contemporary events. This study is both quantitative as well as qualitative in its
approach.
However, the study can be seen to align itself more with the
qualitative cannon. While there is, of course no standard approach for qualitative
research, “Interview study highlights the advantages of qualitative research in
offering the apparently ‘deeper’ picture than the variable-based correlations of
quantitative studies” (Silverman, 1993). Because of this phenomenon, this study
concentrated its emphasis on the interviewing respondents. This allowed an
exploration of the variables in a much more exploratory fashion.
Analyzing the history in a case such as this was not as relevant considering “the
contribution of the historical method is dealing with the dead past” (Yin, 1989).
While historical analysis is important to understand the structural framework for
which contemporary events are based on, the primary emphasis of this study will
avoid in depth historical evaluation. It must be expressed that this study was
sensitive to the historical context of the firm and it does address the firm’s past in
order to evaluate its contemporary actions.
Another issue that must be
understood is the fact that behaviors are not controllable. Thus, the use of
experimentation was not chosen for this study because the variables for such an
experiment would have had to be manipulated in order to have experiment
compatibility.
Therefore, this empirical study attempts to investigate a
contemporary phenomenon within a real-life context. Because the emphasis of
this study is based on a critical test of significant theories, the rationale for the
30
study was based upon a single-case study. This single-case study serves to access
certain information within the field and is proposed as a “pilot case”. That is, it is
proposed that it will be the first of a multiple-case study (Yin, 1989). This case
analyzes a main unit of analysis, however, it also involves sub-units of analysis.
Therefore, the study is based on an embedded design.
3.1 Unit Of Analysis
It must first be mentioned that permission to print company information was
provided by the management of Teligent.
There are of course ethical
considerations that are followed, and the information provided in this paper is by
no means conclusive. In fact, it is solely opinions of those involved and should
be regarded only as academic interpretation. The main unit of analysis in this
study is the firm Teligent. The study does not include the entire company as well
as its subsidiaries. It does, however, include data about the arrangements and
structure of the main parts of the firm located in Sweden. This includes the
offices in Linköping and Stockholm. The study will focus on how Teligent
incorporates informal arrangements in order to promote the learning/innovative
activity. The foundations of the firm itself, as well as the interaction between the
various actors within the firm will be useful in order to understand the
effectiveness of learning activity. Because the firm Teligent does not exemplify
all of the value added firms in the communications industry, this study will not
provide analysis of the entire industry. The unit of analysis is focused on the
31
informal arrangements of the knowledge structure/strategies, as well as the units
within the firm. The units include employees, management, as well as training
and informal activities. It is important to understand that there are other units of
analysis that are equally important. These units include the interactions between
management and employees, as well as an understanding of the interactions and
roles of the key individuals. “Specific time boundaries are needed to define the
beginning and end of the case” (Yin, 1989). The timeframe for this study is from
the initial interview to the final discussion. A numerical starting and ending point
is difficult to establish because the lag time and lead-time of data collection and
evaluation is too great. For the purpose of evaluation, the duration of study can
roughly be analyzed from May 2003 to October 2003. Most data was collected
and analyzed during this timeframe. However, it is directly understood that
learning strategies and frameworks are constantly evolving and changing and,
therefore duration may be important.
3.2 Data Collection
It is theoretically discussed above that firms must utilize a knowledge strategy in
order to create competitive advantages that will foster innovation. It is also
discussed that there are informal circumstances within a firm that serve to
stimulate the transfer of knowledge. This is especially the case when knowledge
is complex and important to the firm.
The current study focuses its data
collection on a case study of a firm in a knowledge intensive sector of the
32
economy. Because of the value that such a firm places on knowledge, it was
recognized that it would have in place a knowledge strategy.
Certain data was needed in order to create a case that would avoid inference and
establish an overall non-biased view of the case. A series of interviews were
conducted within the firm at a variety of levels, from higher-level management to
lower level employees. A “snowballing strategy” was used to determine who
would be appropriate interviewees. This is a technique wherein one interview led
to another. As one person was interviewed, the dialogue would lead to topics
that could not have been answered and they were directed to respective
individuals who could. Hence, the process for determining interviewees was easy
considering one would lead to the next. These interviews were structured to
determine a) the established informal structure for which knowledge can be
spread, b) the informal knowledge strategy that is passed down from
management, c) the interpretation of policies and informal practices on each level
of the firm, d) what types of cooperation exist among and between actors that
lead to the development of learning, and finally, e) what role key individuals play
in the creation and diffusion of knowledge. It was through these interviews that
much of the data can be found. Documents were also analyzed in order to
understand company profile and existing fundamentals. It was through these
documents that the interviews were created because they provided useful
information about company hierarchy and routines. Much of the data is from
33
qualitative and embedded units as it makes it useful to serve as an outcome. The
data is clearly embedded within the larger case, thus being the firm Teligent.
