Orlikowski 2002

Knowing in Practice: Enacting a Collective
Capability in Distributed Organizing
Wanda J. Orlikowski
Sloan School of Management. MIT (E53-325}. 50 Memorial Drive. Cambridge. Massachusetts 02142
wanda@mil.edu

global product development? In this paper. I wish to ex-
Abstract plore a possible explanation—an explanation which rests
In this paper, I outline a perspective on knowing in practice on and elaborates on the premise that effective distributed
which highlights the essential role of human action In knowing
organizing is an enacted capability constituted in the ev-
how to get things done in complex organizational work. The
eryday practices of global product development activities.
perspective suggests that knowing is not a static embedded ca-
pability or stable disposition o actors, but rather an ongoing
Such an explanation leads away from the focus on or-
social accomplishment, constituted and reconstituted as actors ganizational knowledge occupying much of the contem-
engage the world in practice. In interpreting the findings of an porary discourse on knowledge management, and to-
empirical study conducted in a geographically dispersed high- wards a focus on organizational knowing as emerging
tech organization. I suggest that the competence to do global from the ongoing and situated actions of organizational
product development is both collective and distributed, members as they engage the world. It is an explanation
grounded in the everyday practices of organizational members. grounded in what it is people do every day to get their
I conclude by discussing some of the research implications of work done.
a perspective on organizational knowing in practice.
(Distributed Competence; Geographically Distributed Organizing: Know-
My focus on organizational knowing rather than knowl-
ing: Organizational Knowledge: Organizing Practices) edge is informed by the sociological work of Giddens
(1984) and the anthropological studies of Lave (1998),
Hutchins(1991. 1995). and Suchman (1987). In these ac-
counts, individuals are understood to act knowledgeably
as a routine part of their everyday activity. They are seen
to be purposive and teflexive. continually and routinely
With the ititensification of globalization, acceleration in monitoring the ongoing flow of action—their own and
the rate of change, and expansion in the use of informa- that of others—and the social and physical contexts in
tion technology, particular attention is being focused on which their activities are constituted. As Giddens notes,
the opportunities and difficulties associated with sharing such activities suggest an '"immense knowledgeability in-
knowledge and transferring "best practices" within and volved in the conduct of everyday life" (Giddens and
across organizations (Leonard-Barton 1995. Btown and Pierson 1998. p. 90). My intention here is to use the lens
Duguid 1998. Davenport and Prusak 1998). Such a focus of organizational knowing to understand how members
on knowledge and knowledge management is particularly of global product development organizations generate
acute in the context of global product development, where and sustain knowledgeability in their distributed opera-
the development and delivery of timely and innovative tions.
products across heterogeneous cultures, locales, and mar- The conceptual argument developed here was elabo-
kets are critical and ongoing challenges. Dealing effec- rated through an empirical study I conducted into the
tively with such challenges requires more than just good product development activities of a large, globally dis-
ideas, strong leaders, and extensive resources; it also re- persed, high-tech organization which I call Kappa, ln
quires a deep competence in what may be labeled "dis- what follows, I first lay out the key elements of current
tributed organizing"—the capability of operating effec- perspectives on knowledge before developing my per-
tively across the temporal, geographic, political, and spective on organizational knowing, i then explore this
cultural boundaries routinely encountered in global perspective on knowing in terms of the field study I con-
operations. ducted within Kappa. While organizational knowing ap-
What constitutes effective distributed organizing in pears particularly relevant to the distributed organizing of

1047-7039/02/1303/0249/$O5.O0 ORGANtZATiON SCIENCE, © 2002 INFORMS
1526-5455 electronic ISSN Vol. 13, No. 3, May-June 2002, pp. 249-273

WANDA J. ORLIKOWSKI Knowing in Practice

global product development, such a capability may also Brown and Duguid (1998), while they share with Tsou-
be salient in many other organizational activities. I thus kas (1996) a view of knowledge as emergent, depart from
conclude the paper by examining the broader implications his integrationist focus by retaining a distinction between
for organizational research of a perspective on organiza- types of knowledge. In particular, they adapt Ryle's
tional knowing. (1949) articulation of "knowing that" and "knowing how"
to argue that "know-how" is different from "know-what"
in its dispositional character. Thus, know-how is "the par-
Perspectives on Organizational ticular ability to put know-what into practice" (Brown
Knowledge and Duguid 1998. p. 91). As such, it is a capability em-
The question of knowledge has long occupied philoso- bedded in particular communities of practice (Brown and
phers and sociologists of science, but it is only relatively Duguid 1998. p. 95). This allows know-how to be easily
recently that organizational researchers have become in- moved within and among communities with similar prac-
terested in this topic. Indeed, "knowledge" has become tices, but makes it "sticky" or difficult to move across
the watchword of contemporary organizations, and re- communities of practice (Brown and Duguid 1998, pp.
search interest in knowledge, knowledge-based organi- 100-102). Recognition of the "stickiness'" of know-how
zations, and knowledge management has accelerated has led to various proposals for facilitating knowledge
(Kogut and Zander 1992. Starbuck 1992, Nonaka and sharing across communities of practice, such as: devel-
Takeuchi 1995. Tsoukas 1996. Teece 1998). Two distinct oping boundary practices (Wenger 1998), engaging
perspectives on organizational knowledge are currently knowledge brokers (Brown and Duguid 1998), using
discernable. One proposes that organizations have differ- boundary objects (Star 1989, Henderson 1991. Carlile
ent types of knowledge, and that identifying and exam- 1998). and participating in cross-community communi-
ining these will lead to more effective means for gener- cation forums (Boland and Tenkasi 1995).
ating, sharing, and managing knowledge in organizations.
Much has been leamed, and much will continue to be
Tsoukas (1996, p. 13) characterizes such a perspective as
learned, from the two perspectives on organizational
"taxonomic." with researchers developing classifications
knowledge discussed above. Significant portions of this
of knowledge and then using these to examine the various
work, however, treat knowledge as either a thing (to be
strategies, routines, and techniques through which differ-
captured, stored, transmitted, etc.) or a disposition
ent types of knowledge are created, codified, converted,
(whether individual or collective) resulting in "objectivist
transferred, and exchanged (Nelson and Winter 1982,
reification" on the one hand or "subjectivist reduction"
Leonard-Baiton 1992, Hedlund 1994, Nonaka 1994.
on the other. Taylor makes a similar point about mles
Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995. Winter 1987. Teece 1998,
(1993, pp. 57-58, emphasis added):
Hansen 1999). Many of these knowledge classifications
take as their starting point the distinction made by Polanyi In its operation, the rtile exists in the practice it 'guides.' . . .
(1967) between tacit and explicit knowing. This classic |T]he practice not only fulfills the rules, but also gives it con-
distinction is then typically used to elaborate additional crete shape in particular situalions. . . . In fact, whal this reci-
knowiedge dichotomies, for example, local vs. universal. procily shows is ihal the 'rule' lies essentially in the practice.
codified vs. uncodified. canonical vs. noncanonical. pro- The rule is what is animating the practice at any given time, not
cedural vs. declarative, and know-how vs. know-what. some formulation behind il, inscribed in our thoughts or our
brains or our genes or whatever. That is why the rule is, at any
Some researchers have been critical of a purely taxo- given time, what the practice has made it.
nomic perspective, arguing that it reifies knowledge by
treating it as a stock or set of discrete elements. Further- Substituting "knowledge" for "mle" in the above quote
more. Tsoukas (1996, p. 14) observes that a taxonomic highlights the difference between a view of knowledge as
perspective does not recognize that "tacit and explicit separate entity, static property, or stable disposition em-
knowledge are mutually constituted . . . [essentially] in- bedded in practice, and a view of knowledge as "at any
separable." In particular, he argues that tacit knowledge given time, what the practice has made it." The latter view
"is the necessary component of all knowledge; it is not sees knowledge as enacted—every day and over time—
made up of discrete beans which may be ground, lost or in people's practices. It leads us to understand knowledge
reconstituted." Along with others (Boland and Tenkasi and practice as reciprocally constitutive, so that it does
1995. Davenport and Prusak 1998, Cook and Brown not make sense to talk about either knowledge or practice
1999), he argues instead for an integrated approach that without the other. It suggests there may be value in a
affords a view of organizationai knowledge as processual, perspective that does not treat these as separate or sepa-
dispersed, and "inherently indeterminate" (1996, p. 22). rable, a perspective that focuses on the knowledgeability

250 ORGANIZATION SCIENCK/VOI. 13. No. 3. May-Jtjne 2OQ2


of action, that is on knowing (a verb connoting action, language . . . [whichi converted the child's knowing-in-
doing, practice) rather than knowledge (a noun connoting action to knowledge-in-ixcUon" (1983. p. 59).
things, elements, facts, processes, dispositions). In a recent paper. Cook and Brown (1999) introduce
The increased interest within organizational studies in the notion of knowing into the discourse on organiza-
social theories emphasizing practice provides some con- tional knowledge, while maintaining the conventional
ceptual grounding for the development of a practice- distinction between tacit and explicit forms of knowledge.
based perspective on organizational knowing. I develop While this recognition of knowing is helpful, it neverthe-
one such possibility here, and then elaborate it by drawing less assumes that tacit knowledge is distinct and separable
on tiiy empirical study of a global product development from knowing, and thus action. The perspective I adopt
organization. I see this perspective as complementing, not here rests on an alternative assumption—that tacit knowl-
substituting for. the perspectives on organizational edge is a form of "knowing." and thus inseparable from
knowledge discussed above, I believe it can highlight action because it is constituted through such action.
some aspects of organizational knowledgeability that may The primary role of action in the process of knowing
be overlooked in our tendency to privilege knowledge at is evident in Ryle's (1949) claim that knowledge is es-
the expense of knowing. sentially a "knowing how,"" a capacity to perform or act
in particular circumstances. Using an example of a boy
playing chess, he suggests that the boy can be said to
A Perspective on Knowing in Practice "know how"" to play chess if his action displays the rules
Both Ryle (1949) and Polanyi (1967) emphasize A v of chess, even if he cannot recite them. Similarly, Polanyi
in their writings. While the distinction between knowing (1967) points to the tacit knowing that is evident in our
and knowledge may seem like a subtle and inconsequen- ability to recognize faces in a crowd or to ride bicycles
tial lexical shift. I believe it has substantial conceptual even as we cannot articulate precisely how it is that we
implications. In particular, it may lead us to miss a funda- do these. Thus, we recognize the "knowing how"' (the
mental aspect of Schon's (1983, p. 49) observation—based capacity to play chess or ride a bicycle) by observing the
on his field work but informed by Ryle and Poianyi— practice (chess-playing or bicycle-riding). However, the
that "our knowing is in our action." Schon examined the practice has no meaning apart from the "knowing how"
practice of five professions and argued that the skillful that constitutes it. Remove the "knowing how" of playing
practice exhibited by the professionals did not consist of chess from the practice, and we no longer have anything
applying some a priori knowledge to a specific decision recognizable as chess-playing practice. The two are in-
or action, but rather of a kind of knowing that was inseparable as Ryle (1949, p. 32) notes:
herent in their action. As he puts it (1983, p. 49):
. . . 'ihinking what I am doing' does noi connote 'both thinking
When we go about ihe spontaneous, intuitive performance of what to do and doing it." When I do something intelligently . . .
the actions of everyday life, we show ourselves to be knowl- I am doing one thing and not two. My perfonnance has a special
edgeable in a special way. Often we cannot say whal it is lhat procedure or manner, not special antecedents.
we know. . . . Our knowing is ordinarily tacit, implicit in our
pattern of action and in our feel for the stuff with which we are
This mutual constitution of knowing and practice—while
dealing. It seems right to say that our knowing is in our action. hard to conceptualize in our conventional theoretical
frameworks—is a key premise underpinning Giddens'
What is highlighted in Schon's observation is the es- (1984) theory of structuration. Maturana and Varela's
sential role of human agency in knowledgeable perfor- (1989) notion of autopoiesis. and Lewontin's (I995)con-
mance. Maturana and Varela (1998, pp. 27, 29) similarly structionist biology. It is also effectively depicted in
define knowing as "effective action." and write that "all Escher"s (1948) lithograph Drawing Hands (see Figure
doing is knowing, and all knowing is doing."" When we 1), where the right hand draws the left hand even as the
focus primarily on knowledge, we lose the centrality of left hand draws the right hand.
action in knowledgeability. Schon (1983) suggests that Recent work in cognitive anthropology has reinforced
the tendency to slip from a focus on knowing to that of the essentially mutual constitution of knowing and prac-
knowledge is deeply rooted in our theoretical enterprise tice. Based on extensive field work, Lave (1988) and
as we attempt to develop (and test) theories that make Hutchins (1991. 1995) have found that cognition in prac-
sense of (or predict) effective action. He cites the example tice (or "in the wild" as Hutchins evocatively puts it) is
of researchers studying how children leam to play with a culturally situated and ongoing social activity. In a se-
wooden blocks, observing that as the researchers viewed ries of studies that examined math-problem-solving ac-
the children's actions they were "cotnpelled to invent a tivities in adults, Lave (1988) persuasively shows that

