In addition three case studies in automotive firms were conducted that specifically focused on .... programs in an attempt to commodify and commercialize knowledge about the principles and philosophy ...... Illinois: Dow Jones-Irwin. von Hippel ...
Knowledge, networking and innovation: Developing the process perspective
Maxine Robertson, Warwick Business School University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL.
Harry Scarbrough, University of Leicester Management Centre, UK
Jacky Swan, Warwick Business School, University of Warwick, UK
2
Knowledge, networking and innovation: Developing the process perspective
Abstract The need for innovation is frequently cited as a major reason for the emergence of network forms of organisation. However, little research has addressed the diverse roles played by networks and networking alike in processes of innovation. This paper draws on a historically grounded analysis of the development, diffusion and implementation of Computer Aided Production Management (CAPM) technology to develop an exploratory framework which links networking activities and knowledge flows to episodes in the innovation process. Although schematic, the framework allows a comparison of different episodes of the innovation process in terms of networking, networks and knowledge transmission. By reviewing the whole circuit of innovation from development and diffusion to implementation, the paper is able to explore the interactions between the different types of network and networking implicated in the innovation process.
3
Knowledge, networking and innovation: Developing the process perspective
Introduction Networks have long been recognised as playing an important role in innovation. Freeman, for example, observes that many studies since the 1950's have noted 'the importance of both formal and informal networks, even if the expression network was less frequently used.' (1991:500). Despite this observation, relatively little research has focused explicitly on the links between networks and innovation. Oliver and Ebers (1998), for example, in their review of the literature on interorganizational networks note that from 158 articles published between 1980 and 1996, less than 10% consider innovation in any significant way. They conclude that more conceptual and empirical work in this area is warranted.
This paper focuses on the important role played by social networks in the innovation process. Innovation is seen here as an iterative, recursive and episodic process encompassing the design and development, diffusion and implementation of ideas that are new to the adopting unit (Van de Ven, 1986, Clark, 1987; Clark and Staunton, 1989). Previous studies have tended to separate these different aspects of innovation and to focus on discrete episodes (i.e. either design or diffusion or implementation). However, a unique feature of this study is that it tracks the roles of networks and social networking activities across the entire innovation process and notes how these roles vary across different episodes. To do this the paper uses the example of a particular form of technological innovation, known under the umbrella term of Computer Aided Production Management (CAPM).
Networks have been analysed in a variety of ways and through different theoretical lenses in organization studies (Nohria, 1992; Oliver and Ebers, 1998). However, in many discussions a distinction is made between structural characteristics or forms of networks and the processes involved in developing and sustaining networking relations (e.g. Alter and Hage, 1993). Existing work (c.f. Powell et al, 1996; Ahuja, 2000) linking networks with innovation tends to focus on the performative implications of the structural characteristics of organizational networks. Networks are viewed principally in functional terms as the channels through which knowledge is transferred. Hansen (1999), for example, develops a contingency model linking network structures (in terms of
4 the strength of network ties) to forms of knowledge transfer (in terms of relatively complex/tacit or simple/explicit forms). From a detailed empirical study of product innovation he concludes that strong ties are most effective for tacit knowledge transfer and weak ties for explicit. In contrast, in this study of CAPM, we aim to develop an exploratory but more comprehensive framework that will address the role of networking processes as well as structures, underscoring the importance of both structure and agency in the innovation process. This focus on process highlights a more recursive and generative interplay between network forms, the development of networking relations, and knowledge creation. Reflecting recent work that has highlighted the importance of ‘social capital’ in the formation of ‘intellectual capital’ (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998), this study of CAPM reveals how the development of the innovation process is intertwined with the creation and maintenance of social networks over time.
The argument for this view is structured as follows. First, we consider relevant theoretical perspectives that may inform our understanding of the links between innovation and networks and outline our own perspective on networks, networking and innovation. From this we develop a set of tentative propositions regarding the relationship between networks and innovation. Second, this understanding is developed through an empirically-grounded historical account of network effects in the CAPM innovation process. Third, drawing from this empirical study, an exploratory framework is developed for the analysis of the interaction between innovation and networking.
Developing a processual perspective on networks and innovation Studies of innovation have tended to focus on the invention and distribution of physical artefacts or changes in organization and management systems (e.g. Rogers, 1983, 1995; Tidd et al, 1997; Damanpour, 1987). This artefact-based model is being increasingly challenged by the growth of the service sector and the rise of knowledge-based products and processes. In this context, innovation is better conceptualised not as a material entity but as a particular combination of flows of knowledge and information (Macdonald and Williams, 1992). Reflecting this view, innovation is seen here as a process involving the design and development, diffusion and implementation of ideas among social actors embedded within particular social and institutional contexts (Van de Ven, 1986; McLoughlin, 1999). Within this knowledge-based view, the role of networks has been appraised in a variety of ways. Some accounts highlight the institutional properties of networks in dealing with complex and uncertain transactions. Grandori & Soda (1995), for example, define networks (referring to inter-
5 organizational networks) as "modes of organizing economic activities through inter-firm coordination" (p.184). Such networks are considered to help to address the transactional ‘stickiness’ of knowledge by promoting trust and stimulation value creation through knowledge sharing. Alter and Hage's (1993) definition of networks as "the basic social form that permits inter-organizational interactions of exchange, concerted action and joint production"(:46), also highlights the direct benefits that can accrue to firms involved in networks. A distinction is often made between intra and inter-organisational networks with much of the network literature focusing on the latter (e.g. Grandori and Soda, 1995; Alter and Hage, 1993; Jarrilo, 1993; Ebers, 1997). In particular in sectors where knowledge is developing rapidly such as biotechnology, some studies have demonstrated that intense inter-organizational network activity may promote innovation (Powell et al., 1996).
Other work has focused upon networks’ structural properties and the fit between such properties particularly the strength of network ties, and different kinds of knowledge transmission (Shan et al, 1994; Podolny and Stuart, 1995, Hansen et al, 1999; Ahuja, 2000). For example, strong ties "potentially provide both resource-sharing and knowledge-spillover benefits. Indirect ties do not entail formal resource-sharing benefits but can provide access to knowledge spillovers" (Ahuja, 2000:428). Ahuja's study, however, found that the benefits in terms of innovation associated with strong and weak ties was highly context specific and contingent on a number of other factors. A structural perspective on networks therefore highlights the influence of different forms of network linkages on the knowledge flows that are important for innovation.
These studies emphasise the importance in considering in an analysis of networks and innovation the structural features of network relations and the institutional context surrounding the formation and emergence of networks. Whilst being excellent points of reference for our work, these studies are also underpinned by a somewhat partial view of knowledge – i.e. that knowledge is a relatively stable entity which is transferred in a more or less unchanging form through network configurations to promote innovation. Abrahamson (1996), for example, drawing from institutional theory, claims that configurations of social networks provide channels through which new ideas are spread from suppliers to adopters of innovation (see also Rogers’, 1995). Such accounts tend to be more silent on the agency involved in network formation and on the implications of networks for knowledge creation and development rather than simply its transfer. This relative neglect of agency and knowledge creation processes is especially problematic in relation to the uncertainty endemic in
6 innovation concerning the value and sourcing of knowledge (Abrahamson and Rosenkopf, 1997). In this context, the institutional or structural properties of networks as channels for knowledge transfer are arguably less important than the processes through which networking activities help to promote or legitimate particular claims to knowledge, albeit recognising that these processes are embedded within wider network structures.