Teligent itself serves to complete a larger study, that for which more time and
evidence would be necessary.
3.3 Analytical Technique
What to analyze and why was the biggest obstacle during this study. Much of the
information was relevant to prove or disprove certain assumptions, however,
determining an analytic strategy became increasingly difficult.
The study
proposed that certain key individuals as well as informal arrangements were
relevant to spreading knowledge throughout a firm. This proposition was the
focus for determining what type of data was relevant for this case study.
Moreover, it became increasingly important to recognize data that could be a link
to the determination of such a proposition. What must be mentioned in this
section of the thesis is how limited the case study is for proving or disproving the
outlined theories.
Repeated observations over a longer period of time are
necessary in order to have reliable results. However, due to the limitations that
are presented to the study, such analytical research is not possible. As mentioned
earlier, this case does serve as a springboard for the future investigation of
knowledge strategy in firms.
34
3.4 Limitations
This case study is very small. It is analyzes the operations of one firm. Naturally,
the theories being presented require a much larger study of a much broader field
in order to provide useful data to either prove or disprove them. Thus, to
assume this study is comprehensive enough to pass judgment upon knowledge
management theory is naive. This study does, however, serve as a catalyst for
future analysis and investigation. The framework it establishes is fundamental to
the ongoing pursuit of effective knowledge strategies. The study concentrates its
sample on a technological firm in the small country of Sweden. In order to
establish a more holistic approach it is necessary to go beyond industries and
cultures and analyze the actors in a broader context. This, of course, requires
funding and support. Since our current economic fundamentals rest on short
term gains, such funding is unavailable. Nevertheless, there will come a day when
longer term thinking is established and studies such as this will be pursued.
CHAPTER 4 CASE STUDY OF TELIGENT AB
Teligent was chosen for this study for a variety of reasons. Teligent’s size, with
about 233 employees, was an ideal range for implementing a knowledge
management study. If the company had more employees, the analysis would
have been skewed, and if they had less, the conditions for a “knowledge-strategy”
may have been minimized. Third, the telecommunications industry requires
constant innovation and improvement in order to stay ahead of the competition.
35
Teligent must continually adapt and be capable of differentiation from its
competitors. This requires technological change and an efficient use of company
know-how. Therefore, a knowledge strategy or framework is an important part
of Teligent’s effectiveness in its industry. Because of this, Teligent was an ideal
company for this study.
4.1 Company Profile
Teligent is a provider of value added services for the Telecommunications
industry. It has its base operations in Sweden, however, it has expanded its reach,
through subsidiaries, throughout the world. It is a medium sized company with
about 230 employees.
4.1.1 History Of Teligent
Teligent is a company that provides value added services to the
Telecommunications industry. Its founding was in the early 1990’s by four
entrepreneurs, Ulf Lindstén, Pekka Peltola, Mats Karlsson and Nils Hedlund in
Nynäshamn, Sweden. They focused on a system for public fax service and
eventually in a matter of two years branched into value added services. The
companies first orders were from the Swedish PTT Telia. This allowed room for
development as the company was able to secure itself in its home market before
venturing out in the international community.
Teligent first entered the
international market in the United Kingdom by establishing a subsidiary. It was
from here that the company was able to focus its operations on Europe and
become a player in the Telecommunications industry in Western Europe. It just
36
so happened that the first international order for Teligent came from a British
company. In September 1995 an order was placed by IPM for a credit card
telephony system. Teligent then started to develop a platform that could be
quickly developed and adapted. The company soon realized that time was its
customers main concerns and created the P90/E platform. This platform was
essential in minimizing the time it took for its customers to offer their customers
value added services.
Realizing Teligent’s worth, it was not long before
companies started placing more orders. BT (formerly British Telecom) placed an
order in 1996. Shortly thereafter, Teligent established subsidiaries in France,
Germany, and Spain. It was from this move that the company was able to
establish a solid foothold on Western Europe and prepare itself for the increased
demand in the Telecommunications industry. It was not long before the orders
were received from carriers in these countries. In 1999, Teligent was introduced
on the O list in Stockholm’s OM Exchange. The orders started coming in from
all over the world and the company was well established. Krister Skålberg then
succeeded the CEO Ulf Lindstén in 2000. In 2001, Teligent broke into the U.S.
market by distribution and licence contracts with Ericsson regarding the
middleware P90/E. As many people are aware, the Telecommunications industry
at this time experienced drastic pitfalls. Teligent reacted by a reorganization plan
that would change the hierarchy of the company to become more efficient.
A
reduction plan and a cost saving strategy were initiated. Two years later, Ulf
Lindstén was reinstated as the CEO and the company’s new president. It was
37
then that Teligent implemented its strategy to expand into the global market. The
company hopes to become a leading global actor within service development
platforms for value added services. Currently there are markets in six countries
and there are many local representatives in other important markets.