ORGANIZATION SCIENCH/VOI. 13, No. 3, May-June 2002 251


Figure 1 M. C, Escher's "Drawing Hands"

':& 2001 Cordon Art B.V. - Baarn - Holland. All rights reserved

competence in math is not some abstract knowledge that Giddens (1984. p. 4) defines human knowledgeability
individuals either do or do not have, but a "knowledge- as "inherent within the ability to 'go on' within the rou-
in-practice." a situated knowing constituted by a person tines of social life." Such ability to "go on" is inseparable
acting in a particular .setting and engaging aspects of the from human agency, where agency is the capacity of hu-
self, the body, and the physical and social worlds (Lave mans to "choose to do otherwise." Knowledgeability or
1988. pp. 180-181). Based on her studies. Lave writes knowing-in-practice is continually enacted through peo-
that "knowledge is not primarily a factual commodity or ple's everyday activity: it does not exist "out there" (in-
compendum of facts, nor is an expert knower an ency- corporated in external objects, routines, or systems) or "in
clopedia. Instead knowledge takes on the character of a here" (inscribed in human brains, bodies, or communi-
process of knowing" (1988. p. 175). Spender (1996b, p. ties). Rather, knowing is an ongoing social accomplish-
64) similarly observes that: "knowledge is less about truth ment, constituted and reconstituted in everyday practice.
and reason and more about the practice of intervening As such, knowing cannot be understood as stable or en-
knowledgeably and purposefully in the world." during. Because it is enacted in the moment, its existence

252 ORGANIZATION SCIENCE/VOI. 13, No. 3. May-June 2002


is virtual, its status provisional. Knowing how to ride a as they change their practices. People improvise new
bicycle, recognize faces, play basketball, make fine flutes practices as they invent, slip into, or leam new ways of
(Cook and Yanow 1996), or launch and recover planes interpreting and experiencing the world. For example.
on an aircraft carrier (Weick and Roberts 1993) are ca- Schon (1983) shows that situated practice often involves
pabilities generated through action. They emerge from the reflection and experimentation, and how through such in-
situated and ongoing interrelationships of context (time the-moment reconstruction of thought and action, know-
and place), activity stream, agency (intentions, actions), ing may be altered. Similarly, Barrett (1998) and Weick
and structure (normative, authoritative, and interpretive). (1993) argue that improvisation in practice is a powerful
Because these capabilities are continually generated in means of increasing organizational innovation, leaming,
recurrent action, continuity is achieved and preserved as and change. Thus, when people change their practices,
people interpret and experience their doing as "the same" their knowing changes. From such a perspective, people
over time and across contexts (Lave 1988. p. 187). Thus, leam to know differently as they use whatever means,
as we bicycle to work every day, we begin to take for motivation, and opportunity they have at hand to reflect
granted that we "know how" to ride a bicycle, and lose on, experiment with, and improvise their practices. The
sight of the way in which our "knowing how" is an active Hungarian soldiers did this once they found a map and
and recurrent accomplishment. began to use it.
People's ongoing engagement in social practices, and While examinations of knowing have examined a va-
thus their reproduction of the knowing generated in those riety of settings, most have focused on the work practices
practices, is how they reconstitute knowledgeability over of individuals (Suchman 1987, Lave 1988, Orr 1996) or
time and across contexts. Continuity of competence, of that of focal groups proximate in time and space (Weick
skillful practice, is thus achieved not given. It is a recur- and Roberts 1993, Hutchins 1995, Pentland 1995. Cook
rently but nevertheless situated and enacted accomplish- and Yanow 1996). Little is known about the process of
ment which cannot simply be presumed. The status of knowing in complex organizations that are also geograph-
competence is more provisional—because it is always to ically distributed. In such contexts, knowing in practice
be achieved—than we tend to assume when we treat it as is constituted by the ongoing activities of diverse and dis-
given. This is made clear in the accounts of deadly or tributed individuals. The inherent complexity, multiplic-
expensive accidents described by Weick (1993. 1996) ity, and dispersion of such settings complicates how we
and Weick and Roberts (1993), where apparently com- think about and study organizational knowing. It suggests
petent practitioners (firefighters, pilots, and aircraft car- the importance of examining how people in their ongoing
rier crew) were unable to reproduce skilled performances practices constitute knowing how to engage in distributed
in certain circumstances. It is also evident in the example organizing.
recounted by Weick (1987) of the Hungarian soldiers lost Existing approaches to studying distributed organizing
in a snowstorm in the Alps who eventually found their tend to focus on the importance of knowledge transfer
way back to camp by discovering a map of the Pyrenees. across boundaries, and the value of generating a set of
Before they found the map, the soldiers could not be said "best practices" that can be propagated through the dis-
to "know how" to get out of the Alps. As they themselves persed operations. A view of knowing as enacted in prac-
reported: "we considered ourselves lost and waited for tice does not view competence as something to be "trans-
the end" (Weick 1987, p. 222). Yet, once they had found ferred," and suggests that the very notion of "best
the map, the soldiers were able to enact a collective com- practices" is problematic. When practices are defined as
petence that got them out of the Alps. As an officer de- the situated recurrent activities of human agents, they
scribed: "And then one of us found a map in his pocket. cannot simply be spread around as if they were fixed and
That calmed us down. We pitched camp, lasted out the static objects. Rather, competence generation may be
snowstorm, and then with the map we discovered our seen to be a process of developing people's capacity to
bearings. And here we are" {1987, p, 222). The "knowing enact what we may term "useful practices"—with use-
how" to find their way back to camp which the soldiers fulness seen to be a necessarily contextual and provi-
displayed after their discovery of the map was a situa- sional aspect of situated organizational activity.
tionally enacted capability—constituted through reading
In the research study described below, I explore the
the map, using it to calm themselves and make sense of
globally dispersed, product development work of a large
their surroundings, and then beginning to take purposive
and successful multinational organization (Kappa). The
action towards finding a way out of the mountains.
empirical insights suggest a central role for practices that
As people continually reconstitute their knowing over produce and sustain a collective and distributed knowing
time and across contexts, they also modify their knowing within the global organization. Such a focus on practices

ORGANIZATION SCIENCE/VOI. 13, No. 3, May-June 2002 253


has not been central to current research on either global soak up our cuslomers' needs, get a bit closer to the end user.
product development or organizational knowledge. Be- That way they can influence the direction our development takes
cause it may be a valuable perspective for understanding by having that knowledge. So thoie are the two main advan-
a range of organizational activities, it is the focus of my tages, 1 think—the sourcing of competence and the proximity
to the markets that we sell in.
attention here.
Not only are the units globally dispersed, but many of the
Research Setting and Methods engineers working in product development embody this
geographic and cultural diversity. One subproject man-
Kappa is a large software company headquartered in The
ager pointed to himself as an example of Kappa's glob-
Netherlands, and producing a small range of sophisticated
alization: "My situation is quite typical for Kappa engi-
and highly integrated systems software products.' In
neers—I am a Greek working in Finland for a Dutch
1998, it earned $8 billion in revenues, these revenues hav-
company and using English to do my work." In total,
ing grown nearly 15% on average since 1990, One of its
some 2,000 engineers work in these 15 DUs. with each
primary products is a specialized operating system (VOS)
DU employing on average 150 software engineers (the
installed on the mainframe computers of aboul 200 major
smallest unit employs 15 engineers, the largest 800). Each
customers around the world. Kappa holds close to 40%
DU is organized in terms of a matrix, with each engineer
share of this market. Given increasing competitive pres-
participating in both a local deveiopment structure (e.g.,
sures, changing customer requirements, and continuing
the Palo Alto DU), as well as a global product manage-
technology advances, new releases of the VOS product
ment structure (e.g., the PO-98 organization developing
are produced every two to three years. These product de-
the VOS-98 product). Each DU operates as a cost center
velopment efforts are accomplished through temporary
with its own cost structure, and every year product man-
global project groups (known as Product Organizations
agers in each PO contract for the engineering talent lo-
or POs) lasting from 18 to 24 months in duration, and
cated within the DUs,
each involving the dedicated services of a few hundred
software engineers. Because of the complexity of the At the time of my study. Kappa had an enviable record
product development effort and the need to ensure con- of completing projects on time and generally satisfying
tinuity of customers' operations in the meantime, there customer requirements. However, recent mergers in its
are at any one time within Kappa multiple temporary sector were increasing competitive pressure to reduce the
project groups managing different versions of the com- time-to-market of new products, and accelerating demand
pany's products. For example, when I was conducting my for more customizable features in the software. While
study in 1998, there were three POs in place to manage switching costs for customers of the VOS products were
the VOS product: one to maintain the currently installed high, customers were becoming increasingly interested in
version (PO-97), one to complete development and test- capabilities that utilized the Internet and the Java lan-
ing of the next version of the product (PO-98), and one guage. VOS, written in a proprietary software language,
to plan the design and development of the after-the-next was not compatible with the Internet, and Kappa was un-
version of the product (PO-99). der some pressure to tind ways to bridge existing func-
tionality to the Internet, even as it attempted to develop
Kappa's product development activities are distributed a new generation of Internet-based VOS products.
across multiple local Development Units (known as
DUs). These DUs are located in 15 different locations My field study focused on the everyday work practices
spread over five continents. One senior executive ex- of Kappa's temporary product organizations and was con-
plained the rationale for Kappa's highly distributed prod- ducted during six months in 1998. I spent time at five
uct development as follows: local development units as well as Kappa's headquarters,
interviewing a range of players associated with the VOS
Doing product development from a distributed perspective— product: software engineers (involved in planning, de-
this is a strenglh of Kappa. I think it is something we have sign, development, testing, and maintenance); DU staff
managed quite well. . . . the advantages are obvious. There are
(involved in quality assurance, career development, proj-
several ones: first of all, you get access to resources wherever
ect budgeting, and infrastructure support); DU managers,
it is. Holland is a pretty small country and our universities just
don't turn out the number of engineers that Kappa needs of the project managers working for POs; and senior Kappa ex-
right quality. So you get access to good people if you choose ecutives (see Table 1 for details). I conducted 78 inter-
your locations wisely. Another advantage is proximity to the views in total, representing approximately 10% of all
markets. The DUs work with our local companies and sit close Kappa personnel involved with VOS product develop-
to the marketing people. They can provide technical saies sup- ment activities. Interviews lasted from 45 minutes to over
pon, ean intiuence the sales process, and in doing so they also three hours in length, and were conducted one-on-one