Research by Kreiner and Schultz (1993), Ring and Van De Ven (1994) and Oliver and Liebeskind (1998) is relevant in developing a processual perspective on networks and innovation. Kreiner and Schultz’s study of informal university-industry networks in R&D proposes a multi-stage analysis of the process of network formation. The first stage, ‘discovering opportunities’, is activated by the accidental encounters and exploratory trust-building of a ‘barter economy’. This stage leads on to ‘exploring possibilities’ where initial ideas are tested and validated and projects materialize. The final stage - ‘consummating collaboration’ - is where projects are enacted through a ‘crystallised network of collaboration’. The Kreiner and Schultz model contains some important observations that are relevant to developing an analytical framework for the relations between networks and innovation. For example, they note that in the initial stages of idea generation, the concept of knowledge exchange or ‘know-how trading’ (von Hippel, 1988) fails to explain the promiscuous sharing of ideas seen amongst R&D actors. Likewise, they observe that networking activity crystallizes new network relationships which act as a ‘centre of gravity’ for further networking and research. In short, inter-personal networking, particularly in the nascent phases of innovation, creates path dependencies in the production and diffusion of knowledge through new network relationships.
A further contribution comes from Ring and Van De Ven (1994) who propose a cyclical model of network formation encompassing four distinctive activities; negotiations, commitments, executions, and assessments. This model shows some important similarities with the Kreiner and Schultz analysis. First, it is process-based - network structures are seen as an outcome of networking. Second, it is recursive - the ‘spiralling’ of networking interactions over time resemble the path-dependencies noted by Kreiner and Schultz. Third, it highlights the importance of exploratory trust-building interactions as the catalyst to network formation. They note, for instance, that the development of congruent purposes, values or expectations between parties "is a cumulative product of numerous interactions" (Ring and Van de Ven, 1994: 100). Fourth, Ring and Van de Ven also highlight the tensions between formal organizational structures and networking activities. Here they focus in
7 particular on the tensions created between organizational roles and personal interactions, with narrowly defined organizational roles limiting the scope for networking.
The additional contribution of Oliver and Liebeskind (1998) is to highlight the interaction between different types of networking relationships and the ways these evolve in the wider circuit of innovation. Three types of network are identified: intra-organizational relations (or interpersonal relations within a firm); inter-organizational relations at the interpersonal level; and inter-organizational relations at the organizational level. This leads them to differentiate between different elements of innovation both in terms of the roles played by different network relations and by the forms of knowledge which are transmitted. Thus, they argue that "exchanges of new scientific knowledge take place primarily through interpersonal network relations, both intra-organizational and interorganizational ……while inter-organizational ties serve primarily to support knowledge commercialization and encompass transfers of ‘commoditized knowledge’ in the form of intellectual property rights, and of assets essential for its commercial development"(op. cit.:77). Importantly, their analysis stresses that "these three types of networks…are not separate entitities but are inextricably intertwined in a number of different ways" (op.cit.:92). This interdependency is described in terms of: firstly, organizational rules and policies that influence the formation of individual interpersonal network relations; secondly, organizations’ motivations and rules that guide the formation of inter-organizational network relations; finally, social and professional norms that influence both the rules and policies adopted by organizations and the ways in which individuals acting under these rules behave. They see these factors as overcoming the divergence in the organizational roles of the different parties to the network such that "their motivations are harmonized" (op.cit.:92).
From these existing contributions regarding the relationship between networks and innovation, a synthetic set of propositions can be derived: (i) The roles of networks vary across episodes involved in the innovation process; (ii) Both the structural and processual dimensions of networks are important and mutually interdependent – networking is an integral aspect of network forms in a structurationist sense (Giddens, 1979); (iii) Network forms and social networking processes play a shaping role in the innovation process by resolving uncertainty and enabling knowledge transformations involving construction, communication and exchange (McLoughlin, 1999); (iv) The innovation process and the processes of network formation are mutually implicated in a path-
8 dependent way; and (v) The role of networking and networks varies according to the forms of knowledge which are being produced. These propositions are used as the basis for the processual analysis of networks and innovation in the empirical study of CAPM innovation that follows.
Data Sources
The review above highlights the interdependence between different elements of the whole circuit of innovation-diffusion. The scope of such an analysis has important implications for research methods. Not only does a longitudinal dimension need to be incorporated in such an enquiry, but it also implies multiple levels of analysis and the ability to move from the micro-level analysis of knowledge creation to the broader macro-level terrain of diffusion. Acknowledging that any research paper is necessarily limited in its ability to encompass the scope of such an enquiry, we have attempted to at least reflect the appropriate dimensionality by drawing upon data sourced via a mix of research methods. Here, then, we link a historical account through an analysis of published data with data available from surveys and a more intensive qualitative case study. This allows us to explore the relationship between networks and innovation through an analytically structured account of CAPM’s evolution that takes us from initial development through diffusion to implementation.
Our major data source in tracing the network activities involved the development and diffusion of CAPM were published texts (e.g. Wight, 1975; Orlicky, 1975; Vollman and Berry, 1986; Clark, 1987; Clark and Newell, 1993; Wilson et al, 1994). This is coupled with an analysis of the content of the journal and conference proceedings of the American Production and Control Society (APICS), from the early 1950s through to the 1990s. APICS is the major professional association for production and operations management practitioners in the US, comprising a varying membership of around 70,000. The APICS association also has partnering arrangements with counterpart associations in other countries worldwide which allows these to translate and/or disseminate APICS materials to their members. While, this data source is not ideal in terms of being able to assess the strength of interpersonal ties, such secondary sources have been used in a number of studies of innovation and networks (Powell et.al., 1996, Ahuja, 2000). Moreover, articles published in the APICS journal were often written by those individuals who were actively involved in developing CAPM. In conjunction with other texts on CAPM development, it was possible to employ triangulation techniques to support or refute the assertions made by these individuals.
9
In addition, some of the data regarding diffusion and implementation used in the developing this processual perspective are derived from primary research originally conducted by two of the authors. This included a study of the members of the Institute of Operations Management (IOM) formerly the British Production and Inventory Control society (BPICS) - that explored the networking activities of members and frequencies of interaction. This provided not only qualitative data regarding the role of the network but also quantitative data regarding networking activities and the structure of the professional association network of Operations Managers (for details see Swan et al, 1999). In addition three case studies in automotive firms were conducted that specifically focused on the networks and networking activity involved in decisions around the adoption and implementation of CAPM, one of which is used here as an exemplar of CAPM implementation (for details see Robertson et al, 1996). Thus the story that follows of CAPM innovation from development through to implementation has been informed by multiple-level and diverse data sources.
CAPM Innovation: development, diffusion and implementation CAPM is a generic term used to describe any computer-aided technology for production and inventory control (PIC) regardless of its specific configuration. Tracing the development, diffusion and subsequent implementation of CAPM over time from the early 1950s, allows us to explore the interrelationships and crucial role that networks have performed within the innovation process. A number of design templates of CAPM technologies have emerged over the last forty years (Clark and Staunton, 1989). The most well known, at least in America and most parts of Europe, is Material Requirements Planning (MRP). This was developed in the 1960s and subsequently evolved into Manufacturing Resources Planning (MRPII) – a variant that diffused widely throughout the US, UK and Europe during the 1970s and 1980s. This variant has evolved more recently into a cluster of Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) technologies. The analysis that follows tracks the initial development of CAPM and its diffusion and implementation, focusing on the pivotal role of intraand inter-organizational networking activity across the different episodes of the innovation process. Prior to analysing the evolution of CAPM the antecedent context that stimulated interest in this innovation is outlined briefly.