4.1.2 What Are Value Added Services?
“Value added services within the Telecommunications industry can be described
as all services beyond the basic services of calling someone and having a
conversation over the telecom network” (Teligent, 2002). These services can
range from:
















Air Time Account Checking
Prepaid Accounts
On-Line Account Query
Immediate Call Charge Information
Account Access From Internet
Unified Messaging
Calling Cards
Voice Message Forwarding
CLI Access Screening
Premium Rate
Virtual Private Networks
Mobil Office Services
3GSM Collect Call
Voice Messaging
MMS-Multi-Media Messaging Solutions
SMS-Short Messaging Solutions
These, as well as other products being continually invented and innovated,
comprise most of the services that Teligent provides its customers. The driving
38
forces of the deregulated market telephony market have caused this need for
change to increase. It is now necessary for providers to offer their customers
more products in order for them to stand apart from the competition. “As these
services become more widely available in the market, operators will have to find
even more segmented market niches if they are to achieve differentiation”
(Foulkes,
1998).
Therefore,
in order to
maintain competitiveness,
Telecommunication companies must utilize value added services in order to offer
their customers services above and beyond the basic service of dialing and
speaking via the mobile network.
It is from this necessity within the
Telecommunications industry, that the services of Teligent will continue to be
demanded. Hence, there is a constant need for innovation and adaptability
within Teligent. There is also a need for assimilation of value added services
technology and the technological infrastructure of the telecom companies.
“Integrating technology with the telecoms infrastructure will become
fundamental in achieving differentiation” (Foulkes, 1998).
4.1.3 Organization And Management Structure
While Teligent has had many forms of organization and management structures
throughout its history, it has been recently reorganized, as of July, 2002, to meet
the demands of an evolving industry. The explicit management structure that
Teligent follows is a hierarchal top down approach. The President/CEO resides
on the top followed by the communications and finance departments. There are
39
then three distinctive groups directly below the President/CEO and
Communications and Finance. These groups are the Sales Departments, the
Marketing Department and Delivery/Engineering Department. The idea behind
this structure was to create a more efficient and simplified company structure that
would allow a flow-controlled organization. In this structure, the Delivery and
Engineering manages the entire delivery process from product development,
purchases and logistics. This allows more direct contact with the customers at an
intimate level.
4.1.4 Employees At Teligent
Teligent’s two hundred and thirty or so employees have had to deal with a lot of
changes in the past few years. During the restructuring of the company, the
hierarchy was revamped to allow the employees greater opportunities to influence
the results of their work. Teligent has always created an entrepreneurial spirit.
“We are convinced that individual responsibility and open dialogue provide the
best possible basis for growth as regards to efficiency, innovative ideas, and
flexibility” (Annual Report, 2002). It is therefore very important to realize that
Teligent bases much of its knowledge flow on an informal and tacit approach.
While this is expressed in the annual report, it is important to realize that much of
what is theoretical may not actually be practiced. Teligent is an international
company with subsidiaries in six different countries. One-hundred and sixty-two
of Teligent’s employees work in Sweden. The other 90 or so employees are
spread throughout the world. The knowledge management structure becomes
40
crucial when attempting to coordinate the efforts of all these people. It will be
interesting to not that there are many strategies that may be expressed, however,
what is actually being practiced within the company is what this study is all about.
CHAPTER 5 ANALYSIS
5.1 Introduction
While completing this study, many things started to become clear.
In the
beginning of the study it was hypothesized that a knowledge strategy was
important to the innovativeness of a firm. This was especially true if the firm was
engaged in an industry that was characterized by constant change. What was
most interesting to the analysis was the assumption that the company in question
was very much interested in a knowledge strategy; however, most of the
establishment of such a strategy was accomplished through informal means. This
meaning that much of what could have been considered a strategy “just occurs”.
While the company had a high regard for knowledge and established many formal
strategies to facilitate learning, it was recognized that much of the more difficult
knowledge was transferred via informal situations. From this, it was deduced that
a strategy that promotes learning and knowledge might not have to be a strategy
at all. It can solely be a practice. After all, practice comes before theory. Many
of the employees hardly regarded this as a concept or an aim of the firm. It
existed and operated in the background. It is from this that one is able to realize
how a company can benefit from its culture, its regards to knowledge, its informal
practices, and its dynamic individuals who act in the best interests of the firm by
41
informally spreading knowledge, as well as the employees themselves who seek to
learn and grow. Such dynamic individuals, such as those who initially set up the
framework, culture, and practices of the firm may do so in such a way that
actually promotes a learning environment and hence leads to a knowledge
strategy. It has been thought that a strategy would be ‘set’ in place that would
promote a more conducive learning environment in the firm. However, perhaps
what is never actually set in place is the informal acts that exist between each
employee. These informal arrangements can be fortified by a culture or structure
that prevents ranking or power struggles from ruining the atmosphere.
