Page 247 -

236 MANAGING KNOWLEDGE WORK AND INNOVATION

should ideally be set up with a mixed skills set and expertise. However, this in
itself can, and often does, create problems as inevitably, at least at the outset,
knowledge boundaries will exist across the team or project. Chapter 4 discussed
the need to overcome syntactic, semantic and pragmatic boundaries in order to
create a shared perspective on what needs to happen, which promotes knowl-
edge integration. Individuals’ often fail to effectively integrate knowledge, not
because they are particularly resistant, but merely because they operate in dif-
ferent ‘life worlds’ with different understandings, priorities or ‘logics of action’
(Cyert and March, 1963). Chapter 4 highlighted that clearly defined aims and
objectives and detailed project planning can support collaborative working
in team- and project-based environments. Project plans can be thought of as
boundary objects in these contexts as in some cases they do help to overcome
some of the pragmatic knowledge boundaries that exist in a team which facili-
tates knowledge integration. Boundary spanners also have an important role to
play in knowledge integration, particularly when knowledge needs to be inte-
grated across projects. The consultant in the Midlands Hospital case in Chapter
8 was recognized as a boundary spanner because he had the necessary hier-
archical status to be able to span the boundaries of the different medical and
non-medical groups involved in the redesign of the cataract process. Firms can
identify boundary spanners by conducting relatively simple social network analy-
ses across particular groups or business units. Many software packages are now
available that help identify those individuals who have significant interaction and
are therefore connected to a variety of different groups. In principal then these
individuals are potentially useful boundary spanners.
It is unlikely that a team or project operates in isolation. The discussion in
Chapters 4, 8 and 9 highlighted the importance of networking by team or project
members in the wider context and the role of social capital (Nahapiet and Gho-
shal, 1998) in promoting knowledge integration. Each team or project member
has a network of interpersonal relationships which they can choose to draw upon
in their work. In some instances, particular groups put considerable effort into
developing networks and promoting networking both internally and externally
to foster knowledge integration as highlighted in the Medico case in Chapter
9. The configuration and quality of these networks help to influence the kinds
of knowledge which the individual or group is able to draw on. Strong network
ties are important for the sharing of tacit knowledge (cf. Hansen, 1999). At the
same time, the value of personal networks also has to be balanced against the
possible limiting effect of strong or redundant ties on information flows. So in
the Research Team case in Chapter 4, the selection of one of the research officers
(ROs) was based on an existing strong tie but this had a negative impact on the
project, culminating in the exit of this RO from the project team.
Chapter 4 also emphasized many of the other problems associated with team
and project work more generally which can lead to sub-optimal and poor out-
comes such as conformity, Groupthink, group polarization, diffusion of respon-
sibility, satisficing rather than optimizing decision-making and peer surveillance
which can all hinder processes of knowledge integration. Management need to

6/5/09 7:21:37 AM
9780230_522015_11_cha10.indd 236 6/5/09 7:21:37 AM
9780230_522015_11_cha10.indd 236