IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/scaman/v17y2001i1p41-66.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Organising the process of knowledge integration: the benefits of structural ambiguity

Author

Listed:
  • Ravasi, Davide
  • Verona, Gianmario

Abstract

In this article we examine how loose coupling between units and people can benefit a firm's ability to combine and recombine knowledge-based resources continuously in a creative and flexible way. An in-depth study of Oticon A/S suggests that loose coupling can be deliberately brought into the design of the organisation by introducing a certain structural ambiguity into the configuration of role systems and authority relationships. In the first part of the paper, we show how loose coupling among units and people is a distinctive feature of the way Oticon organises its administrative activities. In the second, we explore the structural properties of a loosely coupled arrangement. We develop the concepts of multipolarity, fluidity and interconnectedness and we show how these properties conduce to an increase in the effectiveness, efficiency and flexibility of the processes of knowledge integration. Structural ambiguity is thus proposed as a viable design principle for organisations operating in hypercompetitive environment, where flexible knowledge integration represents a critical condition of survival.

Suggested Citation

  • Ravasi, Davide & Verona, Gianmario, 2001. "Organising the process of knowledge integration: the benefits of structural ambiguity," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 41-66, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:scaman:v:17:y:2001:i:1:p:41-66
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956522100000324
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

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

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Cepeda-Carrion, Ignacio & Leal-Millán, Antonio G. & Martelo-Landroguez, Silvia & Leal-Rodriguez, Antonio L., 2016. "Absorptive capacity and value in the banking industry: A multiple mediation model," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 1644-1650.
    2. Pershina, Raissa & Soppe, Birthe & Thune, Taran Mari, 2019. "Bridging analog and digital expertise: Cross-domain collaboration and boundary-spanning tools in the creation of digital innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    3. Sluismans, Raf, 2003. "Looking for synergy in organizations: The role of the concept of configuration in contemporary theory," Research Memorandum 014, Maastricht University, Maastricht Economic Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    4. Berends, J.J. & Debackere, K. & Garud,J. & Weggeman, M.P.C.D., 2004. "Knowledge integration by thinking along," Working Papers 04.05, Eindhoven Center for Innovation Studies.
    5. Guido Fioretti, 2012. "Two measures of organizational flexibility," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 22(5), pages 957-979, November.
    6. Christopher Kummelstedt, 2023. "The Role of Hierarchy in Realizing Collective Leadership in a Self-Managing Organization," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 36(3), pages 355-375, June.
    7. Fioretti, Guido, 2008. "Two Lyapunov Functions for Flexible Organizations," MPRA Paper 8204, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Moshe Farjoun & Peer C. Fiss, 2022. "Thriving on contradiction: Toward a dialectical alternative to fit‐based models in strategy (and beyond)," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(2), pages 340-369, February.
    9. Kjærgaard, Annemette, 2004. "Internal corporate venturing during organisational change:," Working Papers 2004-19, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Informatics.
    10. Kjærgaard, Annemette & Kautz, Karlheinz, 2008. "A process model of establishing knowledge management: Insights from a longitudinal field study," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 282-297, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:scaman:v:17:y:2001:i:1:p:41-66. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/872/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.