5.2 Do Informal Practices Promote Learning Within A Firm?
In the theoretical chapters it is stated that informal practices are very important to
establishing learning arrangements. Many of the theorist stated that informal
routines were implemented when the knowledge was complicated or tacit. A
firm must put an emphasis on informal learning when the knowledge is tacit,
complex, or interdependent.
It is from these knowledge demands that an
organization must follow an informal learning strategy. It was seen at Teligent
that much of its knowledge diffusion occurred on an informal level. Perhaps this
is due to the fact that much of the knowledge that must be spread throughout
Teligent is complicated. Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) stated that knowledge is
often times embedded in individuals or groups. They also hypothesized that due
to this hidden dimension and complexity of knowledge, it often could be spread
42
via informal means. Wenger (1999) also stated that the social dimension of the
community is the most valuable part of the proper transfer of knowledge. She
stated that what is going on in the background and left unsaid in a work
environment can provide as much information as what is attempting to be
transferred via conventional means.
While interviewing and discussing the
knowledge arrangements with Teligent, it was almost as if the mantra for the firm
was ‘informal dialogue’. It was obvious that the firm has developed a sense of
informal learning and that the individuals who are responsible for the formal
learning arrangements use informal learning as a tool for success. Lotta Broden,
for example stated that informal learning is perhaps the most important part of
the seminars because many times people do not want to assume the role of the
teacher. It is from this phenomenon that the informal practices are occurring.
Ulf Lindsten, the Chief Executive Officer, was assumed to be very influential in
establishing this relaxed learning environment. It was stated that he is often
cruising around the office with a cup of coffee in his hand establishing an
informal basis for learning. The employees are also given the opportunity to
practice learning on such an informal level. As Rainbird (date) mentioned, the
process of learning the skills required for a new job occurs informally. It was
stated by the training director at Teligent that most of the time new employees
are given training classes where the employees learn about the company and what
is expected of them and then they are left to learn much of it on an informal
level. It was also mentioned that Teligent was very good at promoting this
43
informal arrangement and it was seen that it works better than a series of formal
training programs.
Lotta Broden also stated that she herself feels very
comfortable and compelled to go to any employee and discuss any issue.
Another statement that gives support for this conclusion is the fact that Kristina
Lundquist herself just started working and learned informally how things were
done. Broden stated “isn’t one day enough” when she regarded training about
the company practices.
Perhaps this blunt answer was stated because the
informal dimension of Teligent is so normal that to think otherwise is difficult for
those who are involved.
A very interesting aspect to the informal environment that is practiced at Teligent
is the fact that the informal arrangement is worked into the formal arrangement.
Formally Teligent has established breakfasts, meetings, seminars, and other
events, however, these events are kept very informal, allowing a flow of
information to occur naturally. This seems to cover Nonaka’s tacit dimension of
learning considering he was emphasizing the importance of face-to-face
interaction. Kristina Lundquist also spoke of informal and formal mechanisms
being different from office to office. “Each office at Teligent is going to be
different when it comes to this. Linkoping for example is an office of 21
employees and Stockholm has 60 to 70. I could see that a smaller office can have
more emphasis on the informal learning approach”. From this we can see that
the size seems to dictate informal and formal practices of the firm.
44
It is clear that Ulf Lindsten (CEO) still attempts to establish an environment that
is informal and cooperative. When asked who the employees could go to if they
had a problem with another employee, it was answered unanimously that they
would first informally go to the employee themselves or to Ulf. As this paper
was coming together, it became clear that Ulf was doing much more than
promoting the informal arrangements of the firm that create more efficient
knowledge strategies.
What he was actually doing is avoiding a hierarchal
structure that was too dominating. He was setting up an environment that
allowed him to be the CEO as well as an employee. It was often stated that Ulf
was out working and being “in the trenches” speaking to all of the employees in
an open and free fashion. This loose ranking environment has allowed Teligent
to have an open, free exchange of information regardless of rank. Given this
informal environment that has been set up from Ulf, it is clear that it sets up a
formal, yet very informal structure that allows information flow. It is the main
reason Teligent has been able to maintain its creativity. This proves that the
informal arrangement at Teligent is very conducive to problem solving and
learning. It is also proof that in dealing with complex forms of information, an
informal approach serves to best promote learning at Teligent.
5.3 Does The Culture Of A Firm Influence The Learning Environment?
45
It is shown in section 2.2.2 that the culture of the firm is a very important aspect
to the creation, diffusion, and use of knowledge within a firm. This is especially
the case when the knowledge is tacit or complex. A firm must understand that
the culture it creates when dealing with knowledge and knowledge structures
must emphasize community and engagement. Wenger (1999) states that it is the
language, untold rules of thumb, embodied understandings, and shared
worldviews that sets up the community. These variables also set up the culture of
the firm. It is as if Wenger is directly speaking about the cultural dimension as he
states what is needed for the transfer of knowledge. Hence, the firm should set
up a series of values and shared beliefs within its organization. If these values are
set upon the sharing of information and the importance of knowledge, then most
likely an environment will be set up that is more capable of learning. Trust is also
an important element to this equation. It is stated that a firm need develop a
sense of community and trust in order for knowledge to flow efficiently. It seems
that Teligent has been very progressive in setting up a culture that is geared
towards learning and knowledge acquisition. “The entrepreneurial spirit is strong
in Teligent and we are convinced that individual responsibility and open dialogue
provide the best basis for growth as regards to efficiency, innovative ideas and
flexibility” (Annual Report, 2002). Ulf Lindsten is obvious very influential in
setting up this environment. “Part of our culture is to say hello to everyone.