254 ORGANIZATION SCIENCE/VO1. 13, No. 3, May-June 2002


Table 1 Number and Type of Interviews Conducted Within the findings of this initial study offer an interesting start-
Kappa ing point for understanding what it is that Kappa members
say they do everyday as they engage in their product de-
PARTICIPANTS DU-1 DU-2 DU-3 DU-4 DU-5 HQ TOTAL velopment activities. In this. I follow Giddens' (1984,
Giddens and Pierson 1998) insistence that people are
Software Engineers 6 3 4 4 4 - 2 1 knowledgeable and reflexive, and that they tend to know
Support Staff 5 4 4 1 2 1 17 more about (and can give a reasonable account oO what
Local Unit Managers 2 2 2 2 2 - 1 0 they do than researchers give them credit for.
Project Managers 4 3 3 6 3 - 19
My orientation to data collection and analysis was ex-
Senior Executives 2 - 2 - 2 5 11
ploratory, intended to generate insights into the practices
TOTAL 19 12 15 13 13 6 78
and conditions that constitute effective global product de-
velopment work of the sort engaged in by Kappa. The
process of data collection and analysis proceeded itera-
with participants, either in their private offices if they had tively. with the early stages being more open ended than
one or in a meeting room when they did not. Almost all the later ones. This allowed for some flexibility in data
the interviews were taped and transcribed verbatim. 1 also collecting, allowing themes to emerge and then be ex-
spent time talking to project participants informally, usu- amined more deeply as relevant. My initial time at Kappa
ally joining them for lunches and dinners during my time was spent in unstructured interviewing, general obser-
at the different locations. vation, and review of background materials about the
In addition to interviews and observation, I collected company, its products, and industry. Early stages of the
data by reviewing some of the extensive documentation research focused on understanding the activities of prod-
generated by the activities of product development, in- uct development and how these were shaped by Kappa's
cluding project plans and schedules, product specifica- global dispersion, the VOS product's technical complex-
tions, technical diagrams, and meeting minutes. I also had ity, and the temporary structure of the VOS product or-
access to selected portions of the global Kappa intranet ganizations.
(the organization's intemal web sites), where organiza- As I came to better understand the context and com-
tional, procedural, and technical information was posted. plexity of Kappa's product development, I became par-
This provided important contextual informalion on DU ticularly aware of the importance of boundaries that
and project-organizing structures, training and develop- Kappa members routinely traverse in their daily activities.
ment programs, HR policies and evaluation criteria, pro- In their descriptions of their distributed product devel-
ject planning models, methodologies, and technical stan- opment work. Kappa participants repeatedly referred to a
dards, as well as details on existing computer platforms number of different boundaries that shaped and chal-
and anticipated technological developments. lenged their everyday work. I discerned at least seven
My data collection and analysis focused on the work boundaries in such descriptions: temporal (19 time zones
practices of the Kappa members and was exploratory in and a variety of weekly, monthly, and quarterly sched-
nature. Participants were asked to describe their everyday ules), geographic (15 global locations), social (hundreds
activities (in a "Day in the life of . . ." format), as well of participants engaged in joint development work), cul-
as to talk about their project, its organization, fiows of tural (30 nationalities), historical (three different versions
communication, and key challenges. In response, partic- of the same product), technical (complex software system
ipants almost invariably grabbed a sheet of paper or running on a variety of different computer infrastructures,
jumped to a whiteboard to draw one or more pictures of and accommodating a variety of standards), and political
their project's complex and shifting interaction structure. (different functional interests, product criteria, and local
In addition, participants were asked to discuss their reg- vs. global priorities). Because of the obvious salience of
ular use of artifacts (software tools, communication me- these boundaries to the distributed work of the Kappa
dia, project plans, methodologies, standards, etc.) in con- participants, I began to focus the data collection more
ducting their ongoing project work. explicitly on boundaries. Thus, in later stages of the re-
I was unable to participate in or observe project activ- search, I became more strategic in my choice of partici-
ities directly, thus my understanding of practices comes pants and more directed in the interviews, seeking to en-
primarily from interview data and from the traces of work gage them in a discussion of the nature, role, and
evident in project documentation. This is clearly a limi- consequences of boundaries in product development
tation of my study, and ethnographic data would offer work.
more grounded accounts of work practices. Nevertheless, I used inductive qualitative techniques to analyze the

ORGANIZATION SCIENCEA/O1. 13, No. 3, May-June 2002 255


data (Agar 1980. Eisenhardt 1989, Glaser and Strauss I shared my preliminary findings on the repertoire of
1967, Strauss and Corbin 1990). informed by my focus practices with a broad sample of Kappa members—en-
on practices and knowledgeability while remaining alert gineers, unit and product managers, executives—and
to emerging ideas. Analysis consisted of multiple read- these discussions generated additional details which elab-
ings of the interview transcripts, field notes, and docu- orated and sharpened my interpretations and yielded ad-
mentation, and the identification of activities and issues ditional insights.
that related to everyday product development work. The
literature on organizational knowledge and knowing fo-
cused some of my analysis here. For example, Kogut and
Zander's (1996) discussion of "what [firmsj know how Knowing How to Do Global Product
to do" highlighted the importance of such conditions as Development in Kappa
shared identity, convergent expectations, common com-
In terms of conventional measures of profitability and
munication codes, and situated Ieaming.
market leadership. Kappa is, and has been for a number
The empirical success of Kappa suggests that a host of of decades, a highly successful organization. Part of
elements—strategic, technological, financial, political, Kappa's success clearly depends on its technical creativ-
and cultural—-are central to its ongoing accomplishment ity, its strategic positioning, its leadership, and its cus-
of effective product development. Indeed, the data re- tomer relations. However, I argue here that another im-
vealed the critical role of a number of these. I could not portant aspect of Kappa's success is grounded in the
focus on all of them here, and instead chose to explore everyday practices through which Kappa members con-
the theoretical thesis that knowing is an enacted capabil- stitute a collective competence in knowing how to deliver
ity. Consequently, in analyzing my data I paid careful innovative yet complex products in a timely fashion. We
attention to how members of Kappa described and made
can begin to understand this aspect of Kappa's "knowing
sense of the activities they engaged in to accomplish their
how" to do global product development work by exam-
work. By the word "activities," I mean what members
ining the everyday practices of its members as they re-
actually did every day as part of their complex and dis-
currently enact ways of dealing with the temporal, geo-
tributed product development work. Because these ac-
graphic, political, cultural, technical, and social boundaries
counts of everyday product development work revealed
they routinely encounter in their work. In particular, they
the salience of a multiplicity of boundaries that Kappa
members deal with daily, I concentrated my data analysis deal with these boundaries through knowing how to nav-
on those specific activities that Kappa members associ- igate (i.e., articulate, attend to. engage with) as well as
ated with their descriptions of boundaries. negotiate (i.e., redefine, reconstruct) them.
Through the data analysis I identified a repertoire of
This analysis generated a set of recurring themes that
referred to the activities engaged in to traverse the bound- practices that when engaged in by Kappa members can
aries of time, space, culture, history, technology, and poli- be seen to constitute, dynamically and recurrently over
tics which Kappa members routinely encountered in their time, what we may call Kappa's competence in distrib-
work. I then reexamined the data in terms of these sets uted organizing (see Table 2 for an overview of these
of activity themes, paying particular attention to how they practices and their associated activities). The first two of
comprised particular practices associated with boundary these practices—sharing identity and interacting face to
work. The unit of analysis in these considerations was face—constitute a knowing of the organization and the
social practice, defined as recurrent, materially bounded. players in it. For Kappa members, these two kinds of
and situated social action engaged in by members of a knowing generate a knowing how to be coherent, com-
community—in this case, the members of Kappa's VOS mitted, and cooperative across a variety of spatial, tem-
produci development operations. Practices are engaged in poral, and political boundaries. The next three practices—
by individuals as part of the ongoing structuring pro- aligning effort, learning by doing, and supporting partic-
cesses through which institutions and organizations are ipation—constitute knowing how to coordinate on com-
produced and reproduced. They are thus both individual plex projects, knowing how to develop capabilities for
(because performed by actors in their everyday action) doing product development, and knowing how to inno-
and institutional (because they shape and are shaped by vate within global operations. For Kappa members, these
organizational norms and structures). I aggregated and three kinds of knowing generate a knowing how to be
clustered activities into what may be seen as a repertoire consistent, competent, and creative across a variety of
of practices routinely performed by Kappa members in technical, geographic, historical, and cultural boundaries.
their globally distributed product development work.
As Kappa members draw on and use this repertoire of

256 ORGANIZATION SCIBNCE/VOI. 13, No. 3, May-June 2(X)2


Table 2 Repertoire of Practices, Activities, and Knowing Within Kappa

Practice Activities Comprising the Practice Knowing Constituted in the Practice

Sharing identity Engaging in common training and socialization Knowing the organization
Using common orientation to do deveiopment work
Identifying with the organization

Interacting face to face Gaining trust, respect, credibiiity, and commitment Knowing the players in the game
Sharing information
Building and sustaining social networks

Aligning effort Using common model, method, and metrics Knowing how to coordinate across time and space
Contracting for expertise annuaiiy
Using standard metrics

Learning by doing Investing in individual development Knowing how to develop capabilities
Mentoring employees in their careers
Rewarding not punishing effort

Supporting participation Giobaiiy distributing product development work Knowing how to innovate
Involving participants in project decisions
Initiating and supporting overseas assignments

practices over time and across situations, they generate development projects. Kappa members deal with this
and sustain a collective competence in distributed orga- challenge by actively and recurrently producing a dis-
nizing. The enactment of such a collective knowing, how- tinctive and shared Kappa identity with which most of
ever, is not without negative consequences. Kappa's them identify and through which they orient their work
knowing is also a not-knowing. While its collective com- (Table 3 provides additional data on these activities). This
petence in distributed organizing is enabling, it is also process of shared identity construction affords Kappa
inhibiting when (as I show below): sharing identity be- members a localized yet common orientation to each
comes organizational groupthink. interacting face to face other and to their product development work across geo-
leads to burnout, aligning effort discourages improvisa- graphic locations and different versions of the VOS prod-
tion, learning by doing is lost through turnover, and sup- uct. Thus, software engineers in, say. Holland or Spain
porting participation is immobilizing because of conflicts have—and know they have—a similar orientation to soft-
and time delays. ware development work as do software engineers in, say,
The five practices discussed below should not be seen India or Australia.
to be either exhaustive or exclusive. They do not operate This knowing about the organization and how it works
independently of each other, but overlap and interact at is generated through the initial training and socialization
the same time and over time. Their discussion below as workshops that all new employees participate in. It is sub-
standalone and separate is an analytic convenience only. sequently reinforced when Kappa members appropriate
Similarly, the discussion below of practices and the the common orientation and use it to inform their every-
knowing constituted in practice is complicated by the fact day product development activities. Talk to any Kappa
that our language implies an ontological separation when employee, and very quickly she/he will mention the
this is neither intended nor warranted. The recursive con- "Kappa way" as a critical element of how work is accom-
stitution of knowing and practice should be continually plished across the distributed locations of their opera-
borne in mind.
tions. The "Kappa way" is seen to generate the common
Sharing Identity: Knowing the Organization ground on which distributed product development work
A consistent challenge experienced in distributed work is is structured, and is for many a means of local and global
maintaining coherence, commitment, and continuity identification within their daily activities. It is understood
across the multiple locations, priorities, and interests of by Kappa members as the ongoing activity of calibrating
the hundreds of people involved in the collaborative ef- and connecting with a set of shared values, goals, and
fort. Kappa's large size and widespread geographic dis- expectations about what is important in Kappa and why.
persion ensure this challenge is faced on all VOS product A senior executive explained:

ORGANIZATION SctBNCE/Vol. 13, No. 3, May-June 2002 257


Tabfe 3 Sharing Identity Within Kappa

Knowing in Practice Activities Data from Kappa

Knowing the Creating a common orientation "We ail learn the Kappa way of doing things."
organization through through participating in
sharing a Kappa common training and
identity socialization v/orkshops
Appropriating and using a i reaiiy see that I am working for Kappa and not with this DU or this
common orientation to getting product. We have the same way of working everywhere. Of course, here
globai product development we do it in the German way, but it is the same. Kappa has managed
work done somehow to do, to create, a common spirit among all the units."
Reinforcing one's connection to think what Kappa has managed to do is that everyone feels connected.
Kappa by identifying with the Everyone feels that they belong to Kappa, . . . that you're a part of this
organization big family."

