IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/hig/fsight/v10y2016i2p81-91.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Electronic ‘Knowledge Factories’ versus Micro-environment of Innovation: Who Will Win?

Author

Listed:
  • Alexandra Moskovskaya

    (National Research University Higher School of Economics (Russian Federation))

Abstract

The end of the 20th century was marked by several studies that revealed the collective mechanisms of the development of knowledge as a joint activity in working teams. Thus, the idea that acquiring knowledge was an unproblematic transfer of what is already available and can be unilaterally transferred and assimilated was rejected [Lave, Wenger, 1991]. The aim of this paper is to study the possibilities of electronic network platforms to use the collective nature of knowledge in the interests of further developing knowledge and innovation through online communication of professionals. Based on a literature review on the development of knowledge, the paper compares the basic principles of knowledge application in formulating new decisions during real joint activity and during online communication within specialized platforms for ‘knowledge exchange’. The author argues that electronic networking platforms contribute to the fragmentation of knowledge representation of participants, eluding a common sense and purpose. Thus, such platforms blur the boundary between knowledge and information. The article indicates that the desire to increase the effectiveness of collective creativity via online communication risks not developing competencies, discretion, and exploration of others’ experiences. Instead, this desire leads to strengthening external control and separation of functions into primary routine operations when an individual participant is valued not for his/ her knowledge and previous experience, but for his/ her communicative capabilities. The produced effect is akin to the industrial revolution of the machine era; when this effect is widespread, there are risks that knowledge workers will be turned into easily replaceable, piecemeal workers. To avoid this, electronic platforms should either learn to recreate the conditions of offline micro-environments of innovation, or not claim to fulfil the role of knowledge production.

Suggested Citation

  • Alexandra Moskovskaya, 2016. "Electronic ‘Knowledge Factories’ versus Micro-environment of Innovation: Who Will Win?," Foresight and STI Governance (Foresight-Russia till No. 3/2015), National Research University Higher School of Economics, vol. 10(2), pages 81-91.
    • Handle: RePEc:hig:fsight:v:10:y:2016:i:2:p:81-91
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://foresight-journal.hse.ru/data/2016/07/07/1116480523/5-Moskovskaya-81-91.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Haridimos Tsoukas, 2009. "A Dialogical Approach to the Creation of New Knowledge in Organizations," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(6), pages 941-957, December.
    2. Mark Thompson, 2005. "Structural and Epistemic Parameters in Communities of Practice," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(2), pages 151-164, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Harvey, Jean-François & Cohendet, Patrick & Simon, Laurent & Dubois, Louis-Etienne, 2013. "Another cog in the machine: Designing communities of practice in professional bureaucracies," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 27-40.
    2. Samer Faraj & Georg von Krogh & Eric Monteiro & Karim R. Lakhani, 2016. "Special Section Introduction—Online Community as Space for Knowledge Flows," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 27(4), pages 668-684, December.
    3. Michael Kaethler, 2019. "Curating creative communities of practice: the role of ambiguity," Journal of Organization Design, Springer;Organizational Design Community, vol. 8(1), pages 1-17, December.
    4. Anders Melander & Tomas Mullern & David Anderssson & Fredrik Elgh & Malin Löfving, 2022. "Bridging the Knowledge Gap in Collaborative Research—in Dialogues We Trust," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 35(5), pages 655-677, October.
    5. Emmanuelle Vaast & Geoff Walsham, 2009. "Trans-Situated Learning: Supporting a Network of Practice with an Information Infrastructure," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 547-564, December.
    6. Lorino, Philippe & Mourey, Damien & Schmidt, Géraldine, 2017. "Goffman's theory of frames and situated meaning-making in performance reviews. The case of a category management approach in the French retail sector," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 32-49.
    7. Simon Turner, 2013. "Absorptive Capacity: The Role of Communities of Practice," Working Papers wp444, Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge.
    8. Hervé Dumez & Etienne Minvielle, 2020. "Le système hospitalier français dans la crise Covid-19," Working Papers hal-03053359, HAL.
    9. Brunswicker, Sabine & Bilgram, Volker & Fueller, Johann, 2017. "Taming wicked civic challenges with an innovative crowd," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 167-177.
    10. Fiorenza Belussi & Luciano Pilotti & Silvia Rita Sedita, 2006. "Learning at the boundaries for industrial districts between exploitation of local resources and exploration of global knowledge flows," "Marco Fanno" Working Papers 0033, Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche "Marco Fanno".
    11. Kreiner, Kristian & Jacobsen, Peter Holm & Jensen, Daniel Toft, 2011. "Dialogues and the problems of knowing: Reinventing the architectural competition," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 160-166, March.
    12. Kai Riemer & Stefan Stieglitz & Christian Meske, 2015. "From Top to Bottom," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 57(3), pages 197-212, June.
    13. Sims, Julian M., 2018. "Communities of practice: Telemedicine and online medical communities," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 53-63.
    14. Armisen, Albert & Majchrzak, Ann, 2015. "Tapping the innovative business potential of innovation contests," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 58(4), pages 389-399.
    15. Anna Jonsson & Maria Grafström & Mikael Klintman, 2022. "Unboxing knowledge in collaboration between academia and society: A story about conceptions and epistemic uncertainty [De-essentializing the Knowledge Intensive Firm: Reflections on Skeptical Resea," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(4), pages 583-597.
    16. Elena Tavella & L. Alberto Franco, 2015. "Dynamics of Group Knowledge Production in Facilitated Modelling Workshops: An Exploratory Study," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 451-475, May.
    17. Paola Perez-Aleman, 2011. "Collective Learning in Global Diffusion: Spreading Quality Standards in a Developing Country Cluster," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(1), pages 173-189, February.
    18. Nicholas Argyres, 2011. "Using Organizational Economics to Study Organizational Capability Development and Strategy," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(5), pages 1138-1143, October.
    19. Lumineau, Fabrice & Frechet, Marc & Puthod, Dominique, 2011. "An organizational learning perspective on contract design," MPRA Paper 38360, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Chris Kimble, 2013. "Knowledge management, codification and tacit knowledge," Post-Print halshs-00826911, HAL.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    knowledge; innovation; joint activity; electronic platforms; communities of practice; communication; connection; working team; social interaction;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • O39 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Other

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hig:fsight:v:10:y:2016:i:2:p:81-91. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Nataliya Gavrilicheva or Mikhail Salazkin (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/hsecoru.html .

    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.