Teligent could be like a Southern European company.
Ulf has set this
environment up” It is thus seen that this informal culture translates into a flat
46
hierarchy. Lotta Broden stated that the employees can pursue any avenue they
desired as far as knowledge acquirement. Fredrick Backlund also stated that
Teligent was always pursuing changing avenues and the employees themselves
determine these avenues. This directly leads to a conclusion that the culture at
Teligent empowers the employees to learn and this empowerment allows for a
constant state of innovation. Thus affecting the learning environment.
The
firm’s culture is obviously centered upon learning, and the training and informal
structure is such that the actors involved are knowledge-oriented. It is obvious
that Teligent has created an environment and culture that allows openness. This,
as Davenport and Prusak (1998) recommend, challenges people to share
knowledge throughout the organization.
When it comes to the technical side to the company, the formal structure set up
by Ulf in 2002 was to overlap the technical groups.
This established an
opportunity for the employees to understand their role in the company and to
realize what the other departments were doing. Theoretically this is one of the
most important things that a company can do in order to encourage belonging
and understanding of employees. The culture of learning today must involve
every single employee. I once recall a story from a classmate of mine who was a
computer programmer. He was stating that he worked in an organization that
did not allow him to see where his efforts fit into the scheme of things. He was
just a “cog in the machine,” showing up to work everyday not knowing what the
47
overall goal of his efforts were. This created, in him, a sense of worthlessness.
By establishing this overlap and allowing people to work together in some
projects across boundaries, Teligent is creating in its culture a sense of belonging.
This is essential in creating employee satisfaction. It also provides employees an
opportunity to recognize learning as an important aspect to their lives and their
jobs. It seems that through the cultural dynamics that have been set up at
Teligent that it’s openness allows employees to realize their self worth and
responsibility within the company.
Porter (2001) stated that treating the
employees as permanent members is an important part of the empowerment of
the employees and will thus lead to knowledge transmission. While interviewing,
it became clear that the employees felt as if there was an openness to the
company that was far beyond that which they had experienced at other
organizations. This was perhaps due to the management style of the Chief
Executive Officer, Ulf.
5.4 Does The Way A Firm Regards Knowledge and Learning Influence
The Firm’s ‘Knowledge Strategy’?
It is stated above that the treatment of knowledge and learning are important
aspects to how a firm sets up a knowledge strategy. If a firm is operating under
conditions that require knowledge transfer and coordination, it then has a greater
necessity to regard knowledge and learning as important. It is also mentioned in
the theories that since knowledge and information changes so often, it is
48
necessary for a firm to create a knowledge structure that is capable of change.
Hence, if a firm realizes that it has a need to develop its knowledge, then there is
a good chance that this realization will promote a knowledge strategy that is more
capable of flexibility and innovation.
Teligent is a company that is constantly
dealing with an ever-changing environment. The Telecommunications Industry
has evolved with leaps and bounds over the past years.
Change requires
continual learning. From the interviews, it became obvious that it is essential for
Teligent to treat learning as an important aspect of the firm in order to keep pace
with the Telecommunications Industry. When discussing the overall perception
of knowledge at Teligent, it became clear that the company had a very open and
experimental mindset and held knowledge on a very high regard.
While
discussing this with Fredrick Backlund, he stated that often times Teligent is very
open minded and able to adapt to different business opportunities. This mindset
requires the ability of employees to be able to alter and adapt to the new learning
situations. It is very important to realize that knowledge is often times embedded
in individual employees. Lotta Broden explained that the employees are very
capable of handling the various demands placed on them in regards to learning.
The training programs that Lotta is in charge of then aid these demands. It is
also aided by the overlap that exists in the areas of interest.
For example, the
Delivery and Engineering learns everything there is to know about the Solutions,
Messaging, Platform, Product/Integration, Document/Training, Purchases,
Logistics, Quality, and IT. This makes the hierarchy from customer to product
49
very flat and allows for a holistic decision making process. A structure like this
must give a high emphasis on knowledge and learning. It also gives emphasis on
sharing and knowledge flows. This is very similar to what Styhre (2002) said
about the ethical foundation of the knowledge-based economies. He theorized,
that an organization needed to develop an ethic of sharing and giving in order to
prosper.