Tiie way we work in Kappa is the same across locations be- Very few companies can compete with Kappa for one simple
cause we're always shooling for the one goal, and that is to reason, and that is the loyalty of its people to the company. And
have a successful project. That's the bottom line. And people that you can't buy.
strive for that. We may differ somciimes on how to get to that
goal. Bur the common goal of a successful product and a good Kogut and Zander (1996). as well as Dutton et al.
product so our cuslomer doesn't holler at us, is pretty much. (1994. p. 254), note that strong identification with an or-
I think, viewed by everybody as really impotianl. And so ganization increases cooperation among members and di-
whether the Americans want to go, you know, A. B. C. D to rects additional effort towards tasks contributing to co-
get there, or the Germans want to go A, F, E, D—^as long as workers and the organization. Such a positive relationship
they come to that common goal, that's fine. And they do. It's was quite evident in Kappa's product development activ-
the Kappa way.
ities. Through enacting a shared identity and a common
orientation to their work. Kappa members constitute an
The sense of participating in a "Kappa way" of doing
ongoing and collective knowing how to do global product
things was widely shared across all levels of the organi-
development work within their distributed organization.
zation, from senior executive to recent recruit, and across
By continuing to engage in these ongoing practices.
all Kappa locations. Belief in and ongoing engagement
Kappa members reinforce the value of their shared iden-
in a common way of doing things shaped engineers' ex-
tity, which further helps them to establish connections
pectations and actions towards each other and their prod-
with and orientations to each other, however distant in
uct development tasks, thus helping to constitute and re-
time or space they may be.
constitute the common Kappa way of doing product
development work over time and space, history and lo- While the ongoing enactment of a shared identity is
cale. This is evident in the comments of a software en- critical to the conduct of global product development
gineer: work, it is not without risks. The "same frame of mind"
quoted above may also lead to an organizational form of
When I travel to different DUs and participate In different meet- groupthink with less fiexibility around change. Kogut and
ings, I know everybody has the same frame of mind that we are Zander (1996, p. 515) note that shared identity "also im-
working on. Eventually in the end we are all working for Kappa. poses the weighty costs of ruling out alternative ways to
Of course, in some cases you want to have the best for your
organize and to exploit new avenues of development."
local organization. But in the end. we always keep in mind the
Indeed. Kappa is currently faced with having to migrate
overall picture—that we are working for Kappa. I see that ev-
erywhere.
many of its products and approaches to a new form of
software development (object-oriented) utilizing a new
Common identification by members of the "Kappa way" technology platform (the Internet). This change is proving
provides the basis for a continued and evolving sense of quite difficult for Kappa, given its considerable past suc-
trust, respect, and loyalty that is evident throughout the cesses with an established approach. A senior executive
organization and which significantly facilitates the con- commented:
duct of complex and distributed product development The higgest challenge is changing from how we are currently
work. One PO manager noted: working, and that feeling of security in what we are doing. With

258 ORGANIZATION SCIENCH/VOI. 13, No. 3. May-June 2002


the persons we have in the organization, it is quite hard to give also building the social connections that facilitate distrib-
up something that has worked now for 20 years. It is a paradox, uted working:
isn't il, that people have to give up what they feel most secure
These face-to-face meetings are very effective for letting us hear
about to in fact secure their future.
about the other subprojects. So we see what their risks and their
A shared identity has the dual nature noted by Geertz problems are. to see if that may apply to us. . . . It is also very
(1973)—that a model of reality is also a mo(/e//or reality. effective in building relations between the subprojects. in case
In Kappa's case, ongoing enactment of a shared identity, we need a favor, or something like that. Thai is helpful.
even as it enables a particularly powerful understanding
Comments by project managers from all three of the POs
and way of acting in the world, may constrain movement
dealing with the VOS products echo the view that face-
away from such understanding and acting when it be-
to-face interaction generates a knowing of each other and
comes the exclusive source of motivation, identification,
each others' commitments that helps to get things done
attention, and action.
across distance. Two project managers noted:
Interacting Face to Face: Knowing the Piayers in the You can't resolve everything over the phone. It is important to
Game have that personal relationship as well, which you achieve by
Kappa's projects typically involve the participation of meeting each other, and then it makes it a lot easier when you
hundreds of software engineers located around the world. communicate through e-mail or the phone.
Moreover, the participation of individuals on a project is
Once you have face-to-facc meetings—and we have them once
not fixed or static, but decided through a series of work a month, rotating them around: United Stales. Canada. Mexico,
assignment contracts that are negotiated annually be- Holland. Japan—you begin to form these relationships . . . and
tween a product organization and the distributed design that helps to cement commitment.-;. 1 mean, if somebody tells
units. There is thus a considerable social boundary to be me on the pbone 'I am going to make it on time." this has a
dealt with as engineers and managers work jointly with different level of quality than if I meet this person and he tells
hundreds of different people located in many different me in front of my face 'I am going to make it.' So the level of
parts of the world. commitment that you get is totally different.
Everyone I talked to within Kappa commented that one One Kappa executive gave an instance of how face-to-
of the ways they deal with this challenge is by engaging face interaction afforded a knowing of each other that was
in extensive social interaction—despite the highly dis- critical when particularly difficult decisions needed to be
tributed nature of their product development operations.
made:
Such engagement in recurrent face-to-face interaction
seems particularly useful in this context because it enacts For example, on a project, we will have one view in Holland.
an ongoing and evolving knowing of the shifting set of and one view here [in Australia). And we will be talking on the
phone, and talking about lots of stuff, but we will not come to
players in the game, thus building and sustaining impor-
a conclusion. To come to a conclusion, someone needs to stand
tant social networks that support the doing of distributed
up in front of the group and say. 'Here is the deal, here is why
work. It is by working with and through such social net- it is important, we need this function, and we are going to do
works that Kappa metnbers navigate and negotiate many it.' And then people will back down, and everyone will agree
of the challenges of working across temporal, geographic, that it is important. If you don't seethe person talking, you don't
cultural, and political boundaries (Table 4 provides ad- see the idea. People send a message with their face and every-
ditional data on these activities). thing. If you see the person, you see the power in that person,
Kappa members emphasized the importance of face- and that helps to create a frame that you can make sense in. I
don't see that we can do it the same way on the phone.
to-face communication for establishing and sustaining so-
cial relationships which are seen to be essential in global The ongoing practice of face-to-face interaction allows
product development work within Kappa. One senior PO Kappa members to constitute a sense of knowing their
manager noted: colleagues, of knowing their credibility in and commit-
Tlie easiest way to get things done in Kappa is to have a good ment to specific issues, and of knowing how to collabo-
network. If you have a good network, you can get anything rate with them to get things done in a globally dispersed
done. If you don't have that, you are going to have a tough time and complex product development environment.
in our distributed environmenl. A lot of influence happens in However, this practice of face-to-face interaction in a
the network. So moving around and meeting people extends the globally distributed organization does not come without
network, and that is promoted within Kappa, and that is good.
consequences. One cost—as a project manager put it—is
Another PO manager gave an example of how face-to- "tons of travel." and the accompanying need to justify
face contact affords leaming about other projects while considerable travel expenses. A DU staff member gave



Table 4 Interacting Face to Face Within Kappa


Knowing the players in Gaining and assessing trust, "A big upfront effort of any project is to get to know the peopie, i am not a
the game through respeot, credibiiity, and believer in videoconferencing. So we spent a good week in the United
interacting face to commitment Kingdom getting to know each other. We had our differences, but it
face became a very open relationship. And that is what we try to do, keep a
very open relationship. From a work perspective that is very important."
"Meeting people, for instance, is a key to understanding them."
Sharing information "Ours is a very complicated product, so you have to ask about things, and
discuss things, and negotiate things, and for that you need a face-to-face
meeting. It is aiways easier to exchange information eye to eye, as I iike
to say."
Building social relationships with "I think in this complicated world, when you build such big and complex
otfiers systems, I think that physical presence is a must. . , even for engineers.
If you think that engineers can go without wining and dining, you are
wrong. You have to have that tor team building. You can't replace that
with videoconferencing."
"We are very distributed by nature and so you need to make personal
contact. I have found personal contacts essential. I have always
experienced that the communication is then much more open, and the
peopie dare to say what is going on. So, there is simply no choice but to
go there personaliy and make the contacts."

an example of how Kappa's commitment to having peo- I travel a lot. and it's tough to keep going lo Europe. For a long
ple get to know each other face to face created a problem lime [in the early phases of the project] I would be like, you
with Kappa's extemal auditor. One project had experi- know, gone for a week every month. That was tough, especially
enced a change in leadership midway through the product as I have a wife and kid.
deveiopment effort. As soon as the new project manager Another project manager recounted a period where he
took over, he went on a trip to all the development units temporarily relinquished some of his responsibilities as a
where work on his project was being done, so that he way to cope with his emotional exhaustion:
could "meet ali the people working on the subprojects."
The auditor, however, had difficulty accepting this reason We started ramping the project up in June. We got to full speed
for the travel: by August and ihen the stress got to me. and I got out in October
because I wasn't sleeping at nights. So I became a deputy project
This auditor kept wanting to see a report of the work done on manager, and Belh and me. we kind of swapped positions. I was
the trip. And we tried to tell him 'No, these were not working still on the project but she did all the traveling and took on the
meetings, but meetings to get to know tbe people,' Bui in his pressure of the project. This continued on until about May, and
view, this was travel on company expense, and if it was on then in June Ihe next year 1 was back as project manager.
company expense, tbere sbould be a visible benefit. And we
said, 'Yes, there i.s a visible benefii—the project manager now While knowing one's colleagues in the dispersed arena
knows al! those people." He simply couldn't accept that the only of global product development operations is a tremendous
purpose for the travel was communication. But that's what we advantage to the organization, it is only achieved with
do, even tfiougb it's sometimes difficult to explain to outsiders. some not inconsequential negative consequences for
members. Managing the discrepancy between organiza-
While travel expenses are an obvious cost, what is less
tional benefit and individual cost is an important chal-
obvious is the physical and emotional wear and tear on
lenge for Kappa's form of distributed organizing.
Kappa members who do such extensive travel to maintain
face-to-face interaction. HR managers are particularly Aligning Effort: Knowing How to Coordinate Across
concerned about the risk of individual burnout incurred Time and Space
by the toll of ongoing travel. Many VOS project members Kappa's products are highly complex and integrated tech-
reported increased stress and decreased family time. One nical systems that involve millions of lines of software
United States-based project manager noted that: code and thousands of modules. These systems need to

260 ORG.^NEZATION SciENCF./Vol. 13. No. 3. May-June 2002


work seamlessly with each other, reflect evolving tech- planning and methodology tools in facilitating distributed
nical standards and customer requirements, and be com- work:
patible with the previous generation of products that are [Distributed development] is a challenge, and il's a lol of co-
still operating on customers' computers. Developing such ordination and everything is based on a number of basic prin-
systems successfully demands effective and ongoing co- ciples. We use a common process methodology which everyone
ordination. knows becau.se it's part of the basic educational package when
Within Kappa, such aligning of products, projects, and software engineers start to work here. And then we have coor-
dination wilhin ihis framework, done al all levels of the project
people across time and space is accomplished through
to get all the different software pieces together for the system
two key activities: the consistent and widespread use of at Ihe same time. There are the technical standards and coor-
a proprietary project management model, its planning dination documents where you describe impacts on different
tool, and structured systems development methodology; parts of the system and all the different organizations in.spect
and the annual contracting for work via standard metrics those documents and agree to them. And then each different
("kilomanhours") between product organizations (POs) subproject can plan their work accordingly and implement tbe
and local development units (DUs). Through their on- solutions. And in tbe overall project coordination, you plan on
specific dates when whal function.s should be available, so the
going use of such models, tools, methodologies, con-
differenl subprojects go ahead and design and test tbeir function
tracts, and metrics. Kappa members constitute a knowing
by a specific date. And then everything comes together.
how to coordinate their global product development ac-
tivities across the multiple boundaries of time, space, On an annual basis, product managers of each PO ne-
technology, and history that characterize Kappa's VOS gotiate with the DUs for the work (planning, develop-
product development effort (Table 5 provides additional ment, maintenance) its software engineers will perform
data on these activities). that year on each product. A senior PO-99 manager ex-
A senior executive commented on the role of project plained what this entails:

Table 5 Aligning Effort Within Kappa


Knowing how to Using a common project "This project management model really works quite well. It is a good
coordinate through management model, planning umbrella, a good foundation for doing this work. And all the DUs use it
aligning effort over tool, and structured soflv^^are along with the common processing methodologies. So if I said, here's Ihe
time and space development methodology content of a project coming out cf feasibility study, and here is my project
spec, everyone will know what I am talking about. It's a unifying process
and methodoiogy that helps us run projects."
Negotiating and contracting for "The assignment of people tc work is contracted every year. Sc someone
engineers tc work on projects decides that there wili be this new release of softvi/are. And then all the
via annual assignment different DUs that own people are asked to give, at each ievel, people to
contracts be involved in the project. So DUs have given project managers lo the
project to work at a very high level to coordinate all the activities across
Kappa. At a lower level, this department here receives an assignment
from a project to do a certain amount of work here. And then we add
people here to do that project. So at each level, the assignment of people
gets lower, and lower, and lower. And peopie are added by the line to
whatever work needs to be done at that level."
Using a standard metric "What happens is that on an annual basis we work with the product
("kilomanhours") for assigning manager to make a kind of agreement,. . . this is the amount of
and allocating personnel tc kilomanhours you get for this amount of money. . . . It's based on
project work expectations of work that is coming in. And based on that you make a
plan for the year because we know that we have this requirement for new
project assignments and that requirement to maintain an ongoing
project."
"Once we have agreed the contract for manhours with each DU each year,
then that is the rules for how we work."