10 Antecedent Context A systematized approach to PIC emerged following the Second World War in response to three fundamental trends. First, various functions such as scheduling and shop floor control began to be assigned to single departments reporting to a production or general plant manager. Secondly these production managers began to perceive themselves as ‘professionals’ and to develop (in Oliver and Liebeskind’s terms) collaborative interpersonal inter-organizational relations to discuss new techniques. This inter-organizational networking activity, characterised mainly by weak ties, resulted in the creation in the US of more structured professional associations for PIC. The New Bedford Production and Inventory Association located in Massachusetts, for example, began operating in 1946. Over the next few years other PIC associations sprang up quite independently across the US (for example, in Los Angeles, Louiseville, Kentucky, Cleveland and Ohio). Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, sophisticated operations research techniques such as queuing and linear programming that had been developed by the British and the Americans during the second World War began to be applied to manufacturing environments (Greene, 1987). Economical-order-quantity (EOQ) models, for example, began to be used intensively for PIC and Gannt charts and machine loading systems were examined for possible applications. The initial development of CAPM – the MRP design template. In 1956 a significant development occurred with regard to networks, networking activity and the development of CAPM. Twenty-six PIC professionals, most of whom already represented local PIC associations, arranged to meet in Cleveland and decided to create a nationally co-ordinated PIC society that was to become known as APICS. Professional associations can be characterised as obligational inter-organizational networks typically entailing limited but broad co-operation around the pooling and exchange of information (Grandori and Soda, 1996; Alter and Hage, 1993). In this case the network was created to pool and exchange information around PIC (and later, more broadly, operations management). The relatively small interpersonal networks at a local level thus fused into a more formally structured institutional network of inter-organizational ties, both personal and organizational (APICS, for example, had company as well as individual members). The first national APICS conference was held in 1957 to discuss developments and to promote the diffusion of knowledge around PIC. In Kreiners and Schultz’s terms, then, APICS embodied the crystallization of a new network acting as a ‘centre of gravity’ for further networking activity and research around CAPM. It is important to note that at this point APICS membership comprised
11 primarily of practitioners (production managers, inventory controllers etc.) from different market sectors mostly in manufacturing. The APICS network therefore played a ‘brokerage’ role, bringing together individuals from different social groups in a set of weak ties who would not otherwise have made contact (Aldrich and von Glinow, 1992). Such weak ties have been found to be important for innovation because they allow ideas to spread across established social communities and allow organisations to encounter ideas that are not bounded by the norms of their particular sector (Granovetter, 1973; Hansen, 1999).
Throughout the 1960s the development of PIC-related knowledge by both practitioners and academics focused primarily on operational research techniques and the knowledge disseminated to practitioners via the APICS forums (e.g. at national conferences and in the APICS journal and educational materials) focused almost entirely on the development of these techniques. This included, in some cases, the use of new developments in computing to support these techniques (as the proceedings of the APICS conferences and content of the journal throughout this period confirm). Importantly during this period a handful of practitioners working in a small number of large US companies began to use quite a different approach for PIC – exploding production requirements down through a bill-of-materials rather than controlling production through the use of EOQs. These firms were also attempting to develop in-house computer systems to support this new approach. It is possible from the literature to identify particular individuals and firms that chose to develop this alternative approach (for example, Jim Burlinghame -at Twin Disc, Dick Alban at Black & Decker, and Paul Rosa and Gaynor Kelly from Perkins Engines). This was distinctively referred to as Material Requirements Planning (MRP - Wight, 1974; Greene, 1987). These individuals and their firms were operating quite independently of one another. However, in all cases these individuals were being supported in their development of PIC techniques by the same consultants - Joe Orlicky, manager of Manufacturing Industry Education for IBM, and Oliver Wight, a senior industry analyst with IBM. Thus each of these firms had strong inter-organizational ties with IBM but no ties with each other. Importantly, both Orlicky and Wight had been working in industry before joining IBM and had started to develop their ideas around MRP in a manufacturing rather than computing context. Joe Orlicky worked for JI Case in North America before joining IBM in 1962 and Oliver Wight had developed his ideas around MRP as the materials manager at Stanley Tools in the US. Thus the initial design and development of CAPM that became the MRP design template was driven mainly by interpersonal networking, including personal intra-organizational networking in key firms
12 together with personal inter-organizational networking and strong ties to IBM (Oliver and Liebeskind, 1997). This appears to be characteristic of the arrangements that have been found elsewhere to support the developmental episode of the innovation process (Kreiner and Schulz, 1993, Ring and Van de Ven, 1994; Oliver and Liebeskind,1997, Hansen, 1999).
In 1966 Orlicky, Wight and another consultant, George Plossl, met by chance at an APICS national conference. All were active members of APICS at this time - giving seminars on MRP and writing articles about MRP for the APICS journal. Each had decided, quite independently, to attend this conference specifically to disseminate and promote practice-based knowledge about MRP. Plossl and Wight established at this initial meeting that in fact they already knew one another, having worked together several years earlier at the Stanley Works. However, prior to this meeting the three had been unaware that they had each been working in similar ways on the computerisation of MRP (Greene, 1987). This highlights the highly informal, opportunistic character of the networking so reminiscent of the early stages of innovation (Kreiner and Schultz, 1993). It also shows how the development of strong ties (between Orlicky, Plossl and Wight) and weak ties (via membership of APICS) were conflated. This suggests the distinctions between these different network forms may be more blurred in practice than the literature (e.g. Hansen, 1999) would suggest.
Orlicky, Plossl and Wight had common interests with regard to the operationalisation of MRP using bespoke computerized systems. They also shared concerns in that, whilst they believed MRP was a superior approach for PIC, it was a new paradigm that required a fundamentally different way of thinking. Despite successful implementation of this approach in companies that they had worked for and with (as consultants) they were acutely aware of the ‘ignorance of’ MRP at this time. The vast majority of large manufacturing companies in the US had not begun to consider using MRP. Thus, despite the fact that to some extent they competed as consultants in the same business, these individuals had much to gain from pooling their expertise in MRP at this early stage of idea generation (Kreiner and Schultz, 1993). Following this chance encounter the three decided to join forces on an informal basis to further develop and promote the MRP design template.
Initial variants of CAPM were thus designed primarily at the local level of the manufacturing plant shaped by high levels of interpersonal networking together with strong ties with IBM. In addition, the professionalization of PIC at the institutional level coupled with the specific network structure of
13 APICS provided weak links across organizations and played a crucial role in the development of networking relations among the ‘group of three’. Interpersonal networking activities (for example among the ‘group of three’ and among the original founders of APICS) also began to generate more direct or strong ties among subsets of actors as clusters of firms came to enlist the help of Orlicky, Wight and Plossl in MRP projects. Thus in this case it was the dynamic interplay between professional network structures and interpersonal networking activities that shaped the nascent phase of the innovation process. In contrast to the task contingency approach suggested by Hansen (1999) that separates the impact of weak and strong ties on knowledge flows related to innovation, this analysis suggests that the strong and weak ties were mutually constituted in this nascent phase of CAPM innovation. It may be equally important therefore to consider the dynamic interdependencies among strong and weak ties as their discrete effects.