Every employee within the Delivery and Engineering department is encouraged
to take part in learning. “Teligent’s employees are of central importance to the
company, and they are offered training and skills development programs on an
on-going basis. Introductory programs, management training, international sales
training, and the opportunity to work abroad are examples of the programs
offered” (Annual Report, 2002).
The idea behind these programs is to
incorporate an emphasis on learning new things and expanding the skills of the
employees. It was mentioned earlier that training permits employees to take
more responsibility and initiative. By Teligent providing these training programs,
it seems clear that the company is attempting to promote knowledge and
learning. As mentioned earlier, Teligent puts much of its emphasis with learning
on the informal level. For example, they have personnel management activities,
health and leisure activities, group breakfasts, and evening and weekend activities
for all employees and their children. These allow for an informal rapport to be
developed and fostered. Because Teligent has a high regard for knowledge, the
50
knowledge strategy, while not expressly written, is based on an informal and
formal hierarchy that guarantees the spread of knowledge.
5.5 Do Individual Employees Act As ‘Knowledge Gate-Keepers’ By
Informally Spreading Tacit As Well As Codified Knowledge Throughout
The Company?
Explained in section 2.3 was an increasing emphasis on knowledge
enablers/gatekeepers. That is, people who cross boundaries within the firm
receiving and dispersing the tacit knowledge, which is so important to the
efficient operation of a firm. It is clear from the section that the emphasis of
such individuals or groups comes from the interpersonal element of certain
knowledge. Again, we must visit Nonaka, Takeuchi, Gertler, Polani, and Wenger
to remember that tacit knowledge is something that requires a different set of
circumstances in order to be transferred. Some knowledge is so involved, that
the best way to transmit such knowledge is simply by telling a story. Wenger
stated that the social practice is of extreme importance and must be emphasized.
Human beings are social animals, and it is no doubt that the interaction between
charismatic individuals who are able to bring knowledge with them as they
interact with the many levels of employees throughout the firm is beneficial to
the knowledge strategy. Although a lot of knowledge is transferred from group
to individual or individual via storytelling and interpersonal means, the
characteristics of the knowledge enabler/gatekeeper involve much more. The
51
knowledge enabler/gatekeeper has an overall broad view of the company and is
aware of all of the aspects therein. It became clear in this study of Teligent that
there was one main person whom all employees perceived as a knowledge
enabler/gatekeeper. This one person was Ulf Lindsten. It was often stated that
Ulf was the man who was walking throughout the company with a cup of coffee
in his hand meeting with department personnel and being very visible within the
organization. Many of the employees felt that they could approach Ulf if they
had an issue or a problem. His informal approach and his charismatic personality
created casual management style that was conducive to the spread of knowledge.
Kristina Lundquist stated that personality matters with such a person. Ulf’s
personality is obviously an ideal in order to label him a knowledge
enabler/gatekeeper. As stated earlier, Ulf’s informal approach to knowledge has
led to an environment that allows people to cross normally ridgid knowledge
barriers. Lotta Broden explained that Ulf is out working and moving throughout
the company and would not be considered the stereotypical stiff president. The
reason this strategy obviously works at Teligent is due to the nature of the
information. Lundvall (2002) stated in his paradox that as more and more
information becomes codified, the need for the none codified information and
knowledge becomes more valuable.
Ulf seems to be recognizing this
phenomenon and bridges the gap in his company by being the person who
everyone knows and is comfortable with in order. This allows him to realize
much in the area of spreading knowledge informally and creating a learning
52
environment that is conducive to the understanding of employee skills and
capabilities. It has been stated through the interviews that Ulf if often sharing
experiences of others from other departments. This shows that he is actually
using some of what the theorists state as informal representation. By being the
person that everyone can go to if they have a problem, Ulf has established, at
Teligent, a knowledge strategy that is capable of handling the complex
information that is prevalent in the telecommunications industry.
Ulf is obviously considered to be a perfect match for this knowledge
enabler/gatekeeper concept. However, there are others who were mentioned
that possess the same characteristics. Hans Floberg was mentioned by Lotta
Broden to also be considered a knowledge enabler of Teligent. Apparently, he is
also very encouraging to informal dialogue and ubiquity throughout the firm.
Broden mentions that Hans Floberg has a good view of the firm and that this
view is transferred informally through his interactions. Kristina Lundquist offers
her opinion in that many higher level managers may have the disposition to fit the
characteristics of a knowledge enabler/gatekeeper and that perhaps they could be
spread all over Sweden. Of course, one must keep in mind that due to Teligents
size, of just over 200 employees, the necessity of such personnel may be much
less than a larger firm. At this point, Teligent can not afford to formally employ
such knowledge enthusiasts and it relies on the personality and informal use of
those within its organization. It is apparent from this evidence that individual
53
employees do acts as informal gatekeepers of knowledge. They spread codified
as well as tacit knowledge throughout the firm and aid in the innovative capacities
of the firm.
