Page 212 -

MANAGING KNOWLEDGE FOR INNOVATION 201

of innovation, in general, and networked innovation, in particular (Hansen,
1999). These include interpersonal networks connecting individuals (Grandori
and Soda, 1995; Jones et al., 2001; Kreiner and Schultz, 1993); intra-organiza-
tional (connecting different groups within an organization, e.g. cross-functional
teams); and inter-organizational (connecting different organizations, e.g. formal
partnerships – Alter and Hage, 1993; Hardy et al., 2003; Oliver and Liebeskind,
1998). These different kinds of networks can be more or less formal, with for-
mal relationships frequently being underpinned by more informal, interpersonal
ones (Kreiner and Schutlz, 1993).
The view of networks as channels for knowledge transfer chimes with the
‘knowledge as possession’ view and features heavily in innovation research
(Owen-Smith and Powell, 2004). This focuses on identifying important charac-
teristics of networks (e.g. their strength, density, direction of information flow),
relating these to the forms of knowledge which can be exchanged and to political
effects on partners (Alter and Hage, 1993; Granovetter, 1973; Hansen, 1999).
For example, strong inter-personal networks tend to provide the basis for the
exchange of more informal and tacit forms of knowledge. In contrast, more for-
mal networks typically involve the transfer of more explicit forms of knowledge
and intellectual property (Oliver and Liebeskind, 1998).
In contrast, ‘knowledge as practice’ views (as seen in the discussion on com-
munities of practice in Chapter 8) emphasize the role of networks in developing
(and restricting) new ways of knowing by connecting (and disconnecting) diverse
forms of practice. These highlight the ways in which partners in the innovation
process learn, adapt and re-evaluate their roles and commitments, as a response
to prior experiences of working together (Ring and van de Ven, 1994). They
also highlight the importance of discursive practices through which relationships
and ideas come to be communicated, negotiated and legitimated (Swan et al.,
2003). For example, Hardy et al. (2003) studied collaborative networks in a small
Palestinian NGO, and found that relationships based on partnerships (where
people actually worked together) and representations (where people represented
one another’s interests to outside parties) were more effective for knowledge
creation than transactional relationships (where resources were transferred but
people did not actually work together).
The Medico example illustrates, further, that what is critical to achieving net-
worked innovation is not the type or structure of the network per se, but the
co-ordination of networks of different kinds (interpersonal, intra-organizational,
inter-organizational) throughout innovation episodes. Networks in this case are
not necessarily positive for innovation – take the difficulties of sharing knowledge
across networks generated by professional occupations, for example. However,
one set of network relationships can be used to trigger the development of
another so providing momentum to innovation. For example, in Medico, discus-
sions between medical professionals (helped by the weekend event), generated a
new, cross-professional network to oversee the specification of new professional
standards and fuelled the acceptance of the innovation by the medical community.
In this way, ‘the reach of coordinated action was progressively expanded, enabling

6/5/09 7:20:36 AM
9780230_522015_10_cha09.indd 201 6/5/09 7:20:36 AM
9780230_522015_10_cha09.indd 201