Enhancing Networks for Knowledge Creation

Knowledge diffusion is naturally affected by the quality of organizational information networks. These networks encourage the transference and use of higher levels of information that impact the service functionality of an organization. Dong, et. al. (2011) explores the need to understand these networks, enhance them, and effectively use them to develop organizations. Their explanation moves into the need to train workers on how to manage information in order ensure that information resources are fully utilized. 

Service and information systems are “value co-creation configurations of people, technology, value propositions connecting internal and external service systems, and shared information” (Maglio & Spohrer, 2008, pp. 18). Organizations that use information properly can ensure that they are receiving the right kind of information and putting that information to good use for service effectiveness. Each network has inherent value fostered by their ability to connect to rich elements within the internal or external environment. 

The success of an organization is based both on its employee’s talents and the way in which they interact (Hildalgo, 2011). Firms should ensure that productive interaction is fostered for greater growth and knowledge development. It is the process of obtaining information and applying it to constructive projects that encourages productive use.

There are three major types of networks. Networks can be random, small world, or clustered. Random networks are based in knowledge intensive industries, small world networks are used in focused intensive work environments, and clustered networks are common in organizations where people form knowledge sharing cliques. 

Developing industries need the larger random networks to obtain enough information to develop multiple areas within an industry. Organizations often cluster information based on how people relate to each other and which group they identify with. Small world networks can be used in inter or intra organizational development projects. Knowing which type of network does which function is helpful in using them properly. 

The researchers found that a stronger information network model is helpful in formulating the effectiveness of structures. The way in which information flows and is collected is important for overall utility. They also believe that improving upon randomness to include additional information into a more open system is beneficial for knowledge creation. Experienced information and network users are able to capitalize on these networks for growth but may need additional training to enhance skills. 

Dong, S. et. al. (2011) A benchmarking model for management of knowledge-intensive service delivery networks. Journal of Management Information Systems, 28 (3).

Hidalgo, C. (2011). The value in the links: Networks and the evolution of organizations. In P. Allen, S. Maguire, and B. McKelvey (eds.), Sage Handbook on Management and Complexity. London: Sage, 2011, pp. 257–569.

Maglio, P., and Spohrer, J. (2008). Fundamentals of service science. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36, (1). (Spring 2008)

Inter-Organization Collaboration Networks

A publication in the Policies Studies Journal by Lee and Fejock (2012) helps to explain how collaboration networks cluster together to enhance product and service development. These networks move to enhance inter-organizational collaboration and can create economic improvement. Their work suggests that the micro aspects of such collaboration have not been fully analyzed but that the system appears to be based on trust.

Three mechanisms for collaborative alternative governance include centralized authority, mutually binding contracts, and network embeddedness (Feiock, 2009).  Each comes with their own advantages and disadvantages. The greatest amount of flexibility lay in the embeddedness model as it relies on a more social, economic and relationship oriented model without the rigidity of formal oversight (Foiock, 2007). 

Each of the actors within this approach maintains a level of autonomous effort but is still part of a general network that lends support. These collaborative networks are based on purposeful activities that forge relationships in an effort to solve problems through the creation of solutions by putting forward the best use of knowledge, time resources and competition (Agranoff & McGuire, 2003). 

Organizations with limited resources are more likely to work together. Under the concept of Dependency Theory, the more limited the resources the more they would want to work together to survive (Pfeffer & Salancik, 2003). The report does not make the statement that all organizations have limited resources and when that perspective is widened to international competition those limitations become more acute. 

In order to hedge their risks and improve upon their information such organizations will attempt to develop relationships based on trust and information with those partners likely to complement each other (Gulati & Gargiulo, 1999). In this effort, they find those with intrinsic and operational similarities. They use the information and collaboration to improve upon their product and service offerings while having access to talent. 

As an essential element trust followed by financial arrangements bind the system into a coherent whole. If that trust is broken individual businesses may find them punished through a lack of collaborative effort, disappearance of personal connections, lost contracts, and a more hostile environment. Those that are willing to work with others and be equitable about these relationships will gain from the system. 

The authors found that organizations seek to find a place within the network where they can forge collaborative efforts by finding holes in the information networks to increase potential revenue and reduce costs. As organizations interrelate, they create stable and preferential relationships based upon trust, commitment, and shared goals. They do this through engaging in densely clustered networks that are capable of maintaining commitments to collective solutions (Putnam, 1995). 

It is beneficial to think of these information holes, as places were new products and services have not recognized or developed. By wedging themselves into these holes, they have the support of other players within the market and can use their knowledge to enhance their own. The surrounding companies use their new products and services to enhance their own. Likewise, participation in such networks helps to reduce uncertainty in the market, increase development, gain access to information, and find useful connections for economic development. Economic hubs are often seen as the development of these networks across multiple corporate, governmental, and non-profit sectors.

Agranoff, Robert, and Michael McGuire. 2003. Collaborative Public Management. Washington, DC:Georgetown University Press.

Foiock , R. (2007). “Rational Choice and Regionalism.” Journal of Urban Affairs 29 (1): 47–63.

Foiock, R. (2009). “Metropolitan Governance and Institutional Collective Action.” Urban Affairs Review 44 (3):356–77.

Gulati, R. and Gargiulo, M. (1999). Where Do Interorganizationl Networks Come From?

American Journal of.” Sociology 104 (5): 1439–93.

Lee, Y. & Fejock, W. (2012) Interorganizational Collaboration Networks in Economic Development Policy: An Exponential Random Graph Model Analysis.  Policy Studies Journal, 40 (3).

Pfeffer, J. and Salancik, G. (2003). The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. Stanford: Stanford Business Books.

Putnam, R. (1995). Bowling Alone. Journal of Democracy, 6 (1): 65–78.