Chapter 6 Conclusion
This chapter will recapitulate what was said in the beginning of the paper, as well
as summarize the findings in the latter. It will be an attempt to winnow the
various elements that make up the foundation of the study. While it will provide
the reader with a ‘birds eye view’ of what was stated, it is not holistic in its
approach.
6.1 Informal Arrangements
This paper studied the informal arrangements within a firm in regards to
knowledge creation and learning. It emphasized the role of informal practices,
culture, knowledge perception of the firm, and individual key employees. The
study covered a vast amount of theoretical information from many different
disciplines and attempted to operationalize this information into a case study on a
small telecommunications firm in Sweden. This study clarified the importance of
the informal arrangements in an organization’s information processes. It proved
that the use of informal arrangements (either embedded in the culture, shared
through groups of people, or practiced through key individuals) is very important
54
to the functioning of a competitive firm. Informal actions may be the only way
to spread information and create knowledge. Technology at the present time is
not designed to capture this informal aspect. Introducing technology may be
damaging to the efficiency of the firm because it may break down the informal
structure and cost the firm more in the long run. Hence, it is very important for a
firm to fortify its informal arrangements as was seen through Teligent’s approach.
Through a relaxed management style, and use of key individuals, Teligent has
established within its culture an informal environment that is conducive to
learning.
6.2 Knowledge Creating Culture
Due to the shift into science-based production in most western economies, a
firm’s competitive advantage has shifted from natural resources to a highly
qualified workforce. As one can imagine, it is very important for firms to
maintain competitive advantage over other firms. The best way for them to do
this is to develop an environment that is conducive to learning. This includes the
structure of the firm, the training and development, the role of key individuals,
and most of all, how the firm informally goes about learning and sharing
knowledge. A firm must develop and improve upon the way it creates, uses,
spreads, and treats knowledge. It was acknowledged that a firm must recognize
the importance of knowledge and incorporate a knowledge strategy. What must
be emphasized in the creation of such a strategy is the importance of the informal
55
arrangements that play a large role in the dissemination of knowledge. Much
learning occurs through informal dialogue and informal actions.
This is most
likely due to the complexity of knowledge itself. Because individuals are dealing
with such complex knowledge, the need for humans to transmit this knowledge
through social communities and in a relaxed environment is important. Often
times people need to feel safe, empowered, and relaxed in order to have true
understanding. It is from this that the emphasis on informal arrangements in a
firm has become such an important issue. When a firm realizes the importance
of informal arrangements, then it can organize its routines, customs, and
traditions to encourage this act. This opens the door to a variety of management
styles; however, it is deeper than management. The emphasis is placed on the
culture of the firm itself. The treatment of informal learning and knowledge
acquisition must be ubiquitous. That is, it needs to be recognized by every single
employee of the firm. It needs to be engrained in the company. It requires not
only constant retooling, but also continuous framing. What must be understood
in this is that a company must avoid an environment that separates the employees
into various hierarchal groups.
This segregation may lead to a sense of
superiority and inferiority. Both situations lead to frictions between actors and
hence the learning environment. Instead, a firm needs to create a culture that is
capable of recognizing position without establishing higher or lower ranks.
6.3 Firm Trajectories to Innovation
56
Of course, it is important for a firm to realize three things before it can
successfully establish an efficient knowledge strategy. The firm must realize
where it came from, where it is now, and where it is going. This is important
because a firm needs to consider that it is ‘afloat’ and already sailing down the
river of history. In order to establish a culture, that emphasizes learning and
knowledge, a firm must already have a history with knowledge and informal
learning. This of course is evident to a new employee and takes not time at all for
this new employee casually learn about the knowledge strategy. Another way a
firm benefits by this informal learning process that is innate in human beings is to
sent have and use knowledge movers. These are people or groups that move
throughout the firm to reach all of the actors and, informally via storytelling
etcetera, spread complicated knowledge. These people are recognized as being
very important to the knowledge strategy of a firm.
Realizing this, it was
important to understand that the firm was part of a much broader system that
affected how it created competitive advantages. By analyzing the firm within the
systems of innovation, the study was able to recognize that the same trajectories,
cultures, organizations, routines, communities, and knowledge flows are
dependent upon the institutional framework of the broader system. The systems
of innovation provided an ideal framework because it had a good foundation on
knowledge and knowledge creation as well as innovation. It is as well worthwhile
to note that the firm is a main actor in the systems of innovation, however, not
much work has been done in the field on the role that the firm plays.
57
6.5 Findings At Teligent
The study covered a medium sized firm in the telecommunications industry. It is
important to note that the case was chosen due because it’s size, of a little over
200 employees, and the complexity of its market. Thus, it was believed to be a
company that would most likely be engaged in many of the processes mentioned.
