| 1. |
- Jonsson, Anna, et al.
(author)
-
Challenges to knowledge sharing across national and intra-organizational boundaries : Case studies of IKEA and SCA Packaging
- 2007
-
In: Knowledge Management Research and Practice. - : Informa UK Limited. - 1477-8246 .- 1477-8238. ; 5:3, s. 161-172
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The aim of this article is to increase the understanding of how institutional forces and organizational context, in parallel with cognitive issues, impact knowledge sharing within multinational corporations (MNCs). Furthermore, the aim is to elaborate on differences between industries by comparing and contrasting a retail firm with a manufacturing firm. The focus is on IKEA and SCA Packaging and their efforts to share knowledge across national and intra-organizational boundaries. Despite differences between these two MNCs, the case studies illustrate that the will to share and absorb knowledge is very much influenced by institutional forces, as well as by the ways in which organizations are structured and controlled.
|
|
| 2. |
- Maaninen-Olsson, Eva, et al.
(author)
-
Permanent and temporary work practices : Knowledge integration and the meaning of boundary activities
- 2008
-
In: Knowledge Management Research & Practice. - : Informa UK Limited. - 1477-8238 .- 1477-8246. ; 6:4, s. 260-273
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Knowledge integration is a critical topic in current knowledge management research and practice. Research on this topic focuses primarily on how knowledge is integrated within a work setting. A less researched area is knowledge integration between different work groups. The purpose is hence to describe and analyze how knowledge is integrated between different work groups. We present two intensive case studies – one permanent and one temporary (project) work settings – which were studied using a practice-based perspective. A main result of the study is that knowledge integration in the two cases was more complicated than the literature suggests. Both differences and similarities were found between the two cases. Differences were seen in the use of boundary spanning activities and boundary objects, whereas similarities were found in the organizational structures and mechanisms, that is, purposes, rules, and infrastructures, which facilitated the integration of knowledge and/or functioned as obstacles and impediments.
|
|