ORGANtZATiON SctENCE/Vol. 13, No. 3, May-June 2002 261

WANDA .1. ORLIKOWSKI Knawins in Practice

Every year we make a plan, whal we call an operational plan, early stage, this is tbe scope, this is feasible, tbis is wbat we are
and there we state what is our vision and mission, and our strat- going to do, and tbis is wbat it costs now. Tben we can execute
egies and goals for the product. . . . So tbe operational plan is on this.
one controlling document for us. The budgel is another one.
When we have the budget tben we make agreements witb tbe
Ongoing use of the project management model, the
different international DUs. We say, OK. we want tbe French
planning tool, and common systems development meth-
DU to do tbis many manhours—yes, we call il manhours. un-
fortunately—and that's what we would like to buy from the
odology, as well as the negotiated assignments and con-
French witb this competence and in (his time period. tracts, allow Kappa project managers and software engi-
neers to collectively and repeatedly align themselves with
From the perspective of a DU manager, the annual ne- their dynamic and distributed product development work.
gotiation over work is experienced as follows: These activities enact an ongoing and evolving knowing
What a PO does is they send down an assignment—it's called how to coordinate product development work over time
an assignment spec. And the assignment spec specifies exactly (both of the current product and past generations), politics
the dates and functions they want delivered. And then wbal we (the different and dynamic technical standards and cus-
return back is a project spec. This is all documented in Kappa's tomer requirements), and geography (the distributed lo-
methodology for managing projects And in tbe project spec we cations where engineering work is actually done).
specify whether we can deliver all these functions by the dates.
Plans, methodologies, tools, contracts, and metrics fa-
We look at things like wbat competence we bave available, tbe
other projects going on, tbe complexity of tbe functions, and
cilitate coordination by reducing uncertainty and vari-
tbat type of tbing. And tbere are times tbat we actually bave to ability. Such use, however, can aiso dampen improvisa-
write an assignment out to other DUs if we don't have all the tion. When Kappa members use the plans, methods, and
resources here. Like, for example, we may borrow resources metrics to focus their attention and guide their work ac-
from India or Spain. So we're responsible for trying to find the tivities, they also inadvertently discount ideas and activ-
resources if we don't have it all in our organization. ities not expressible in the vocabulary of the plans, meth-
ods, and metrics in use. This makes Kappa vulnerable to
Most of the VOS product development efforts extend
shifts in software development paradigms. Indeed, as
for a duration of 18 to 24 months. The scope of each of
mentioned, such a shift is currently underway within the
the projects is typically defined in the range of 300 to 400
industry, and Kappa's dependence on its proprietary suite
kilomanhours, and involves hundreds of software engi-
of project management and software development ap-
neers across the 15 distributed DU locations. The division
proaches is constraining its shift to a new generation of
of work across these locations is accomplished through a
hierarchical decomposition of the project into subproj- software platforms which rely on a different infrastructure
ects. with each DU usually taking responsibility for one (the Internet), a different programming language (Java).
or more subprojects. For example, one project manager and different software development methodologies
for the VOS-98 product explained: (object-oriented, agent-based, and parallel deveiopment).
One project manager commented about Kappa's current
For VOS-98, we have 12 subsystems. And the people are noi project management model:
co-located. So. Gennany develops one part, France another,
here in Holland a third part. Canada the fourth. Spain tbe fifth.
1 ihink it helps us, but tbe drawback is tbat the limit has been
Japan tbe sixtb, and so on. Each of these subprojects specializes
bit now of the capacity of tbat model. And our model is not
in sometbing. a specific function or feature . . . and witb one
today suitable for the future. It is wbal we call here a waterfall
exception, each subproject resides witbin a DU. Tbe exception
model of software development. It is sequential. Bul what we
is [name of function] wbicb itself has three subprojects, two in
need now is a new model and a new methodology for parallel
India, and one in tbe Uniied States.
development.
This project manager went on to explain how important
use of Kappa's project management model and method- As is well known, organizational success and familiarity
ology were in aligning these subprojects: tend to breed complacency (Starbuck 1989). While
Kappa is not immune to these dangers, the need for
All tbese subprojects are running in parallel and we need to
change was recognized by Kappa members throughout
coordinate tbe results from all of tbem. The project model and
methodology helps a lot. It helps us lo write documents and the organization and at all levels. The challenge remains
build models in a more structured way so tbat we can sbare to change work and management practices effectively
these across the locations and get comments on them. . . . We without undermining the ongoing coordination of com-
develop requirement specs, development sketches, implemen- plex product development activities over time, geogra-
tation proposals, tecbnical reports, everything that tells us at an phy, history, and politics.

262 ORGANiZATiON SCIENCE/VOI. 13, No. 3, May-June 2002


Learning by Doing: Knowing How to Develop (skills in computing. Kappa's suite of technical products,
Capabilities as well as the specialized language, methodology, and
Given the nature of Kappa's technically complex prod- platform used in the development of those products),
ucts and strongly competitive environment. Kappa man- "business competence" (skills in project management,
agers want to stay on the leading edge of product devel- customer orientation, and the strategic issues of Kappa's
opment so as to retain and increase their customer base current and future marketplace), and "human compe-
and highly skilled and marketable high-tech employees. tence"' (skills in intercultural communication, negotiation,
Kappa accomplishes this through three primary activities: and proficiency in the English language).
investing in individuals and their ongoing skill develop- My interviews suggest that these descriptions about the
ment, mentoring individuals and creating opportunities development of "individual capacities" are not simply
for their advancement, and rewarding developers' effort. ideological rhetoric. A senior executive commented about
Through engaging in such activities. Kappa members re- the organization's HR activities:
currently enact a knowing how to develop capabilities
which generates a steady supply of skills and capabilities We pay a lol for competence development. Not only in training,
for both the individuals themselves as well as the partic- but also in overseas assignments. It is our life, so we believe in
ular units for which they work. It also ensures that paying a lot for it. We inve.sl in the individual. And we need
Kappa's product development work is conducted by peo- lhat to balance out tbai we are not tbe bighest payer. We do not
pay as well a.s some of our competitors, especially in tbe United
ple with strong and up-to-date skill sets (Table 6 provides
States wberc they buy loyalty with options and tbings like tbat.
additional data on these activities).
We build loyalty tbrougb investing in the people. We bave a
Kappa invests extensively in its employees. One bro- different culture.
chure handed out to new recruits describes their careers
at Kappa as a "Lifetime of Competence Development," Investing in the individual was not just an espoused prin-
and employees are told that they will develop "capacities" ciple, but actively enacted through what people did (or
in three areas: "technical/professional competence" did not do) every day. For instance, one senior executive

Table 6 Learning by Doing Within Kappa


Knowing how to Investing in individual skiii "A project organization can burn up people, so who is going to take care of
develop capabilities development through ongoing them, and plan their careers with them. Today, it is not widgets we are
through learning by training making. If we want lo keep the talent that is so scarce, we'd better be
doing good guidance ccunseiors. A manager today in this industry has to be an
HR person."
Mentoring employees and "Kappa is aiso a company where you reaiiy have a iot of opportunities to
advancing their careers do things, and also to change what you are working on. So, if you want to
do some kind of line management, you can do that. If you want to do
some technical work, you can get some technical responsibility. . . . so
you have many possibilities, even to go abroad if you want. I mean you
really can do anything you want."
"I think that Kappa does care about their people. I mean, they really do try
to take care of their people. And then there is the opportunity to travel,
tbe opportunity to move from job to job, and to have your manager
actually very supportive of you doing that. And I really like that."
Rewarding the effort and not "I would say that we keep a high level of respect throughout the company. I
criticizing or punishing errors mean, there's not too many people that come off as being arrogant.
Because here the culture is that of design, so when we look at
documents, we know that this is just ink on a paper. It's not a person. We
are reviewing the document, we are not criticizing a person here. So, we
know that these are not comments to be taken personally. We are trying
to improve the quality of the document by either making it more
understandabie, or correcting its faults, and once we focus on the
document, not the person, things just kind of take off."



noted that there was no policy within Kappa to lay off So. last year we bad one person tbai was recommended from
employees: anotber DU wbo wanted to come on an ex-pal contract. . . And
we took him bul we said, 'We will consider you for subproject
In Kappa, we don't have the mentality to hire and fire. We care leader, but first you bave to run tbrougb the project cycle in
for our employees quite a bit. We are not jusi seeing tbem as design, so tbai you know whal you are talking about.' And he
producers, but tbey are people we also want to care for. did. He did design and testing on a subsystem for VOS-98. And
be is now that subproject leader for VOS-99, and it has turned
This commitment to employees is widely acknowledged out lo be very good. Because now he really exactly knows what
by Kappa members, as a software engineer noted: he's talking about, and wbat has lo be done.
Here I know I have job security. . . . Kappa is a good company.
Reinforcing this supportive learning environment is an
. . . They don't treat you like they do in [name of competitor],
where you can be kicked out ihe next day. attitude of tolerance towards unanticipated or unavoid-
able errors, as a project manager observed:
A large component of line managers" regular duties in-
1 think it is important that we allow people to make mistakes
volved working with individuals to assist their career without killing them. Kappa is very good at doing that. We
planning and guide their skill development. An HR man- reinforce positive behavior and don'l kill negative accomplish-
ager explained that because an overemphasis on project ments.
goals may come at the expense of the employees' inter-
ests. Kappa engages in a separate process of employee One DU had instituted a campaign they labeled "steal
development and mentoring: with pride" as a way to increase the reuse of software
modules and to defend against the "not invented here"
If I'm a projecl manager, I may be grinding tbis person down syndrome. This campaign included both incentives and
to work 70 hours per week so as to get the project done on time. procedures that enabled software designers to learn from
So I couldn't care less after this project is over if tbis person
each others' (and their own) prior work, rather than al-
leaves. But from our organization perspective, that is a critical
ways trying to invent something new (a common value
factor. So we have to have competence managers wbo will look
out for tbe person because the traditional project managers may in the broader software design culture). One project man-
not do it. ager noted that "we have to counter the hero mentality
where everybody wants to put his personal stamp on the
Employees participate in such development and mentor- system, to put his own little Cadillac in the code." And
ing activities as: meeting with designated "competence they do so by creating incentives for sharing software
managers" to plan and develop their careers, promoting modules with others, supporting the reuse of software
their advancement through requesting challenging and/or modules through the creation of guidelines, templates,
overseas assignments, and electing not to leave the or- and repositories, and awarding annual prizes to the group
ganization even in the face of (often multiple and lucra- that displays the most "inventiveness" in reusing existing
tive) offers from Kappa's competitors. Software engi- software.
neers clearly value the career opportunities that are made Through a series of activities that comprise training,
available to them within Kappa, as evident in the follow- developing, mentoring, and rewarding individuals. Kappa
ing comment by a United States software engineer: members enact a knowing how to develop skills and ex-
[Kappal has a lendency to build up ils people. . . . they are really periences that advances both their own capabilities as
interested in continuing your education. I mean not in clay pol- well as those of the organization. One potential negative
tery, but as far as technology is concemed. If tbere is emerging consequence of this leaming practice is that despite
technoiogy in your area, or tbere is a growth ladder in the area, Kappa's efforts, talented employees leave the organiza-
they will train you to move up this ladder, or train you to take tion and take with them years of invested development,
in this new tecbnology. instead of saying, "OK, you have experience, and expertise. This risk of losing personnel
worked ten bours today, now go bome and go to Barnes & is becoming more acute in the current technological en-
Noble and buy a book, and read abou! this new technology stuff vironment where Internet startups are offering lucrative
on your own."
compensation packages and ownership options. A PO
Within Kappa there is also a strong emphasis on pro- manager explained the issue:
moting learning by doing through providing supporting We are in a situation with a ferocious market demand for good
environments within which people can experience new software people, who can get much belter paid elsewbere. So
activities. A DU manager noted that: how do we keep tbeni? In my view it is values. We bave to be
really explicit, what are the values we bave at Kappa.
We always say tbai lu manage a new subproject, you al least
have to bave tbe experience once as a designer in Ihe project. A senior executive similarly commented that:

264 ORGANIZATION SCIENCEA'OI. 13, No. 3, May-June 2002


A key challenge for us is how do we recruit and retain lop lalent the ability to change because you bave lo constantly adapt to a
in a large company like Kappa. Tbere will always be smaller slightly differenl perspective.
companies that will pop up like a cork above us, so we bave to
Engaging the participation of hundreds of people from
find other ways and other tbings with which to attract and keep
around the world requires activities that support such par-
good people—like leading-edge technology, creative environ-
ticipation, and product development work within Kappa
ment, participative culture, truly global company. You also have
is premised on including project members in design de-
to pay a salary lhat is fair and equitable, bul I think il is difficult
for us to survive jusl by paying ver>' high salaries.
cisions and giving them a voice in project deliberations.
A software engineer and project manager observed, re-
While Kappa has traditionally succeeded in recruiting and spectively:
retaining skilled individuals by investing in them, it re- People bave a possibility to cooperate here, contribute to tbe
mains an open question whether this strategy will work decisions. So tbat it's not just managers who sit in a locked
equally effectively in the new Internet-based technolog- room, and tben the only tbing you get is the white smoke lo say
ical environment and the opportunities proffered by an we have a decision. No, people can actually contribute to, take
entrepreneurial business context. pan in, the decision-making process bere.
Tbere is a lot of dialogue and open communications, involving
Supporting Participation: Knowing How to Innovate people in decisions, not just dictating tbis is the way it is, but
Producing technically complex products, while essential, engaging people in discussions and dialogue, and talking to peo-
is not sufficient for success in the fast-paced and comple, which in some case drags out ibe decision process, but it
petitive environment in which Kappa operates. The prod- gives them tbe buy-in and tbe loyalty to tbe company.
ucts also have to be innovative. Generating and sustaining Kappa members understand that such dialogue and inclu-
a high level of innovativeness in product development is sion requires being able to deal with the cultural and lan-
a significant challenge for any organization; it is even guage boundaries that arise when people representing 30
more so in the case of a highly distributed organization different nationalities work on a single project. They at-
such as Kappa with its multiple constituencies, priorities, tend to and engage with such boundaries by activities that
and interests. include holding seminars on cross-cultural communica-
This challenge is addressed within Kappa through the tion, rotating meeting locations so people can experience
deliberate dispersion of product development activities to each others' environments, and endeavoring to use a sin-
geographically distributed parts of the world, accompa- gle language (English) in project communication—
nied by the active integration of the distributed expertise whether conducted face to face, on the phone, via paper,
and experience through ongoing project participation and or in electronic channels.
overseas work assignments. These three activities are Another activity that facilitates distributed innovation
seen by Kappa members to significantly foster innovation is the opportunity offered to employees to take overseas
and creativity (Table 7 provides additional data on these work assignments, or what is known as going "on con-
activities). tract" or "expatriate." Such overseas assignments involve
The first activity is the distribution of Kappa's product members living and working in other Kappa locations for
development work around the world. One senior execu- periods ranging from three months to a few years. From
tive explained the organizational benefits of distribution: the organization's perspective, overseas assignments arc
expensive, both financially and logistically. Initially, they
It costs 5 to 10% more to work in a distributed organization,
involve an elaborate and often complex matching process
but it means you will also be exposed to new ideas all tbe time.
to find an appropriate assignment for the employee based
It is easy to gel blind to your paradigm. Being di.stributed and
on his/her experience and requests as well as the oppor-
diverse avoids tbat. . .. Also, being distributed is beneficial be-
cause you can bave smaller units, and they can be a little more
tunities and requirements of the various DUs. Then, they
efficient. So, instead of this massive elephant that has a bard
require the actual relocation of the employee and hi.s/her
time to tum. you have lots of small units thai can move quickly. whole family to the new site, as well as support for se-
It allows us to be flexible and to jump in any direction. curing work permits, transportation, accommodation,
schooling, and annual trips back to the home location.
This view was echoed by DU managers, as one com- Despite the effort and cost. Kappa executives clearly see
mented: overseas assignments as a critical investment in building
the innovative capacity of their organization. As one ex-
In terms of our distributed organization and tbe way we operate
plained:
it is tbai we are working with a very valuable structure being in
so many different cultures and baving so many different per- Having people on contract is very expensive, but we justify tbe
spectives and ideas coming in. So working like this gives you cost tbrougb competence development. Every experience, any-

ORGANIZATION SCIENCE/VOI. 13, No. 3, May-June 2tX)2 265


Table 7 Supporting Participation Within Kappa


Knowing iiow to Distributing product development "A distributed organization, I think is very beneficial. First of all, we get
innovate tinrough work globally different market views, we can do easy benchmarking with fhe different
supporting broad [DUj organizations. We don't have one organization doing the same thing
participation if has been doing for 10 years. It is hard fo change an organization that
has worked the way if has always done. If you get a distributed
organization, you gef a lot of competition amongsf the design units in
terms of who has fhe besf quality and fhe highest producfivify."
"One advanfage from a DU poinf of view of being disfributed is that we are
working with many differenl producf development units. If each DU was
only working within one product unit, then cross-ferfilizaticn wouldn't
happen. This way helps creativity, helps exchanging best pracfices,
helps create fhis Kappa culfure in a very strong way."
Involving all participants in "Basically in Kappa, everything is negotiated. . . . If is very important that
design deoisions on projects dialogue happens, that we understand what you are missing, so we can
deal with fhe issues. But there has to be a dialogue. That's really where
fhe frusf issue comes in, so you can have fhaf dialogue."
Initiating and supporting 'I've jusf finished fbis project, so I'm kind of moving on. I'm actually going
overseas work assignments fo Holland on contract for a year and a half. And thaf will help me change
my focus, because I'll be focusing more on software quality for fhe
projecf. And fhaf's differenf from whaf I was doing here."
•| fhink what aftracts and maintains our people is more than money, I fhink
Kappa, being a global company, has a lot to offer, and you can move
from Australia to Hungary and it is basically fhe same culture, fhe same
fools, it's the same way of working. So you will hit fhe ground running if
you move from one DU fo anofher, and people like fhat."

where in the world is something that builds up tbe competence basic knowiedge of tbe compretence and tbey can bring it back
witbin Kappa, even (hough it is costly. For you to go anywhere, [here.
it will broaden you, it will make you more knowledgeable, more
A software engineer explained why she had chosen to
experienced, and so we pay for it. We believe tbat wben you
share with me and I sbare with you. then we both become more
take an overseas assignment:
knowledgeable than we were before. Tbat is tbe culture we bave i applied to come on assignmeni bere as ! wanted to do some-
in Kappa, and it s one of our strengths. (hing differenl. I had been working in maintenance for a long
time and I needed a new cballenge. And it has been very chal-
Kappa encourages expatriate work as a way for indi- lenging here because i never bad to deal witb real customers
before, and now I have to talk lo tbem ail tbe time. I'm learning
viduals to share resources and expertise across the orga-
a lot.
nization. For example, someone going to a DU as an ex-
patriate may bring with her/him skills and techniques to Through the variety of activities that allow them to
share with the local engineers. One DU manager ex- work inclusively with, within, and across geographic lo-
plained that he was sent as an expatriate to Mexico for a cations and cultural differences. Kappa members consti-
year to help open up a small local development unit there. tute a knowing how to innovate by leveraging the global
In other instances, people become expatriates so as to dispersion and diversity of the organization. However.
learn new skills and techniques that they can take back this also has its downside, in that the effort to be inclusive
to share within their local DUs. One project manager runs the risk of fragmentation, time delays, and conflict
noted: over priorities. A senior executive observed:
Tbe fundamental tbing aboul tbe design organizations is tbat
We deveiop a competence in one location and then we ask peo- tbey are located in different places. And as mucb as it is very
ple to come tbere to iearn. So tbey come to tbe one project for nice to have these organizations lhat are diverse, they also some-
a coupie of months or something like lhat, and work together limes puil in different directions. And the big challenge is to
in one place. So then when tbey go back bome, tbey bave tbe bring tbem together.

266 ORGANIZATION SCIENCE/VOI. 13, No. 3, May-June 2002


A project manager noted the temporal cost of making situationally enacted capability inseparable from the prac-
decisions in a diverse and dispersed organization: tices that constitute it recurrently over time. I articulated
a repertoire of five such practices—sharing identity, in-
Tbere's a lot of negotiation and discussion, so it takes lime
teracting face to face, aligning effort, leaming by doing,
before the decisions are made. And I tbink it can take sometimes
and supporting participation—that allow Kappa to rou-
longer to make decisions in the project.
tinely and repeatedly enact a collective competence in
A subproject manager expressed a concern about man- complex and distributed product development work. And
aging conflicts across units: to do so effectively.
Any change in requirements is always evaluated against the This repertoire of practices is not proposed as exclusive
needs of ail the subsystems, so we may get into figbts about or exhaustive. On the contrary, the practices should be
priorities. For example, we may be trying to decrease lead times understood as interdependent—overlapping and inter-
while anotber unit may b)c worrying about quality. So tbey may secting through the specific activities engaged in by in-
not feei ibe same sense of urgency thai we do. But quality in a dividuals. For example, when Kappa members engage in
product that no one buys has no value. specialized training, they are developing their individual
capabilities, building their social networks through face-
while a senior DU manager observed: to-face interaction while also participating in the repro-
Our diversity is an asset to tbis company, because tbe value it duction of Kappa's shared identity. Similarly, the reper-
brings is tbat each unit bas its own way of innovating. Tbey toire of practices identified here is not exhaustive, as there
each have tbeir own ideas. Now, that's a positive and a negative. is always the potential for new practices to be added or
The positive i.s, we get a lot of different ideas which is very existing ones to be modified over time. While the current
important. . . . But sometimes when you bave multiple ideas, repertoire must be seen as open-ended, the particular
you aiso need to be ready to accept tbe fact that, yes, we bave practices articulated here offer interesting insights into
to choose from tbese ideas, and sometimes tbings wiil not go why these five practices should be especially relevant to
the way you want. So you aiso bave to be compromising. It has the accomplishment of distributed organizing, ln partic-
to he a give and take. And sometimes we get refusal to accept ular, I argue that the salience of these practices lies in
some positions from a few people. their capacity to help Kappa members navigate and ne-
gotiate the multiple boundaries through which they con-
Kappa members strongly believe that their dispersed or-
stitute their distributed product development work.
ganization and its attendant diversity is an invaluable
strength. To date, these benefits appear to outweigh the Consider first the practice of sharing identity. The on-
costs of inefficiency and risk of fragmentation. Neverthe- going generation and reinforcement of a strong Kappa
less, as the industry experiences a technological shift and identity and "Kappa way of doing things" allows mem-
competition increases, it is unclear whether the negative bers to intemalize and identify with a common way of
consequences of extensive dispersion and diversity will thinking about and engaging in their product development
remain a controllable consequence of doing globally dis- work. This facilitates the communication and coordina-
tributed product development work. tion of hundreds of product developers across time {19
time zones) and space (15 geographic locations). It allows
these developers to share a common vocabulary despite
Discussion their 30 different nationalities and to have a common
I have suggested that the empirical success of Kappa in- framework for making sense of each others" technical re-
dicates a collective competence in knowing how to de- quirements and political priorities. Knowing the organi-
liver timely, innovative, and complex products in a global zation through the process of shared identity construction
organization. Spender {1996a. p. 58) has observed that does not guarantee that all the temporal, geographic, tech-
the core competencies of a system "emerge from its ac- nical, cultural, and political boundaries will be effectively
tivity." In my data analysis and discussion above. I have crossed. However, it does offer some guidelines for ar-
attempted to show that this is the case for Kappa, where ticulating, attending to, and engaging with (i.e., navigat-
the knowing how to do complex global product devel- ing) these boundaries, while also providing some com-
opment is not attributable to any one thing such as a par- mon ground if any redefinition or reconstruction (i.e.,
ticular technology or infrastructure, or any particular negotiation) of boundaries is deemed appropriate. For ex-
strategy or leader, or any specific set of design or pro- ample, a senior project manager explained how some of
duction skills. All of these are important of course, but these boundaries in the form of deadlines, functional re-
quirements, and technical priorities are dealt with:
so is the knowing that is enacted through the everyday
and ongoing work of Kappa members. This aspect of in general, we try to be flexible and satisfy everybody, but part
Kappa's competence is an ongoing accomplishment, a of it is also for us to try to understand tbeir needs. How critical