The diffusion of CAPM Through the early 1960s, propelled primarily by Joe Orlicky’s work, the IBM Manufacturing Industries Marketing Group worked on developing standardised MRP software application programs in an attempt to commodify and commercialize knowledge about the principles and philosophy of MRP. At this point the work was quite disordered and no real inroads were made. However, in 1969 a strategic decision was taken to invest significant resources in the development of an integrated set of basic applications which could then be marketed widely to manufacturing industry as a standardised software application. To pursue this strategy IBM brought together an international group in Munich at a newly formed manufacturing industry centre. The core group consisted of a team of 8 people from IBM supported by contributions from Wight and Orlicky who were working by then as independent consultants (Ralston, 1996).
More broadly the diffusion of the MRP design template remained sluggish (Clark, 1987). By the end of the 1960s Orlicky, Wight and Plossl were becoming frustrated with the lack of attention being given to this new paradigm, particularly as they had seen that the application of MRP principles could produce dramatic improvements for their clients. The use of a computerized MRP system for CAPM, they claimed, reduced lead time, increased inventory turnover by reducing raw material, work-in-progress and finished-goods stocks and improve on-time deliveries noticeably, thus improving customer service dramatically (Wight, 1984; Ralston, 1996).
14
Notably within the forum of the 14th APICS conference held in St. Louis, Mississippi in 1971 a heated debate occurred around the benefits of a traditional EOQ approach to PIC as opposed to the use of MRP. Joe Orlicky gave a paper at the conference entitled ‘MRP – A hope for the future or a present reality – a case study’ in which he referred to MRP as the ‘Cinderella’ of PIC. His copresenter was Jim Burlinghame, an operations manager from Twin Discs, who provided practitioner support for the claim that MRP was far more efficient than traditional EOQ methods. It is evident at this time, then, that there were two competing variants of CAPM both sponsored and promoted by different social networks within the wider forum of APICS. The significant networks at this time could be characterised as the ‘EOQ network’, comprising mainly weak ties across firms, and the ‘MRP network’ comprising strong ties between IBM, Orlicky, Wight and Plossl and their client firms. These collided somewhat acrimoniously within the APICS conference forum. At this point the network of EOQ advocates appeared to be the more powerful both in terms of sheer numbers and by virtue of the fact that the traditional EOQ approach was well established throughout the US. It was estimated for example, that in 1971 only 150 companies in the US were using MRP (Orlicky, 1975). Crucially, however, at this conference the smaller network of MRP advocates decided to embark upon the ‘APICS MRP Crusade’ and successfully enlisted the support of the APICS organizing committee (Clark and Newell, 1993). This committee agreed to allow APICS to be the primary vehicle or ‘catalyst’ (as the committee preferred to see their role at this time) for the diffusion of the MRP concept. This was a critical act of ‘enrolment’ since sponsorship by the profession bestowed a new legitimacy and power on the MRP concept and its proponents (Latour, 1987).
The ‘MRP Crusade’ used a fairly novel form of commodification. Eleven video films, produced by Orlicky, Plossl and Wight, and sponsored by IBM, explained the underlying philosophy of MRP and illustrated its application and beneficial effects. The series was publicised widely throughout the US by APICS and made available to all members of APICS for use within their companies. It served as a persuasive visual demonstration of the benefits as advocated by users of MRP. In addition, in 1971 APICS produced a special report that drew out the knowledge of a number of companies who were pioneering users of MRP, again drawing heavily on the work of Orlicky, Wight and Plossl. The commodification and diffusion of the innovation thus entailed the active networking of particular individuals and their firms with strong ties being forged among the APICS organizing committee, the 'group of three' and IBM. In addition the professional association network structure in the US was
15 important in the brokerage and legitimation of knowledge, allowing information and knowledge about MRP to be commodified and diffused from those with vested interests in its adoption to a wider number of manufacturing firms (Swan and Newell, 1995).
This commodification of MRP happened to coincide with the successful completion of a suite of software applications by IBM that would, it was claimed, provide fully integrated CAPM. The software was referred to as ‘COPICS’ (Communications Orientated Production Information and Control System). Hence from the early 1970s potential adopters of CAPM were offered knowledge and education about the MRP design philosophy and the software to support it. These offerings gained legitimacy via their active promotion within the networks of professional PIC associations both in the US and Europe. The diffusion of MRP across industry in the US was effectively launched and by 1975 over 700 firms had begun to use MRP (Orlicky, 1975). The APICS ‘MRP Crusade’ was therefore very successful in terms of diffusing generic, decontextualized knowledge about the MRP design template which was objectified or ‘blackboxed’ as the COPICS software application (cf. Scarbrough, 1995).
Where the literature actually considers the interaction between strong and weak network ties, it usually does so in terms of depicting strong ties as emanating from weak ties (Aldrich et al, 1992, Alter and Hage, 1993). Thus, in relating network structures to innovation, weak ties are considered useful both as mechanisms for information search (Hansen, 1999) and as mechanisms for the further establishment of strong ties through which knowledge relevant for innovation may be generated (Alter and Hage, 1993). In emphasising a closer inspection of processes and agency alongside structure, this analysis suggests a more dynamic and recursive relationship between the development of strong and weak network ties, with both being mobilised around the innovation itself via the purposeful networking activities of those who stand to gain from it. In particular, the growth of APICS as a major network for PIC professionals paralleled and indeed appeared to be spurred on by the design and diffusion of MRP throughout this period. In 1960 there were just 47 regional ‘chapters’ of APICS involving 1500 members. However by 1975, following the introduction of education and training by the profession on the back of the ‘MRP Crusade’, membership was grew rapidly to 14,177 members and by 1980 membership had grown dramatically to 41,045 (Greene, 1987). Thus the ‘MRP crusade’ was successful not only in commodifying and diffusing knowledge about MRP, but also in reinforcing the power and legitimacy of the professional association network
16 itself and, in doing so, extending this particular network of weak ties and the legitimacy afforded to the technology. Importantly, though, our analysis has shown that crusade was driven by strong ties and networking activities among particular individuals and groups who stood to benefit from MRP diffusion. This is not to imply an overly rationalised account of the diffusion process – as seen, a number of coincidental or ‘accidental encounters’ enabled by the institutionalised network of professionals also played a significant role.
Relations across networks of professional associations also encouraged the MRP design template to diffuse across national borders (Clark and Newell, 1993). This process has been analysed in more detail elsewhere (e.g. Clark, 1987; Clark and Newell, 1993; Swan et al, 1999). Suffice to say here that the loose coupling of APICS with counterpart associations in Europe played an important role in the diffusion of MRP across nations. By the beginning of the 1980s a large, and open professional network (cf. Burt, 1992) had developed populated by multiple clusters of individuals loosely connected across regions and nations. This loosely coupled professional network served to both diffuse and mould CAPM innovation both within the US and the UK and Europe more generally (Swan et al, 1999).
