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. 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.
    4. Brunswicker, Sabine & Bilgram, Volker & Fueller, Johann, 2017. "Taming wicked civic challenges with an innovative crowd," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 167-177.
    5. Armisen, Albert & Majchrzak, Ann, 2015. "Tapping the innovative business potential of innovation contests," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 58(4), pages 389-399.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Lumineau, Fabrice & Frechet, Marc & Puthod, Dominique, 2011. "An organizational learning perspective on contract design," MPRA Paper 38360, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Raelin, Joseph A., 2024. "Examining the Contemporary Worker and the Workplace From a Leadership-as-Practice Perspective: A HRD Opportunity," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, issue OnlineFir, pages 1-19.
    10. Hong Y. Park & Hyejung Chang & Yong-Seung Park, 2015. "Firm’s knowledge creation structure for new product development," Cogent Business & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 2(1), pages 1023507-102, December.
    11. Sunkee Lee, 2019. "Learning-by-Moving: Can Reconfiguring Spatial Proximity Between Organizational Members Promote Individual-level Exploration?," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(3), pages 467-488, May.
    12. Peter Otto & Martin Simon, 2008. "Dynamic perspectives on social characteristics and sustainability in online community networks," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 24(3), pages 321-347, September.
    13. Michael J.D. Roberts & Paul W. Beamish, 2017. "The Scaffolding Activities of International Returnee Executives: A Learning Based Perspective of Global Boundary Spanning," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(4), pages 511-539, June.
    14. Nici Zimmermann & Katherine Curran, 2023. "Dynamics of interdisciplinarity: a microlevel analysis of communication and facilitation in a group model‐building workshop," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 39(4), pages 336-370, October.
    15. Kent D. Miller & Shu-Jou Lin, 2010. "Different Truths in Different Worlds," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(1), pages 97-114, February.
    16. Nisar, Tahir M. & Prabhakar, Guru & Strakova, Lubica, 2019. "Social media information benefits, knowledge management and smart organizations," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 264-272.
    17. Lorino, Philippe & Mourey, Damien, 2013. "The experience of time in the inter-organizing inquiry: A present thickened by dialog and situations," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 48-62.
    18. Fitri Hariana Oktaviani & Bernard McKenna & Terrance Fitzsimmons, 2021. "Trapped within ideological wars: Femininities in a Muslim society and the contest of women as leaders," Gender, Work and Organization, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(3), pages 1152-1176, May.
    19. Laura Illia & Stefania Romenti & Belén Rodríguez-Cánovas & Grazia Murtarelli & Craig E. Carroll, 2017. "Exploring Corporations’ Dialogue About CSR in the Digital Era," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 146(1), pages 39-58, November.
    20. Siddharth Madhav Joshi & Anubha Shekhar Sinha, 2023. "Knowledge as practice - How Artificial Intelligence can create new knowledge?," Working papers 550, Indian Institute of Management Kozhikode.

    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.