is the time frame? How far do we really bave Io stretcb to add metrics allow for the initial attending to and engaging
some functionality? Can it wait six montbs? Because of the with the boundaries of history (three versions of product),
resources we have, we need to bave overlap between the proj- time (various phases of the system development project),
ects so that we are running paraliei projects at the same lime.
geography (multiple locations of product development
And tbat means that very often, if you stretcb one project and
activity), and technology (different standards that need to
add on some extra functionality, it means that tbe next project
be accommodated in the product). It also allows for flex-
cannot start up as expected. So it's very much compromising,
trying to understand whal is needed from all the points of view,
ibility in negotiating these boundaries if deadlines, pri-
bow critical things are for these different projects, and then try- orities, technologies, or resources should change. For ex-
ing to satisfy everybody's needs in the best way that's possible. ample, a DU manager noted that modification to
assignments was an ongoing effort:
The practice of interacting face to face allows Kappa
members to get to know each other through the building Here in our DU we bave a pool of resources and you discuss
and maintenance of strong social networks that generate and negotiate with tbe competence managers on wbat peopie
trust, respect, and commitment. This builds Kappa's so- wiil work on wbicb projects. And that's an ongoing activity,
ciai capital, which provides the foundation for ongoing you can say, because it's dynamic. It's not the case tbat all these
interaction and sharing of information. The strong ties resources are assigned at the beginning of tbe year and that
generated by such a knowing of the players in the game during the year it will always be tbe same persons. Tbe people
can change. We do extra work if something new comes in, or
facilitates the doing of product development work across
other peopie are off sick or on boiiday, for instance, or if we
various technologies, geographic regions, multiple time
bire new people, or people go off to other jobs, like management
zones, and ethnic differences. It allows for product de- positions, or they ieave. Those tbings bappen.
velopers to call on each other for help, advice, or ideas
at any time and in any place. Because they trust and re-
In this example we see how the recurrent practice of
spect each other, these developers know they can depend
aligning effort through a common plan, method, and met-
on one another, regardless of the situation. Consider these
rics allows for the flexible movement of people and reas-
comments by two PO managers:
signment of their effort to various projects and products,
1 have been in many botspots over the years, but 1 bave always and across time and technologies.
been able to find guys tbai would put more than 1509^ to belp The practice of learning by doing within Kappa
out. and tbat you wiil not see in most Nortb American compa- generates a knowing how to develop the capabilities of
nies. product developers (and thus, collectively of Kappa) by
I know one of tbe subproject leaders in Palo Aito, and be called providing individuals with ongoing education and devel-
me because be needed a resource bere in Amsterdam. And he opment, actively mentoring their careers, promoting from
needed an assignment specification very quickly. And so I just within, and offering rewards (not punishments) for work
wrote him the standard assignment spec lhat our resources per- done and risks taken. This extensive and intensive in-
son bere would be used lo receiving. I jusl filled il out for him, vestment in employees strengthens Kappa's human cap-
and tben senl it to bim so he couid add his specific informalion. ital and provides the basis for Kappa's capacity to navi-
I was just making it easier for him to get it done quickly. gate social, historical, and technical boundaries. By
In these observations, we see that the social network sus- developing the software development expertise of its em-
tained through Kappa's practice of face-to-face interac- ployees, it allows their participation and collaboration on
tion enables members to deal effectively with some of the large distributed product development efforts. It further
technical, geographic, temporal, and political boundaries develops their depth of experience, thus generating the
they encounter in their work. organizational memory needed to manage three different
The practice of aligning effort allows the Kappa mem- versions of the same product. This accomplishment is
bers and their managers to coordinate their activities and technically complex (because of the need to preserve the
allocate their resources across time, geography, project integrity of al! three versions separately while accom-
phase, and product version. By using common project modating evolving technical standards), and historically
management models and methodologies, and relying on challenging (because of the need to retain backward com-
standard contracts and metrics to annually assign devel- patibility and interoperability across the versions).
opers to work on projects. Kappa members are able to The practice of supporting participation ensures that a
make sense of (and modify if necessary) who is working multiplicity of voices and ideas is represented in discus-
on what part of which system, where, when, and how. sions, deliberations, and decision processes. This gener-
The common language of the project management model ates a knowing how to innovate because of the creativity
as well as the standard resource assignment contracts and that is promoted through allowing a diversity of ideas and

268 ORGANIZATION SCIENCE/VOI. 13, No. 3, May-June 2002


experiences to be expressed and then shared. This diver- stop there is to miss an important aspect of Kappa's or-
sity is leveraged through deliberately distributing product ganizational success, and that is that every day, thousands
development work across the world, engaging the partic- of Kappa software engineers around the world go to work
ipation of dispersed members in ongoing product devel- and knowingly do what they do to get the complex job
opment work, and sharing disparate experiences by fa- of distributed product development done. Their skills,
cilitating personnel reassignments across global their leaders, the infrastructure, the corporate mission—
locations. Such a practice enables the crossing of tem- these are all essential ingredients, but they are not suffi-
poral, geographic, technical, and political boundaries, be- cient. To be successful. Kappa also has to collectively
cause it provides for the distribution, and then the inte- know how to do distributed product development and re-
gration, of ideas and experiences. Kappa members peatedly enact this competence over time. I have argued
believe this allows the whole to be greater than the sum that this capability for effective distributed organizing is
of the parts. As one senior executive explained; both a collective and distributed competence, grounded
This is one of the tenets of wbal we believe in—tbat our diver- in the everyday practices of global product development
sity is our strength. When it comes to product development, we activities. As such, it can usefully be understood as an
strongly beiieve that by baving these diverse organizations come enacted capability—not a static property or stable dis-
up with tbeir own initiatives and innovative ideas and putting position—but a situated and ongoing accomplishment
tbem together, that that is our strength. And it also keeps the that emerges from people's everyday actions.
people interested because tbey bave an opponuniiy for a lot
more thinking and innovation.
I have emphasized the enacted aspect of knowing how
to do global product development because it has not been
A PO manager similarly noted that their distributed or- well represented in much of the current organizational
ganization engendered the flexibility to change and be literature. To the extent that the organizational literature
flexible in the face of changing technology and compet- examines knowledge in global product development, it
itive challenges: has emphasized one of two perspectives: how knowledge
The way we as design organizations operate in so many different can be captured, represented, codified, transferred, and
cultures gives us an opportunity in terms of being able to change exchanged; or how knowledge that is distributed among
at quite a fast pace. Because it gives you tbe constant mode of
individuals and embedded in their work practices can be
ibinking ibat you must constantly adapt to different ideas and
different technologies and different requirements that change.
integrated and shared with others. Despite their differ-
So tbat gives us a valuable structure. ences, both perspectives share a common focus on or-
ganizational knowiedge, whether this is seen as a stock
Through engaging in these practices, members of or resource to be created and managed, or whether it is
Kappa are able to knowledgeably navigate and negotiate seen to be a product of dispositions and collective prac-
the multiple boundaries that they routinely encounter in tice. While these perspectives on organizational knowl-
their daily work-^boundaries of time, space, culture,
edge have provided and continue to provide important
technology, history, and politics. However, navigating
insights, what tends to get overlooked by such perspec-
and negotiating these boundaries, as we saw, also has the
tives is the importance of ongoing and situated action. I
potential to generate unanticipated negative conse-
believe a perspective on organizational knowing comple-
quences—"the brighter the light, the darker the shadow."
ments the existing perspectives on knowledge by insisting
So. even as Kappa focuses so intently on developing and
sustaining its collective competence in distributed orga- on the essential role of human agency in accomplishing
nizing, it also incurs a variety of risks that could lead it knowledgeable work.
to fail. Through its ongoing practices. Kappa will need to A perspective on organizational knowing has allowed
develop additional capabilities to preclude or dilute such us to understand how distributed global product devel-
negative consequences as organizational rigidity, emo- opment work is accomplished through the everyday prac-
tional and physical exhaustion, limited improvisation, tices of an organization's members. This perspective fur-
loss of skilled talent, fragmentation, time delays, and con- ther suggests that because knowing is constituted and
flicts in priorities and interests. reconstituted every day in practice, it is necessarily pro-
visional. Recognizing knowing as an enacted and provi-
Implications sional capability means that it is inappropriate to treat
Kappa is, and has been for decades, a highly successful knowledgeability as given and stable, as always ready-
and innovative organization. Much of this success is cer- to-hand. In particular, it suggests that continuity of com-
tainly attributable to powerful leaders, competitive strat- petence—whether individual or collective—is never
egies, sophisticated technological and production infra- given, only achieved. This has important implications for
structures, and excellent engineering skills. However, to how we think about organizational capabilities, as well

ORGANIZATION SCIENCEA'OI. 13. No. 3, May-June 2002 269


as activities such as distributed work, knowledge sharing, such, it is a socially constituted competence, and thus
and transfer of best practices. collective, distributed, and emergent. This view resem-
A view of organizational knowing as an enacted ca- bles Tsoukas (1996. p. 13) constructionist claim that be-
pability suggests that core competencies or capabilities of cause firms are '"decentered systems," their knowledge "is
the organization are not fixed or given properties, em- not self-contained; it is inherently indeterminate and con-
bodied in human resources, financial assets, technological tinually reconfiguring." For Tsoukas, such a view raises
artifacts, or infrastructural capital. Rather, they are con- the question of how organizations integrate their distrib-
stituted every day in the ongoing and situated practices uted knowledge and deal with its continual emergence.
of the organization's members. This offers an altemative The findings from the Kappa study suggest that the an-
interpretation of competence. The conventional view is swer may lie at the level of situated practices. Tsoukas'
that competencies are stable properties of particular in- {1996, p. 16) acknowledges the importance of human ac-
dividuals or units that can be invoked as needed in dif- tion for organizational knowledge, but does not explicitly
ferent situations. Thus, when skillful performance does locate agents' emergent and distributed knowledgeability
not ensue, commentators seek explanations in the failure in their recurrent practices. The perspective on organi-
of those properties ("human error") or breakdowns in the zational knowing may thus offer additional insights to
system ("equipment malfunction"). If. however, skillful Tsoukas" notion of the firm as a distributed knowledge
performance is seen as an active accomplishment, its system.
presence is not presumed and its absence is not sought in In their discussion of a knowledge-based view of the
the failure of the parts. In contrast, when skillful perfor- firm, Kogut and Zander (1996) highlight the central role
mance is seen to lie in the dynamic engagement of indi- of shared identity. They argue that "Firms provide a sense
viduals with the world at hand at a particular time and of community by which discourse, coordination, and
place, both its presence and absence are understood as learning are structured by identity" (1996, p. 503), Dutton
emerging from situated practices. The focus then is on et al. (1994) similarly argue that members' attachments
understanding the conditions (e.g.. human, social, struc- to and identification with their work organizations sig-
tural, financial, technological, infrastructural) under nificantly enhances their willingness to cooperate with
which skillful performance is more and less likely to be others, perform at a higher standard, and contribute more
enacted. frequently and more freely towards organizational goals.
The focus on skillful performance resonates with the The study of Kappa's distributed knowing suggests some
rich examples of machine design, flute making, and paper interesting overlaps in my empirically grounded condi-
handling offered by Cook and Brown (1999). Their ex- tions for effective distributed knowing and those identi-
planation for the success of the designers, craftspeople, fied by Kogut and Zander, and Dutton and colleagues. In
and engineers is grounded in what they see as the dy- particular, seeing knowing as on ongoing accomplish-
namic interaction of the knowledge (both explicit and ment raises an important question about the link between
tacit) possessed by the actors and the knowing that is an knowing and identity. Organizational identity has been
aspect of their work. As suggested earlier, such a sepa- proposed as the shared set of beliefs about what the or-
ration of tacit knowledge from knowing in action is dif- ganization is (Dutton et al. 1994). But to the extent that
ferent from the perspective I propose here. I would sug- knowing "what the organization is" is enacted in practice,
gest instead that it is through their recurrent practices that we might usefully begin to think about identity as an on-
the designers, craftspeople, and engineers constitute and going accomplishment, enacted and reinforced through
reconstitute their knowledgeability in machine design, situated practices. Contemporary work on identity con-
flute making, and paper handling. Take away the practice struction and reinvention (Albert et al. 2000, Gioia et al.
of doing machine design, flute making, and paper han- 2000, Schult/. et al. 2000) has much to offer a perspective
dling, and there is no tacit knowledge and no collective on organizational knowing, presenting opportunities for
competence in these areas. Cook and Brown (1999, p. exploring the recursive relationship between identity and
397) end their paper by noting that "we need radically to knowing as both emerge through practice.
rethink what is needed to create and support 'core com- Kogut and Zander (1996. p. 509) pose the additional
petencies.'" The knowing in practice perspective articu- problem of "how to communicate from highly specialized
lated here may offer a starting point for such a reconcep- bases of expertise to provide instructions and tools that
tualization. arc employable by large numbers of people." The per-
The perspective on organizational knowing locates the spective on organizational knowing has implications for
capability for effective distributed organizing in the ev- this problem and for the general interest in "knowledge
eryday practices of giobal product development work. As transfer" and the sharing of "best practices" in a variety

