Page 97 -

86 MANAGING KNOWLEDGE WORK AND INNOVATION

boundary, knowledge cannot simply be transferred but needs to be translated, so
that actors are able to appreciate the differences in knowledge they have by tak-
ing on the perspective of the other. For example, one person from an engineering
background trying to communicate to another from a legal background may need
to take the perspective of the lawyer in terms of trying to explain the risks associated
with a particular technological solution, because risks are going to mean different
things to these two parties – for the engineer maybe the risk of one component
of the technology failing and having a knock-on-effect on some other component
and for the lawyer the risk of a lawsuit that may arise if something goes wrong.
Finally, there are pragmatic knowledge boundaries created by differences in
interests between those involved in the collaborative effort. So, even if people
have come to appreciate the others’ perspective, they may still not agree about
a solution because they do not want to change their own practice. This is
because of different interests that impede people’s ability to share, assess and
apply knowledge. In this sense, Carlile reminds us that we are ‘invested’ in our
own particular practices so that there are things ‘at stake’ if changes in practice
are proposed, especially since it is usual that change will not have an equal
impact on all those affected, some likely to be more negatively affected than
others and so more likely to resist the change. According to Carlile, the transi-
tion from a semantic to a pragmatic boundary occurs when task novelty and
dependency increase (so creating uncertainties), and where actors have differ-
ent vested interests and incentives (so creating potential conflict). Under these
circumstances, the interests of one actor may create negative practice conse-
quences, for the other and the shared interpretations developed for dealing
with differences at the semantic boundary are insufficient to generate the level
of collaboration required. At this type of boundary, therefore, knowledge (and
practice) must be transformed to encourage specialists to translate each other’s
knowledge and practice, and to transform their own practices as a result. For
example, doctors may resist a change which allows nurses to prescribe certain
drugs because they may perceive that this undermines their own knowledge
base and legitimacy. The doctors’ knowledge will need to be transformed if
they are to come to accept that nurses can do this. Sometimes offering incen-
tives may be important to encourage this transformation, since the incentive
can help people to adjust their practices without undermining their sense of
legitimacy.
These knowledge boundaries are particularly important in relation to under-
standing the problems of collaboration and collective knowledge creation. Nev-
ertheless, there are other aspects of group dynamics that also impede collective
knowledge creation in teams and projects that we consider next.

Conformity

The famous experiments on conformity by Stanley Milgram (1964) demonstrated
the extent to which individuals obey the instructions of an authority figure even
when they are asked to behave in a callous way towards an innocent other. In

6/5/09 7:00:26 AM
9780230_522015_05_cha04.indd 86
9780230_522015_05_cha04.indd 86 6/5/09 7:00:26 AM