It was clear that the environment established at Teligent was one that treated
knowledge acquirement, and distribution very highly. The culture, through
informal arrangements (whether they be communities of practice or knowledge
enablers) was very conducive to the spread of knowledge. Competing in a
knowledge intensive environment, it was important for Teligent to acknowledge
the practice of such knowledge strategies in order to enhance its ability to create
competitive advantages. Through such practices, it was able to increase its
market share and establish itself as a competitor in the international arena. The
CEO Ulf Lindsten and others were mentioned in the data as those who would
fulfill the requirements of practicing as knowledge enablers/gatekeepers. It was
through the informal interaction of such key individuals that the tacit knowledge
is spread and utilized.
58
WORK CITED
Carrillo, Patricia and Anumba, Chimay (2002). “Knowledge Management in the
AEC
Sector: an Exploration of the Mergers and Acquisitions Context.” Knowledge
and Process Management 9(3): 149-161.
Cook, P. (2001). Learning and Innovation: Implications for Regional Policy.
Duguid, Paul and Brown, John Seely (2000) “The Social Life of Information”
Harvard Business School. Press Boston, Massachusetts
Edquist, C. (1997). “Systems of Innovation: Technologies, Institutions and
Organizations.”.
Ehn, P. (1988). Designing for Democracy at Work.
Feldman, J. (1998). “Civilian Diversification, Learning, and Institutional Change;
Growth Through Knowledge and Power
Center for Innovation and
Entrepreneurship.” Linköping University, S-581 83.
Foulkes, A. (1998).
Friedman, T. (2000). The Lexus and the Olive Tree. New York, Random House.
Garrick, J. (2001). Informal Learning in the Workplace: Unmasking Human
Resource Development, Routledge.
Gertler, M. S. (2002). “Tacit Knowledge and the Economic Geography of
Context, or The Undefinable Tacitness of Being (there).” The Journal of
Economic Geography 3: 75-99.
Forcadell, Francisco J. and Guadamillas, Fa´tima (2002). “A Case Study on the
Implementation of A Knowledge Management Strategy Oriented to Innovation.”
Knowledge and Process Management 9(3): 162-171.
Handy, C. (1989). The Age of Unreason, Harvard Business School Press.
List, F. (1885). The National Division of Commercial Operations and the
Confederation of the National Productive Forces in The National System of
Political Economy.
Lundvall, B.-A. (1992). “National System of Innovation: Towards a Theory of
Innovation and Interactive Learning.”.
Lundvall, B.-A. and Borrás, S. (1997). The Globalising Learning Economy:
Implications for Innovation Policy.
Malerba, Franco and Breschi, Stefano (1997). Sectoral Innovation Systems:
Technological Regines, Schumpeterian Dynamics, adn Spatial Boundaries.
Systems of Innovation: Technologies, Organisations and Institutions. C. Edquist.
London, Casell Academic.
Martin, S. (1999). “Employment in the Information Age.” The Journal of Policy,
Regulation and Strategy for Telecommunications Information and Media 1(3).
Nonaka, I. (1994). “A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation.”
Organizational Science Vol. 5.
Moffett, Sandra and McAdam, Rodney and Parkinson, Stephen (2002).
“Developing a Model for Technology and Cultural Factors in Knowledge
Management: A Factor Analysis.” Knowledge and Process Management 9(4):
237-255.
Porter, M. E. (2001). “The Competitive Advantage of Nations.” Harvard
Business Review.
Schlake, Oliver and Fink, Alexander and Gausemeier, Juergen (1998). Scenario
Management: An Approach to Develop Future Potentials.
Sharma, Deo and Pedersen, Torben and Petersen, Bent (2001). The Role of
Knowledge in Firms' internationalization Process: Wherefrom and Whereto.
Silva, Fla´vio Soares Correˆa da and Agustý´-Cullel, Jaume (2003). “Issues on
Knowledge Coordination.” Knowledge and Process Management Volume
10(Number 1): pp 37–59.
Smith, K. (1997). Economic Infrastructures and Innovation Systems. In Systems
of Innovation: Technologies, Organization and Institutions. C. Edquist. London,
Casell.
Styhre, A. (2002). “The Knowledge-intensive Company and
the Economy of Sharing: Rethinking
Utility and Knowledge Management.” Knowledge and Process Management
Volume 9(Number 4): pp 228–236.
Swedish Technology Foresight Project (2000). What do we know about the world
of 20 years from now? The Foresighted Society.
Teece, David Dosi, Giovanni and (1998). Organizational Competencies and the
Boundaries of the Firm. Markets and Organization. R. A. a. C. Longhi. Valbonne,
Springer.
Tidd, Joe and Bessant, John and Pavitt, Keith (2001). Managing Innovation:
Integrating Technological, Market and Organizational Change, Wiley.
Wenger, Etienne and Snyder, William and McDermott, Richard (2002).
Cultivating Communities of Practice. Boston, Massachusetts, Harvard Business
School Press.
Yin Robert (1989). Case Study Research, Sage Publications Incorporated