270 ORGANIZATION SCIENCE/VOI. 13, No. 3. May-June 2002


of contexts, including global product development. As make a number of important contributions to our under-
noted, because knowing is inseparable from its constitut- standing of knowledge as an organizational asset and as
ing practice it cannot be "transferred" or moved. At best, embedded in human resources. However, these perspec-
what can be transferred or moved here is data or infor- tives also appear to privilege knowledge-as-object or
mation, and even then, as Kogut and Zander note, such knowledge-as-disposition over knowing-as-doing. In
transfer necessarily "entails innovation and disagree- contrast, I have argued that paying attention to organi-
ment" (1996, p. 509). Similarly, "best practices" cannot zational knowing might complement our understanding
simply be shared or transferred. Leaving aside the prob- of organizational effectiveness by highlighting the essen-
lematic notion of who decides what "best" means, prac- tial role of situated action in constituting knowing in prac-
tices are, by definition, situationally constituted. They are tice, ln particular, we might leam some useful insights
not discrete objects to be exchanged or stable processes about capabilities if we also focus on what peopie do, and
to be packaged and transported to other domains. Prac- how they do it. rather than focusing primarily on infra-
tices are generated through people's everyday action. It structure, objects, skills, or dispositions. Understanding
thus may be more effective to think about the problem organizational knowing in practice may get us closer to
posed by Kogut and Zander as a problem not of transfer an understanding of organizational life as "continually
but of developing people's capacity to enact—in their contingently reproduced by knowledgeable human
own particular local situations—"useful" rather then agents—that's what gives it fixity and that's what also
"best" practices. The notion of "useful practices" suggests produces change" (Giddens and Pierson 1998, p. 90).
the necessarily contextual and provisional nature of such
practices and the organizational knowing that they con- Acknowledgments
stitute. It is a reminder that our knowing cannot be as- The author is grateful to the members of the Kappa Corporalion wSio par-
sumed, only ongoingly achieved. ticipated in this research. She would like to thank Bruce Kogut and the
anonymous reviewers for their very helpful comments in her revisions of
There is currently considerable interest in facilitating this paper. This work was supported by the Initiative on Inventing Orga-
knowledge sharing across communities through the use nizations of the 21st Cenlury at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
of various intermediaries such as boundary objects (Star
1989. Henderson 1991, Carlile 1998), translators and Endnote
knowledge brokers (Brown and Duguid 1998), boundary 'Names of ihe firm, its organizational units, products, and locations
practices (Wenger 1998). and cross-community commu- bave all been disguised.
nication forums (Boiand and Tenkasi 1995). Such inter- References
mediaries—whether humans or artifacts—are seen as Agar. M. H. 1980. The Professional Stranger: An Informal Introduc-
necessary because these scholars view knowledge, par- tion to Ethnography. Academic Press, New York.
ticularly know-how, as "embedded in" or "stuck to" par- Albert. S., B. E. Ashforth, J. E. Dutton. 2000. Organizational identity
ticular situated practices. A focus on organizational and identification: Cbarting new walers and building new bridges.
knowing, however, suggests that the notion of stickiness, Acad. Management Rev. 25(1) 13-17.
at least as it applies to "knowing how," may need revi- Barrett, F. J. 1998. Creativiiy and improvisation in ja/z and organiza-
sion. The "knowing how" that is constituted in practice tions: Implications for organizational learning. Organ. Sci. 9 605-
is not effectively understood as '"stuck" in or to that prac- 622.
Boland. R. J., R. V. Tenkasi. 1995. Perspective making and perspective
tice. That would be like saying that the words of this
taking: In communities of knowing. Organ. .Sci. 6 350-372.
sentence are "stuck" to it, when in fact they constitute it.
. . D. Tc'eni, 1994. Designing information technology to sup-
Instead. I have proposed that "knowing how" and practice port distributed cognition. Organ. Sci. 5 456-475.
are mutually constitutive. Thus, sharing "knowing how" Brewer, T. 1997. Managing knowledge. Inform. Tech. J. 3 10-29.
eannot be seen as a problem of knowledge transfer or a Brown, J. S.. P. Duguid. 1991. Organizational leaming and commu-
process of disembedding "sticky" knowledge from one nilies-of-practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning,
community of practice and embedding it in another— and innovation. Organ. Sci. 2 40-57.
with or without the mediating help of boundary objects, , . 1998. Organizing knowledge. California Management
boundary practices, brokers, or forums. Rather, sharing «cv. 40(3)90-111.
"knowing how" can be seen as a process of enabling oth- . . 2001. Structure and spontaneity: Knowiedge and organi-
ers to learn the practice that entails the "knowing how." zation. I. Nonaka and D. Teece, eds. Managing Industrial Knowl-
It is a process of helping others develop the ability to edge. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks. CA.
enact—in a variety of contexts and conditions—the Carlile, P. 1998. From transfer to iransformation: Working through
knowledge boundaries in product develupmenl. Working paper.
knowing in practice.
MIT Center for Innovation in Product Development. Cambridge,
The existing perspectives on organizational knowledge MA.



Cook, S. D. N., J. S. Brown. 1999. Bridging epistemologies: The gen- Lewontin, R. 1995. Genes, environment, and organisms. R. Silvers, ed.
erative dance between organizational knowledge and organiza- Hidden Histories of Science. New York Review of Botiks Pub-
tional knowing. Organ. Sci. 10(4) 381^00. lisbers. New York.
. D. Yanow. 1996. Culture and organizational leaming. M. D. March, J. G. 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organizational
Cohen and L. S. Sproull. eds. Organizational Learning. Sage leaming. Organ. Sci. 2(1) 71-87.
Publications, Tbousand Oaks. CA. Maturana. H. R., F. J. Varela. 1998. The Tree of Knowledge: The Bio-
Davenport. T. H.. L. Prusak. 1998. Working Knowledge: How Orga- logical Roots of Human Understanding, revised ed. Shambhala
nizations Manage What They Know. Harvard Business Scbool Publications, Boston. MA.
Press, Boston, MA. Miles, M. B.. A. M. Huberman. 1984. Qualitative Data Analysis: A
Dutton, J. E., J. M. Dukerich. 1991. Keeping an eye on the mirror: Sourcehook of New Methods. Sage Publications, Newbury Park.
Image and identity in organizational adaptation. Acad. Manage- CA.
ment J. 34(3)517-554. Nelson. R., S. Winter. 1982. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic
. , C. V. Harquail. 1994. Organizational images and member Change. Harvard University Press. Cambridge. MA.
identification. Admin. Sci. Quart. 39 239-263. Nonaka, I. 1994. A dynamic tbeory of organizationai knowledge crea-
Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Building theories from case study researcb. tion. Organ. Sci. 5 14-37.
Acad. Management Rev. 14 532-550. , H. Takeuchi. 1995. The Knowledge Creating Company: How
Geertz, C. 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures. Basic Books. New Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of innovation. Oxford
York. University Press, New York.
Giddens, A. 1984. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory Orr. J. 1996. Talking About Machines: An Ethnography of a Modern
of Structure. University of Califomia Press, Berkeley, CA. Joh. ILP Press, Ithaca. NY.
', C. Pierson. 1998. Conversations with Anthony Giddens: Making Pentland. B. 1995. Information systems and organizational ieaming:
Sen.se of Modernity. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA. The social epistemology of organizational knowledge .systems.
Gioia, D. A., M. Scbultz. K. G. Corley. 2000. Organizational identity, Accounting. Management and Inform. Tech. 5 1-21.
image, and adaptive instability. Acad. Management Rev. 25(1) Polanyi, M. 1967. The Tacit Dimension. Doubleday, New York.
63-81. Ryle, G. 1949. The Concept of Mind. Hutchcson, London, UK.
Glaser, B. G., A. L. Strauss. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Schon. D. A. 1983. The Refiective Practitioner. Basic Books, New
Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine Publishing Co., New York.
York. Scbultz. M.. M. J. Hatch, M. H. Larsen. 2000. The Expressive Orga-
Hansen, M. T. 1999. The search-transfer problem: The role of weak nization. Oxford University Press. New York.
ties in sbaring knowledge across organization subunits. Admin.
Spender, J.-C. 1996a. Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic tbeory
Sci. Quart. 44 82-111.
of tbe (irm. Strategic Management J. 17 45-62.
Hedlund, G. 1994. A model of knowledge management and the/V-form
. 1996b. Organizational knowledge, learning, and memory: Tbree
corporation. Strutegic Management J. 15 73-90.
concepts in search of a theory. / Organ. Change 9 63-78.
Henderson. K. 1991. Flexible sketcbes and inflexible databases: Visual
Star, S. L. 1989. The struclure of ill-struclured solutions: Boundary
communication, conscription devices, and boundary objects in de-
objects and heterogeneous distributed problem solving. M. Huhns
sign engineering. Sci.. Tech., Human Values 16(4) 4 4 8 ^ 7 3 .
and L. Gasser, eds. Readings in Distributed Artificial Intelligence.
Hutcbins, E. 1991. Organizing work by adaptation. Organ. Sci. 2 4-
Morgan Kaufman. Menlo Park, CA.
39.
, J. Griesemer. 1989. Institutional ecology, 'translations,' and
. 1995. Cognition in the Wild. MIT Press, Cambridge. MA.
boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's Mu-
Kogut, B., U. Zander. 1992. Knowledge of tbe tirm. combinative ca-
seum of Vertebrate Zoology 901-9?.9. Social Stud. Sci. 19387-
pabilities and tbe replication of tecbnology. Organ. Sci. 5 383-
397. 420.
, . 1996. Wbat firms do? Coordination, identity, and learning. Starbuck. W. H. 1989. Why organizations run into crises . .. and some-
. Sc/. 7 502-518. times survive them. K. Laudon and J. Tumer, eds. Information
Lave. J. 1988. Cognition in Practice. Cambridge University Press, Technology and Management Strategy. Prentice Hall. Englewood
Cambridge, U.K. Cliffs. NJ, 11-33.
, E. Wenger. 1991. Situated Leaming: Legitimate Peripheral Par- . 1992. Leaming by knowledge-intensive firms. J. Management
ticipation. Cambridge University Press, New York. Stud. 29 713-740.
Leonard-Barton, D. 1990. A dual methodology for case studies: Syn- Strauss, A., J. Corbin. 1990. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded
ergistic use of a longitudinal single site with replicated multiple Theory. Procedures, and Techniques. Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
sites. Organ. Sci. 1 248-266. Sucbman. L. A. 1987, Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of
. 1992. Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in man- Human Machine Communication. University of Cambridge Press.
aging new product development. Strategic Management J. 13 Cambridge, U.K.
111-125. . 1996. Supporting articulation work. R. Kling. ed. Computeri-
. 1995. Weilsprings of Knowledge: Building atid Sustaining the zation and Controversy, 2nd ed. Academic Press, San Diego, CA,
Sources of Innovation. Harvard Business Scbool Press. Boston, 407^23.
MA. Taylor, C. 1993. To follow a rule . . . C. Calboun, E. LiPuma. and M.

272 ORGANIZATION SCIENCEA'OI. 13, No. 3, May-June 2002


Postone, eds. Bourdieu: Critical Perspectives. University of Chi- . 1995. Sensemaking in Organizations. Sage, Thousand Oaks. CA.
cago Press, Chicago, IL, 45-60. . 1996. Prepare your organization to fight fires. Han'ard Bus. Rev.
Teece, D. J. 1998. Capturing value from knowledge assets. California 74(3) 143-148.
Management Rev. 40(3) 55-76. , K. Roberts. 1993. Collective mind in organizations: Heedful in-
Tsoukas, H. 1996. The firm as a distributed knowledge system: A con- terrelating on flight decks. Admin. .Sci. Quart. 38 357-381.
^inicUon'i^i appronch. Strategic Management J. 17 11-25. , F. Westley. 1995. Organizational leaming: Affirming an oxy-
moron. S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, and W, R. Nord, eds. Handbook
von Hippel, E. 1994. "Sticky information' and tbe locus of problem
of Organization Studies. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
solving: Implications for innovation. Management Sci. 40 4 2 9 -
440-458.
439.
Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of Practice: Learning. Meaning, and
Weick, K. E. 1979. The Social Psychology of Organizing. Addison-
Identity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. U.K.
Wesley, Reading, MA.
Winter. S. 1987. Knowledge and competence as strategic assets. D. J.
. 1987. Substitutes for strategy. D. J. Teece, ed. The Competitive Teece, ed. The Competitive Challenge: Strategies for Innovation
Challenge: Strategies for Innovation and Renewal. Ballinger Pub- and Renewal. Ballinger Publisbing. Cambridge, MA.
tisbing, Cambridge. MA, 221-233. Zander, U., B. Kogut. 1995. Knowledge and the speed of transfer and
. 1993. The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: Tbe Mann imitation of organizational capabilities: An empirical test. Organ.
Gulch disaster. Admin. Sci. Quart. 38 628-652. Sci. 6 76-92.

Accepted by Bruce Kogut.

ORGANIZATION SCIENCEA'OI. 13, No. 3, May-June 2002 273

Orlikowski 2002

More Related Content

Similar to Orlikowski 2002

More from Ikram KASSOU

Recently uploaded

Orlikowski 2002