It was at this time that Oliver Wight, considered by now to be one of the world’s leading experts or gurus in the field (Ralston, 1996), endorsed the need for integrating production with the planning and control of other resources associated with manufacturing such as finance and distribution. This broadened the scope of the MRP design template and formalised a requirement for different functions in an organization to work together. This resulted in the evolution of CAPM into a new variant known as Manufacturing Resource Planning or MRPII again supported by standardised software applications, the most popular of which was (unsurpisingly) developed by IBM. In addition, Oliver Wight developed a generic methodology for MRPII implementation – the ‘Proven Path’ - as well as a standardised ‘Class A to D’ checklist against which companies seeking to become ‘Class A’ could audit their MRPII implementation process (Wight, 1984).
As with MRP, the diffusion of this new variant (MRPII) during the 1980s was very successful, especially in the US and the UK. Again, both APICS in the US and the IOM in the UK played a key role, actively promoting objectified notions of MRPII ‘best practice’ to their members, disseminating knowledge around the concept at conferences, workshops and in the journals
17 (Vollman and Berry, 1985). APICS also developed, in conjunction with Joe Orlicky and Oliver Wight, a professional qualification that hinged around MRPII ‘best practice’. This further sealed the successful diffusion of this latest variant of CAPM as the definitive ‘best practice’, despite alternative design templates for production scheduling (e.g. Just-in-Time and Optimal Production Technology) being available at the time (Wilson et al, 1994). In this way the professional association networks encouraged a form of isomorphism whereby normative pressures led those technologies (i.e. MRPII) that were accepted by the professional community as legitimate forms of best practice to be more widely adopted (Di Maggio and Powell, 1990).
The Implementation of CAPM The objectification of knowledge associated with MRPII in the form of software packages and ‘best practice’, universally applicable, methodologies proved a useful marketing strategy. However, while this ‘blackboxing’ of the technology was key to its diffusion, it caused significant problems for users. This was because MRPII demanded much greater organizational integration than its predecessor. As a consequence implementation required appropriation of the technology – objectified knowledge needed to be unpacked and reconfigured alongside existing, locally specific organizational routines and practice (Clark and Staunton, 1989). For example, even firms claiming to be using the same ‘MRPII’ template reconfigured the technology in many different ways (Burcher, 1991; Swan et al, 1999). Implementation often required pivotal modifications in both organization and technical systems and this posed distinct problems for firms as reflected in numerous instances of failure or partial failure (Waterlow and Monniot, 1986; Wilson et al 1994). The emphasis on ‘best practice’ via the interpenetrating networks of suppliers and professions was misleading for users because it deemphasised the need for appropriation.
The importance of social networks such as professional and trade associations in encouraging innovation is supported by other research (e.g. Alter and Hage, 1993, Aldrich et al, 1992). In terms of CAPM implementation, however, a problem was that the material presented in the public forums of the professional PIC networks tended to be imbued with a ‘pro-innovation’ bias, painting an overly optimistic picture of the success of technologies such as MRPII (Rogers, 1995). For example, practitioners rarely spoke in about problems and failures in public forums. Further, conference and journal papers were often (in around 65% of cases) written by software vendors and consultants
18 with interests in promoting adoption (as oppose to considered rejection) of MRPII (Newell et al, 1996). Thus although this networking provided members with ideas about how other firms had implemented MRPII, the problems associated with implementation were greatly de-emphasised. This implies that to avoid a pro-innovation bias the material broadcast in public network forums may need to be supplemented by less formal and more active interpersonal networking among those with experience in implementation, both positive and negative. This parallels other research that has noted the importance of the interplay between inter-organizational networking at interpersonal and organizational levels (using Oliver and Liebeskind’s terminology) for the implementation of innovation (Robertson et al, 1996; MacDonald and Williams, 1993). This interplay is illustrated next by referring to an example of a case of successful MRPII implementation. A case example of implementation This example is taken from a broader study that focused on the role of networks in the implementation of MRPII and is used here because it illustrates a relatively successful instance of implementation (for a detailed account of the case see Robertson et al, 1996). LiveCo was a large vehicle manufacturer in the UK operating to a make-to-order profile. The innovation process in LiveCo that eventually led to the implementation of an MRPII system began in the late 1980s when a decision was taken to invest in CAPM. At this time the company was facing a financial crisis so the firm decided to consolidate its manufacturing operations from 14 geographically distributed different sites onto one. This major restructuring clearly had a profoundly destabilising effect on pre-existing personal intra-organizational networks. However, this also seemed to reduce constraints on the scope of intra-organizational networking, specifically in relation to Liveco’s CAPM project. For example, LiveCo had a hierarchically and functionally differentiated structure and retained this throughout the period of change but, because of the uncertainty surrounding reorganisation, routines were introduced that ensured that all functional senior managers were involved in all major policy decisions. In line with this, LiveCo established a formal project team to handle the implementation of the new CAPM system that comprised managerial representatives from all of the major functional areas. This essentially provided an intra-organizational network that transcended established functional boundaries – a network that proved to be an important feature of the implementation process. Project team members for example, were able to gain valuable knowledge via their own particular functional specialisms that they could then feed into the project. This new network also extended outside the boundaries of the firm to include information systems support from a specialist
19 IT consultancy that had a history of working with LiveCo. A consultant from this firm became a permanent member of the project team.
Project team members developed an awareness of MRPII ‘best practice’ via their involvement in a number of inter-organizational networks (Robertson et al, 1996). For example, some heard about MRPII from reading trade and professional association journals, others from technology suppliers. Comments were that “it was difficult to read or speak to anyone back then without MRP2 being mentioned as the answer to all our problems”. The IT consultant in the team also advocated the use of MRPII and arranged for the Oliver Wight consultancy to present the concept. Thus strong and weak inter-organizational ties established at the interpersonal (e.g. through individuals’ involvement in professional networks) and organizational levels (e.g. through the formal relationship between LiveCo and the IT consultancy) played a significant role in alerting project managers to generic notions of MRPII ‘best practice’.
This knowledge was tempered by the team members’ own understanding of local manufacturing operations which was developed and shared through their intra-organizational networks. In short, this led the team to reject supplier recommendations to implement MRPII according to prescribed ‘best practice’ as they were aware that this would not accommodate their manufacturing profile. Instead, team members explicitly encouraged by the project leader, used their own informal interpersonal networks with other firms to arrange factory visits in order to see (and learn) for themselves what other firms were doing in terms of CAPM. This inter-organizational networking activity helped the team to develop an understanding of a much broader range of technologies for CAPM other than MRPII (e.g. Just-in-Time and OPT). During the implementation of the new CAPM system then, some of these ideas were blended with the prescribed MRPII ‘best practice’ template. The result was that some MRPII software and methods were implemented for high level/strategic manufacturing planning whilst detailed shopfloor planning and control was achieved with a combination of in-house designed software systems that interfaced with MRPII and a Just-inTime system. This approach was not recommended by technology suppliers at the time yet proved to be relatively effective in terms of implementation (Robertson et al., 1996).
This case illustrates the ways in which knowledge around competing and complementary variants of CAPM cultivated via mainly weak ties and interpersonal inter-organizational networking was
20 blended during implementation. A major factor in LiveCo’s ability to successfully reconfigure and implement their CAPM system was that they recognised the limitations of MRPII ‘best practice’ prescriptions being diffused by technology suppliers and professional associations. The fact that the implementation team members represented different functions was also important because the technology they were implementing demanded organisational integration and therefore relevant knowledge was distributed across the firm (Tsoukas, 1996). The team were able to unbundle the knowledge encountered via inter-organizational networks and blend this with that gained via more purposeful intra and inter-organizational networking to implement a CAPM system that was appropriate for their context.
