Page 50 -

KNOWLEDGE-INTENSIVE FIRMS 39

innovation to be stifled (Starbuck, 1992). Firms are therefore cautioned to try
and avoid the development of particular norms and practices that might constrain
innovative behaviour. For example, informal routines that have developed over
time can quickly start to become standardized ways of working embedded in
physical capital, routines and even organizational culture. These informal rou-
tines can develop into knowledge that becomes codified into firm-specific ‘best
practice’ templates, such as systematic auditing procedures and tools for project
planning and development. As the usage of these tools spreads and comes to be
seen as almost mandatory within the firm, then innovation can be constrained as
consideration of new tools, concepts and ways of working tends to be precluded.
This, however, is perhaps less likely to happen in scientific contexts where experi-
mentation is a dominant epistemic practice and notions of ‘best practice’ are
somewhat redundant.

Monitoring of time

Starbuck also highlights that in many knowledge-intensive firms, such as consul-
tancies and advertising agencies, time spent working on client projects is often
monitored and rigorously accounted for, as it is billable time and needs to be
carefully documented to the satisfaction of management and the client. This
monitoring, however, can often inhibit innovative behaviour even when times-
cales have been mutually agreed between the project team and the client – as
should be the case in a genuine operating adhocracy. Where this is common
practice knowledge workers often reduce or ultimately fail to spend time search-
ing for, creating or acquiring new knowledge and actively learning. This ‘redun-
dant’ time (Nonaka, 1994) is considered to be particularly crucial for innovation
and yet is simply not available within those knowledge-intensive firms that are
intent upon monitoring and controlling billable time.

Growth
Starbuck also emphasizes that, over time, knowledge-intensive firms often
have a tendency to attempt to diversify and grow and this is not always a
sensible strategic decision. Increasing growth and diversification often lead
to increasing formalization, layers of hierarchy and increasing numbers of
support staff which can all ultimately lead to the firm experiencing prob-
lems. As Starbuck states, ‘when support staff come to outnumber experts
greatly, or when knowledge-intensive firms (KIFs) claim expertise in too
many domains, KIFs lose their halos of expertise and their credibility’ (1992,
p. 737). Mintzberg in fact suggests that the adhocracy is a typical organiza-
tional form only in young, start-up, entrepreneurial firms. He argues that
over time adhocracies evolve into other archetypes – in the case of knowledge-
intensive firms they often evolve into professional bureaucracies. The firm
necessarily becomes more formalized, introducing, for example, levels of

6/5/09 6:58:03 AM
9780230_522015_03_cha02.indd 39 6/5/09 6:58:03 AM
9780230_522015_03_cha02.indd 39