Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T20:46:36.788Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Managing occupational boundaries to improve innovation outcomes in industry-research organisations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 February 2015

Kathryn J Hayes  and
J Anneke Fitzgerald
Kathryn J Hayes
Affiliation:
Centre for Industry and Innovation Studies, University of Western Sydney – Parramatta Campus, Sydney NSW, Australia
J Anneke Fitzgerald
Affiliation:
Management, Centre for Industry and Innovation Studies, University of Western Sydney – Parramatta Campus, Sydney NSW, Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Commercialisation activities combining the discoveries of one occupational group, such as scientists, with the commercial skills of managers involve interactions across occupational and organisational cultures. This article explores the challenges posed by working across occupational and organisational boundaries, and describes management techniques developed informally in four Australian organisations to address barriers to knowledge transfer. It identifies the existence of Knowledge-stewarding Communities of Practice (CoP) that span organisational boundaries and impact commercialisation outcomes. It also presents recommendations for management practice based upon diversity management and innovation theories. The context of the study is Australian hybrid industry-research organisations composed of academic, government and industry personnel. Semi-structured interviews with a total of twenty scientists, engineers and managers focused on their experiences of knowledge sharing across organisational and occupational cultures, and methods used to manage these boundaries. The existence and efficacy of boundary-crossing individuals and boundary object strategies are explored. A generic process management model of innovation is extended to acknowledge and accommodate occupational and organisational cultural proclivities towards exploration or exploitation, and to stimulate future research.