Discussion The CAPM case develops the processual perspective on networks and innovation and lends some support to the propositions made earlier. In particular the roles of networks has been seen to vary across episodes involved in the innovation process and according to the forms of knowledge that are being produced. In all episodes network forms but also active networking processes play a shaping role by resolving uncertainty and enabling knowledge transformations involving creation, communication and appropriation. At the same time networking is mobilised around the innovation process itself thus the innovation process and the processes of network formation are mutually defined.
Table 1 summarises the analysis of CAPM, describing the features of networks, networking and knowledge during different episodes of the entire circuit of the CAPM innovation process. This highlights the interdependence of different types of network throughout the circuit of innovation. Different types of network, encompassing both strong and weak ties are seen to co-evolve around the CAPM innovation. In particular, the importance of inter-personal networking activity, rather than network links per se, is a recurring feature. This ranged from the development of the initial coalition around MRP encompassing the key actors of Orlicky, Plossl and Wight, through the political, brokerage and broadcasting activities within the professional network, to the concerted and purposeful inter- and intra-organizational networking of managers at LiveCo. This analysis of CAPM innovation thus highlights the importance of agency and reflexivity in networking as processes that transcend structural and institutional arrangements. For example, the active networking among the
21 ‘group of three’ transcended structural boundaries and played a pivotal role in eventually allowing MRP to usurp competing notions of ‘best practice’ in CAPM (i.e. EOQ) that were institutionally embedded at the time. What this analysis suggests is that actors involved in innovation are typically members of multiple networks and therefore exercise a degree of choice in the network resources that they deploy in pursuing their aims. This multiple network membership also enhances the reflexivity which they bring to their actions. In the LiveCo case, for example, knowledge of the internal company operations developed via intra-organizational networking informed their responses to the commodified knowledge about MRPII that was being promoted through inter-organizational networks at that time. This is not to underplay the importance of structure in shaping the agency of these actors; as seen, the institutional context - in particular the role of focal professional associations – was crucial in shaping and legitimating knowledge concerning CAPM.
INSERT TABLE 1
The insights gained from the analysis of this study of CAPM may be helpful in developing a broader analytical framework to address the role of networks in the innovation process (recognizing, of course the problems of generalizing from a particular case). During the innovation process it seems, knowledge and information is both communicated and transformed by the network of social actors. Although previous work on innovation has emphasized the importance of networks as communication channels, it has been more silent on the roles of networks in transforming that which is communicated (e.g. Abrahamson and Rosenkopf, 1997). Thus, we can characterise the different ‘episodes’ within the innovation process as involving, in broad terms, distinctive moves in the constitution of knowledge. The initial episodes, for example, may be characterised in terms of the social construction of knowledge (Bijker et al., 1987). Subsequent (only in a logical sense) to the initial innovation episode are diffusion activities which are associated with the objectification and communication of knowledge (Rogers, 1983). Knowledge which is socially constructed may become embedded within the shared understandings, activities and interpretations of a social group (in this case the initial coalition among the ‘group of three’ - Boland and Tenkasi, 1995). However, the communication of such knowledge requires that it be objectified and made more explicit to be translated and communicated to a wider social constituency. In broad terms we thus see diffusion as involving the progressive objectification or ‘black boxing’ of knowledge, such that its communication and diffusion ceases to be dependent on the tacit understandings of particular social groups. It can
22 thus be decontextualised and more widely applied to user groups with little if any of the relevant knowledge themselves (Scarbrough, 1995). Finally, the episode of implementation involves the appropriation of knowledge (Clark, 2000) to the specific context of the adopter by customizing and adapting it to local requirements.
Relating these points to the different episodes of the innovation process, a tentative analytical framework is outlined in Figure 1. This focuses on the interplay between three critical and co-varying dimensions identified by this study of CAPM; networking activity, knowledge attributes, and the episodic innovation process. As a highly schematic account, it also needs to be interpreted carefully. It is important to note, as seen in our case of CAPM, the non-linear and recursive relationships between the different episodes, the interplay and conflicts between different kinds of networking activity, and the continuous, non-discrete attributes of knowledge transformation and exchange (Blackler, 1995). This is an important distinction between our account and the more linear accounts of knowledge creation through social exchange that dominate the literature (for example, Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1994).
INSERT FIGURE 1 NEAR HERE
Initial Development: During this nascent episode, the focus of networking is on the social construction of knowledge through interpersonal networks (for example, the coalition here of MRP developers which consisted of IBM consultants and practitioners). Tapping the tacit and contextually situated knowledge of different individuals and groups involves an exploratory and highly personalized process of networking seeking to identify potential network participants possessing relevant information and expertise. Strong and weak ties are forged on the basis of commonality of interests and (uncertain) expectations of reciprocity and trust (Ring and Van de Ven, 1994). These expectations are generated through repeated social interaction but also signalled by contextual cues. For example, membership of a particular organisation or profession may imbue role incumbents with particular expected qualities (Meyerson et al, 1998). A key role of network members is the testing and validation of knowledge - what Ring and Van De Ven (1994) term ‘sense-making’. Because the emphasis here is on the sharing and creation of ideas rather than on the exchange of knowledge or artefacts, outcomes are uncertain and economic considerations are to some extent de-emphasized. This was demonstrated in the CAPM account by the way in which the ‘group of three’ decided
23 informally to join forces, unsure of what the outcome might be economically, but recognising that each had something to gain from the pooling of knowledge and information they had developed when working with practitioners.
Diffusion: During the diffusion episode, the emphasis shifts more strongly to the communication and exchange of knowledge and associated artefacts through inter-organizational networks (Oliver and Liebeskind, 1997). Ideas become commodified or packaged and diffused through the ‘weak ties’ (Granovetter, 1973) linking different social groups and organizations (for example, in the case of CAPM the professional associations in the US and UK were the focal networks for diffusion activities). Networking is now more extensively rather than intensively oriented and is mobilised around the diffusion of more explicitly codified knowledge about the innovation itself. Relationships tend to be more structured than emergent (e.g. those involved in the APICS ‘MRP crusade’) and are more explicitly transactional or market-based. This exchange process is likely to be unequal. For example, change agents (such as IT suppliers, consultants, association members, firms) may aggressively and directly promote particular ideas where it is in their interests to do so. This was demonstrated in the supplier-dominated materials of APICS and the IOM in the UK which downplayed the problems associated with the implementation of MRPII. ‘Boundary spanning’ individuals (e.g. consultants) thus play a key agentic role in this diffusion process, involving themselves in a wide range of networks (both inter- and intra-organisational) and so shaping and translating the knowledge and ideas communicated through these networks (Tushman and Scanlan, 1981).
