Page 75 -

64 MANAGING KNOWLEDGE WORK AND INNOVATION

that new forms of organizing are emerging which are much more fluid and
dynamic than these traditional structures.
These new forms of organizing have looser structures which allow them to
be more flexible (Volberda, 1998). This is achieved by breaking down the large
bureaucratic structure into subsystems or modules. These smaller units can adapt
more quickly to changing circumstances. In other words, even in a complex
system, there is the potential for rapid evolution, if that system is broken down
into a set of stable subsystems. These subsystems can then each operate nearly
independently of the processes going on within other subsystems, so that rapid
change can be accomplished. Decomposability or modularity is thus seen as
the solution to managing increasing complexity, with social networks supported
by ICTs linking together the different parts, whether internally or externally
(Castells, 2000).
Of course, we must remember that ICTs do not themselves lead to the
creation of these new organizational forms. Indeed, ICT is able to facilitate both
decentralized and centralized modes of organizing, as is illustrated by the case at
the end of this chapter. Harris (2006) also reminds us that many organizations
remain largely bureaucratic and controlling and argues that the idea that we are
in a ‘post-bureaucratic’ era has been overstated by some. In reality, organizations,
especially if they are large, have some very bureaucratic structures as well as some
more flexible/modular structures; indeed, this is deemed to be important to help
an organization to be both flexible and innovative in order to respond to change
as well as be efficient. There is a literature now, for example, on the so-called
‘ambidexterity’ of organizations – organizations that have structures that allow
them to simultaneously explore and exploit knowledge (Raisch and Birkinshaw,
2008) in order to be both efficient and flexible/innovative at the same time.
Despite these caveats, we can nevertheless identify a number of characteristics
associated with more flexible forms of organizing, including:

1. Decentralization through the creation of semi-autonomous business units (BU):
This allows each BU to focus on a particular market niche and so respond
more flexibly and adaptively to the needs of the particular market niche.
2. Flatter, less-hierarchical structures: This has been achieved through removing
layers of middle managers. With fewer managers, close supervision and con-
trol are less possible, so that power is devolved down the hierarchy, giving
individuals more autonomy (or empowerment) in their work.
3. Cross-functional project teams: Rather than have each function work rela-
tively independently and pass things ‘over the wall’ to the next function in
the process, people are brought together to work in cross-functional teams,
as discussed in Chapter 5. The objective is to encourage a faster response
rate so that lead times, for example on new product developments, are con-
siderably reduced.
4. Interorganizational networking: Rather than attempt to integrate new
required skills and competencies into the organizational hierarchy, orga-

6/5/09 7:01:07 AM
9780230_522015_04_cha03.indd 64
9780230_522015_04_cha03.indd 64 6/5/09 7:01:07 AM