Keywords

Cross-boundary knowledge sharingInnovationUniversity–Industry PartnershipsCommunities of Practice (CoP)Hybrid OrganisationsCommercialisation
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Management & Organization , Volume 15 , Issue 4 , September 2009 , pp. 423 - 437
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Audet, J and D'Amboise, G (2001) The multi-site study: an innovative research methodology [Electronic Version], The Qualitative Report 6, accessed at www.nova.edu/sss/QR/QR6-2/audet.html on 12 June 2001.Google Scholar
Bettenhausen, K and Murnighan, JK (1985) The emergence of norms in competitive decisionmaking groups, Administrative Science Quarterly 30(3): 350–372.Google Scholar
Button, G and Sharrock, W (1998) The organizational accountability of technological work, Social Studies of Science 28(1): 73–103.Google Scholar
Cole, S (1992) Making Science: between nature and society, Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA.Google Scholar
Cyert, RM and Goodman, S (1997) Creating effective industry-university alliances: an organizational learning perspective, Organizational Dynamics 25(4): 45–57.Google Scholar
Department of Education Science and Training (2005) Cooperative Research Centres Programme, accessed at http://backingaus.innovation.gov.au/2004/commercial/crc.htm on March 8, 2007.Google Scholar
Department of Education Science and Training & Howard Partners (2003) Evaluation of the Cooperative Research Centres Programme. Commissioned Report, Howard Partners, Canberra, Australia.Google Scholar
Douglas, M (1982) Essays in the sociology of perception, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.Google Scholar
Eisenhardt, KM (1989) Building theories from case study research, Academy of Management Review 14(4): 532–550.Google Scholar
Ely, RJ and Thomas, DA (2001) Cultural diversity at work: the effects of diversity perspectives on work group processes and outcomes, Administrative Science Quarterly 46: 229–273.Google Scholar
Epton, SR, Payne, RL and Pearson, AW (1983) Managing interdisciplinary research: Proceedings of the second international conference on the management of interdisciplinary research, Chichester, UK.Google Scholar
Etkowitz, H and Leydesdorff, L (2000) The dynamics of innovation: from national systems and ‘mode 2’ to a triple helix of university-industry-government relations, Research Policy 29: 109–123.Google Scholar
Fernandez, B, Mutabazi, E and Pierre, P (2006) International executives, identity strategies and mobility in France and China, Asia Pacific Business Review 12(1): 53–76.Google Scholar
Geraci, RM (2002) Laboratory ritual: experimentation and the advancement of science Zygon 37(4): 891–908.Google Scholar
Gibbons, M, Limoges, C, Nowotny, H, Schwartzman, S, Scott, P and Trow, M (1994). The new production of knowledge: the dynamics of science in contemporary societies, Sage, London.Google Scholar
Gieryn, TF (1999) Cultural boundaries of science: credibility on the line, University of Chicago Press, Chicago IL.Google Scholar
Hackett, EJ (2005) Essential tensions: identity, control and risk in research, Social Studies of Science 35(5): 787–826.Google Scholar
Hakala, J and Ylijoki, O (2001) Research for whom? Research orientations in three academic cultures, Organization 8(2): 373–380.Google Scholar
Harman, G (1999) Australian science and technology academics and university-industry research links, Higher Education 38: 83–103.Google Scholar
Harman, G (2001) University-industry research partnerships in Australia: extent, benefits and risks, Higher Education Research and Development 20(3): 245–264.Google Scholar
Hayes, K (2007) ‘Triple helix organisations, knowledge-stewarding communities of practice and perceptions of time: the hunters and gatherers of commercialisation.’ Paper presented at the 8th European Conference on Knowledge Management, 6-7 09 2007, Consorci Escola Industrial de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.Google Scholar
Hayes, K and Fitzgerald, A (2007) Business and research forms of debate: argumentation and dissent as barriers to the commercialisation of innovations in hybrid industry-research organisations, International Journal of Technology, Policy and Management 7(3): 280–291.Google Scholar
Kranzberg, M (1997) Technology and the west: a historical anthology from technology and culture, University of Chicago Press, Chicago IL.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T (2002) Negotiating boundaries between scholars and practitioners: knowledge, networks and communities of practice, Management Communication Quarterly 16(1): 106–112.Google Scholar
Kuhn, TS (1970) The structure of scientific revolutions, 2nd edn. University of Chicago Press, Chicago IL.Google Scholar
Kuhn, TS (1977) The essential tension: selected studies in scientific tradition and change, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago IL.Google Scholar
Lamont, M and Molnar, V (2002) The study of boundaries in the social sciences, Annual Review of Sociology 28: 167–195.Google Scholar
Lehrer, M and Asakawa, K (2004) Pushing scientists into the marketplace: promoting science entre-preneurship, California Management Review 46(3): 55–76.Google Scholar
Liyanage, S and Mitchell, H (1993) Organizational management in Australian Cooperative Research Centres, Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 5(1): 3–14.Google Scholar
Louis, KS, Blumenthal, D, Gluck, ME and Stoto, MA (1989) Entrepreneurs in academe: an Expoloration of Behaviors Among Life Scientists, Administrative Science Quarterly 34(1): 110–132.Google Scholar
March, JG (1991) Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning, Organization Science 2(1): 71–87.Google Scholar
Martin, E (1998) Anthropology and the cultural study of science, Science, Technology and Human Values 23(1): 24–45.Google Scholar
Martin, J (2002) Organizational culture: mapping the terrain, Sage, Thousand Oaks, California CA.Google Scholar
Merton, RK (1957) Priorities in scientific discovery: a chapter in the sociology of science, American Sociological Review 22(6): 635–660.Google Scholar
Merton, RK (1968) The Matthew effect in Science, Science 159(3810): 56–63.Google Scholar
Meyerson, D and Martin, J (1987) Cultural change: an integration of three different views, Journal of Management Studies 24(6): 623–647.Google Scholar
Nowotny, H, Scott, P and Gibbons, M (2001) Rethinking science: knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty, Blackwell, Malden MA.Google Scholar
Pech, R J (2001) Termites, group behaviour, and the loss of innovation: conformity rules!, Journal of Managerial Psychology 16(7): 559–574.Google Scholar
Pelz, DC and Andrews, FM (1976) Scientists in organisations: productive climates for research and development, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan MI.Google Scholar
Pires, G, Stanton, J and Ostenfeld, S (2006) Improving expatriate adjustment and effectiveness in ethnically diverse countries: marketing insights, Cross-Cultural Management: An International Journal 13(2): 156–170.Google Scholar
Rogers, DMA (1996) The challenge of fifth generation R & D, Journal of the Industrial Research Institute 39(4): 33–42.Google Scholar
Sitkin, SB and Stickel, D (1996) The road to hell: the dynamics of distrust in an era of quality, in Kramer, RM and Tyler, TR (Eds) Trust in organizations: frontiers of theory and research, pp. 196–215, Sage, Thousand Oaks CA.Google Scholar
Stake, RE (2000) Case studies, in Denzin, NK and Lincoln, YS (Eds) Handbook of qualitative research 2nd edn. pp. 435–454, Sage, Thousand Oaks CA.Google Scholar
Star, SL and Griesemer, JR (1989) Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's museum of vertebrate zoology, Social Studies of Science 19(3): 387–420.Google Scholar
Steiner, C (2000) Teaching scientists to be incompetent: educating for industry work, Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society 20(2): 123–132.Google Scholar
Tornatzky, LG, Lovelace, K, Gray, DO, Walters, SG and Geisler, E (1999) Promoting the success of us industry/university research centres, Industry and Higher Education 13: 101–111.Google Scholar
Traweek, S (1993) An introduction to cultural and social studies of Sciences and technologies, Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry 17: 3–25.Google Scholar
Trice, HM (1993) Occupational subcultures in the workplace, ILR Press, Cornell University, Ithaca NY.Google Scholar
Tullock, G (1993) Are Scientists different? Journal of Economic Studies 20(4,5): 90–106.Google Scholar
Turpin, T (1999) Managing the boundaries of collaborative research: a contribution from cultural theory, International Journal of Technology Management 18(3/4): 232–245.Google Scholar
Turpin, T and Deville, A (1995) Occupational roles and expectations of research scientists and research managers in scientific institutions, R & D Management 25(2): 141–157.Google Scholar
Turpin, T, Garrett-Jones, S and Rankin, N (1996) Bricoleurs and boundary riders: managing basic research and innovation networks, R & D Management 26(3): 267–282.Google Scholar
Van Maanen, J and Barley, SR (1984) Occupational communities: culture and control in organizations Research in Organizational Behavior 6: 287–365.Google Scholar
Wenger, EC, McDermott, R and Snyder, WM (2002) Cultivating communities of practice: a guide to managing knowledge, Harvard Business Press, Boston MA.Google Scholar
Wenger, EC and Snyder, WM (2006) Communities of practice: the organizational frontier, in Prusak, L and Matson, E (Eds), Knowledge Management and Organizational Learning, pp. 259–269, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
Yee, YS (1996) Technology transfer and the research university: a search for the boundaries of university-industry collaboration, Research Policy 25: 843–863.Google Scholar
Yin, RK (1994) Case study research: design and methods 2nd edn., Applied Social Science Research Methods, vol. 5, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.Google Scholar
Ziegler, JN (1997) Governing ideas: strategies for innovation in France and Germany, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York NY.Google Scholar