In this framework diffusion involves a process of formal and informal information exchange among members of a social system in order to assess the legitimacy or perceived advantages of particular claims to knowledge (Rogers, 1983; 1995). In a technological context, the advantages of new ideas are often ambiguous and contingent. In such cases innovation processes are prone to fashion setting legitimacy is derived not from an assessment of the technology itself but from an assessment of those who are seen to be promoting and using the idea (Abrahamson and Rosenkopf, 1997). Professional networks such as professional associations may be considered more impartial communicators of ‘best practice’ than organizations with more naked commercial interests such as technology suppliers. As we have seen this assumption is not always justified - professional networks may well be colonized by commercial interests - but it may help to explain the importance of professional
24 networks in stimulating social interactions as well as in communicating knowledge (Alter and Hage, 1993).
Implementation: This episode entails the local appropriation of new ideas as organizationallyspecific solutions. Many technological innovations cannot be adopted by organizations as ‘off the shelf’ packages. Rather, they may require modification to appropriate them to specific technical and organizational contexts (Fleck, 1987). With these kinds of innovation local intra-organizational networking again becomes important as new knowledge is socially constructed and deployed during implementation (Fulk, 1993). For example, intra-organizational networks are used for identifying problems and mobilising implementation teams and may also be shaped and reformed by the implementation process itself. In the case of LiveCo, the customisation of software packages diffused by technology suppliers during implementation to meet local user requirements is a good example of the social (re)construction of knowledge involved in implementation (e.g. Robertson et al.,1996).
The example of CAPM implementation suggests that inter and intra-organizational networks converge during the implementation episode. Organizational boundaries therefore become more blurred than the literature suggests. The literature on boundary spanning, for example, usually assumes a clear demarcation between internal and external networking. Yet, in the LiveCo case the IT consultant became part of the internal team and the relationship this consultant had with the rest of the team was as close, or closer, than most of the relationships that existed within the team because of the structural changes that had occurred. This blurring of organizational boundaries is perhaps characteristic of implementation processes where the focus is on appropriating knowledge. In contrast, research on boundary spanning usually focuses on information search and knowledge acquisition. If so, this supports the key proposition made at the start of this paper that an analysis of networks and innovation may need to consider the ways in which the roles of networks vary across episodes of the innovation process.
Conclusions One important implication of the CAPM study concerns the interaction between different network modalities over the course of an innovation’s development. Where a cross-sectional view of innovation at any one point would highlight the structural configuration of network arrangements, this
25 longitudinal account permits an analysis of both the interdependencies and tensions between patterns of networking and network structures over the course of an innovation process. Thus, as seen, interpersonal networking is critical, being complemented by the formation of wider inter-organizational and professional network structures (Oliver and Liebeskind, 1998). Interpersonal networking seems to play an important role throughout, with such activities continuing to be important as an underlying dynamic even for the development of professional and inter-organizational relations. This brings into question Oliver and Liebeskind’s distinction between personal and organizational networks, and specifically their finding that inter-organizational ties are central to diffusion activities with interpersonal relations playing little if any role. Moreover, where Oliver and Liebeskind (1998) stress the ‘harmonization’ of motivations through organizational and professional norms, the CAPM experience rather emphasises the conflict between professional and occupational groups involved in inter-organizational networks who have interests in promoting different technological choices. The capture of the APICS professional network by the MRP crusaders was clearly an important watershed in this conflict, for it helped to suppress the competing claims of the EOQ concept. Likewise, the role of professional associations in promoting MRPII ‘best practice’ does not seem to be smoothly integrated with the interests and motivations of all members of such associations. As we noted, the role of professional associations in promoting the diffusion of commodified knowledge of MRPII seems to have been more congruent with the interests of technology suppliers than technology users. The isomorphic influence of such associations promoted diffusion of MRPII, but led to the neglect of the organizationally-specific knowledge which was critical to implementation. Ironically – and further underlining the tensions between different network modalities – this problem was overcome to some extent in our case-study firm in part by the intra-organizational networking of LiveCo managers; an activity which was enabled by the de-stabilization of established intraorganizational network structures.
These observations of the evolution of CAPM hopefully shed needed new light on the influence of networks on the innovation process (Oliver and Ebers, 1999). At a broader level, this can be understood in terms of the formation of social capital – particularly the emergence of trust through strong ties - as important for knowledge creation and the development of intellectual capital (Nahapiet and Goshal, 1998). This provides a more dynamic account of the role played by networks than the structural or contingency models outlined earlier. In particular, the transfer of knowledge is linked to the interpersonal networking activity associated with the creation of knowledge; networks
26 are seen not as passive channels but as active influences on the production and appropriation of knowledge (Alter and Hage, 1993; Kriener and Schultz, 1993). For example, the social networking that led to the development of the MRP ‘Crusade’ helped to shape the character of what was being disseminated by linking the concept with its practical implementation through the medium of video films. This emphasis on implementation subsequently became refined and incorporated into the MRPII package through the development of an implementation methodology (the ‘Proven Path’ and the Class A checklist), promoted through stories of corporate success and professional association educational courses and events. At the same time, the contested nature of such influences suggests that the interplay between social and intellectual capital may sometimes operate in a contradictory fashion. The contrast between the diffusion and implementation episodes of CAPM demonstrates the tensions between the social capital underpinning the commodification of MRPII and the appropriation of its intellectual capital by firms implementing MRPII.
This account of CAPM’s evolution suggests a move away from the view that networks are important primarily as channels for accessing requisite knowledge. Instead, it has shown that different network modalities serve to shape the creation of knowledge. This is most apparent in both the invention and implementation episodes where interpersonal networking is closely implicated in the social construction of new forms of knowledge albeit set against a background of established network structures. However, it is also important in the diffusion episode inasmuch as inter-organizational and professional networks serve not simply to transfer and disseminate knowledge but also to commodify and validate it. This constitutive effect is particularly apparent in the case of the MRPII innovation where the means of enrolling users are progressively incorporated within the technological solution itself in the form of training and standards. Developing a process perspective on the interrelationships between knowledge, networking and innovation in an empirically grounded manner thus avoids the reductionism and determinism inherent in more structural accounts and highlights the significant number of contextual factors and contingencies that come to bear on the process.
27
References Abrahamsson, E. (1996). ‘Management fashion’, Academy of Management Review, 21, 254-285. Ahuja, G. (2000). Collaboration networks, structural holes and innovation: A longitudinal study, Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 3, 425-455. Aldrich, H. and von Glinow, M.A. (1992). ‘Personal networks and infrastructure development’. D.V. Gibson, G. Kozmetsky and R.W. Smilor (eds), The Technopolis Phenomenon: Smart Cities, Fast Systems, Global Networks. New York: Rowman & Littlefield. Alter, C. and Hage, J.(1993). Organizations working together, Newbury, PA: Sage. Bijker, W.E., Hughes, T. and Pinch, T.J. (Eds) (1987). The Social Construction of Technological Systems, London: MIT Press. Boland, R.J. and Tenkasi, R.V. (1995). ‘Perspective Making and Perspective Taking in Communities of Knowing’, Organization Science, 6, 4, 350-363. Burt, R. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Callon, M. (1980). 'The state and technical innovation: A case study of the electrical vehicle in France', Research Policy, 9, 358-376. Clark, P. A., (1987), Anglo-American Innovation, New York: De Gruyter. Clark, P. (2000). Organizations in Action. London: Sage. Clark, P. and Newell, S. (1993). Societal embedding of production and inventory control systems: American and Japanese influences on adaptive implementation in Britain. International Journal of Human Factors in Manufacturing, 3, 69-80. Clark,P. and Staunton,N. (1989). Innovation in technology and organization. London: Routledge. Cyert, R.M. and March, J.G.(1963), A behavioral theory of the firm, Englewood Cliffs, N.J. : Prentice Hall. DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W. (1983). 'The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields', American Sociological Review, 48, 147-160. Ebers, M. (Ed). (1997). The Formation of Inter-organizational Networks. Freeman, C. (1991), 'Networks of innovators: A synthesis of research issues', Research Policy, 20, 5, 499-514. Fulk, J. (1993). 'Social construction of communication technology', Academy of Management Journal, 36, 5, 921-950. Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory, London: Macmillan. Grandori, A. & Soda, G. (1995). Inter-Firm Networks: Antecedents, Mechanisms and Forms. Organization Studies, 16, 184-214. Granovetter, M.S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78: 1360-
28 1380. Greene, J. (1987), Production and Inventory Control Handbook (2nd Ed), New York: McGraw Hill. Hansen, M.T. (1999). 'The search transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organizational sub-units', Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 82-111. Hennart, J-F. (1993). 'Explaining the swollen middle: Why most transactions are a mix of 'market' and 'hierarchy'', Organization Science, 4, 4, 529-547. Hislop,D.,.S. Newell, H. Scarbrough and J.Swan (1997), ‘Innovation and Networks: Linking diffusion and implementation’ International Journal of Innovation Management, 1, 4, 427-448. Hosking, D. & Morley, I. (1992). A Social Psychology of Organizing. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Jarillo, J. (1993). Strategic networks: Creating the Borderless Organization. Oxford: Butterworth Heineman. King, J.L., Gurbaxani, V., McFarlan, F. W., Raman, K. S. and Yap, C.S. (1994), 'Institutional factors in Information Technology innovation', Information Systems Research, 5, 2, 136-169. Kramer, R. & Tyler, T. (1996). Trust in Organizations. London: Sage. Knights, D., Murray, F. and Willmott, H. (1993). 'Networking as knowledge work: A study of interorganizational development in the financial services sector', Journal of Management Studies, 30, 975-996. Kreiner, K. and Schultz, M. (1993). 'Informal collaboration in R&D. The formation of networks across organizations', Organization Studies, 14, 2, pp.189-209. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: how to follow scientists and engineers through society. Milton Keynes :Open University Press. Lazonick, W. (1991). Business organization and the myth of the market economy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Macdonald, S. and Williams, C. (1992). The informal information network in an age of advanced telecommunications. Human Systems Management, 11: 177-88. March, J.G. (1988). ‘The technology of foolishness’ in Decisions and Organizations, J.G. March (Ed.), 253-265, Oxford: Basil Blackwell. McLoughlin, I. (1999). Creative technological change.London: Routledge. Nonaka , I and Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge creating company. New York:Oxford University Press. Nahapiet, J. and Ghoshal, S. (1998). ‘Social capital, intellectual capital and the organizational advantage’, Academy of Management Review, 23, 2, 242-266. Newell, S. and Clark, P. (1990). ‘The importance of extraorganizational networks in the diffusion and appropriation of new technologies’, Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilisation, 12, 199212. Newell, S., Swan, J.A. & Robertson, M. (1997). ‘Inter-organizational networks and diffusion of information technology: Developing a Framework’. T.J. Larsen and G. McGuire (Eds). Information Systems and Technology Innovation and Diffusion. Idea Publishing Group
29 Oliver, A.L. and Liebeskind, J.P. (1998). 'Three levels of networking for sourcing intellectual capital in biotechnology', International Studies of Management and Organization, 27, 4, 76-103. Orlicky, J. (1975). Material Requirements Planning, New York: McGraw Hill. Powell, W., Koput, K., Smith-Doerr, L. (1996). Inter-organizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology, Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 1 116139. Ralston, D. (1996). ‘A brief history of manufacturing control systems’, Journal of the Institute of Operations Management – Control, June;21-25. Ring, P., S. and Van De Ven, A.H. (1994). ‘Developmental processes of cooperative interorganizational relationships’, Academy of Management Review, 19, 1, 90-118. Robertson,M., Swan,J. and Newell,S. (1996). The role of networks in the diffusion of technological innovation. Journal of Management Studies, 33: 333-359. Rogers,E.M. (1983, 3rd Edition; 1995, 4th Edition). Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press. Steward, F. and Conway, S. (1996). 'Informal networks in the origination of successful innovations', pp. 201-221 in R. Coombs et al., Technological collaboration: The dynamics of cooperation in industrial innovations, Cheltenham: Edward Elger. Swan, J. and Newell,S. (1995). The role of professional associations in technology diffusion. Organization Studies, 61(5), 847-874. Swan, J. Newell, S. and Robertson, M (1999). The diffusion and design of technologies for operations management: a comparison of central diffusion agencies in the UK and Sweden. Organization Studies, 20,6,905-932. Tidd, J. (1997). ‘Complexity, Networks and Learning: Integrative themes for research on innovation management’, International Journal of Innovation Management, 1, 1, 1-21. Tushman, M. and Scanlan, T. (1981). ‘Boundary spanning individuals: Their role in information transfer and their antecedents’. Academy of Management Journal, 24: 289-305. Vollman, A. and Berry, W. (1985). Manufacturing Control. Illinois: Dow Jones-Irwin. von Hippel, E. (1988). The Sources of Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Waterlow, G. and Monniot, J. (1986). A Study of the State of the Art in Computer-Aided Production Management. Report for ACME Research Directorate, Science and Engineering Research Council, Swindon, UK. Wight, O. W.(1974). Production and inventory management in the computer age, Boston: Cahners. Wight,O. (1984). Manufacturing Resource Planning: MRP2. Vermont: Oliver Wight Publications. Williamson, O.E. (1985). The Economic Institutions of Capitalism. New York: Free Press. Wilson,F., Desmond,J. and Roberts,H. (1994). ‘Success and failure of MRP2 implementation’. British Journal of Management. 5: 221-240.
30
Table 1: A summary of the features of networks, networking and knowledge during different episodes of the CAPM innovation process Innovation Episode
Dominant network
Features of the networking process Wayward & emergent: formation of strong (few) and weak ties (many)
Role of networks
Knowledge transformation
Initial Development
Intraorganizational strong ties within designers’ firms Interorganizational strong ties among ‘group of three’ weak ties via APICS
Coalition building around new paradigm
Knowledge socially constructed from loosely structured, ambiguous & novel ideas into new paradigm
Interorganizational strong ties among ‘group of three’, APICS committee, IBM many weak ties across firms via professional association & ‘MRP crusade’ Mainly interpersonal
Opportunistic & conflictual: primarily through many weak/indirect ties and few strong ties
Brokerage, broadcasting & legitimation of new paradigm
Knowledge objectified, commodified and communicated
Intraorganizational strong ties among project team Interorganizational formal relationship between team & IT consultant weak ties with other firms, professional association, IT vendors. Boundaries ultimately become blurred
Purposeful, intentional: primarily using weak ties for information search coupled with strong ties in project team
Information resource and exchange
Knowledge appropriated (unpacked and and reconfigured) into workable applications in specific context
-
strong ties between clients and IBM
Mainly interpersonal Diffusion
Implementation
Mainly interpersonal plus formal client/consultant relationship
using material artefacts and ‘best practice’ methodologies
