Résumés
Abstract
In this contribution, we investigate the use of boundary objects (Star and Griesemer) for the orchestration of resources (Teece). We propose a comparative case study elaborating on two Dassault Aviation military fighters under an abductive approach. In this contribution, we elaborate on the micro-foundations approach. Our contribution discusses several properties of boundary objects in relation with the orchestration of resources: type, granularity, openness, malleability, and completeness. We conclude that boundary objects are critical to orchestration. Their properties explain why they diversely impact on sensing, seizing and reconfiguring. They elaborate on knowledge articulation and teamwork, and require specific ways of working.
Keywords:
- Dynamic capabilities,
- orchestration of resources,
- knowledge,
- articulation,
- boundary objects,
- micro-foundations
Résumé
Dans cette contribution, nous analysons l’utilisation des objets frontières (Star et Griesemer) dans l’orchestration des ressources (Teece). Nous proposons une étude de cas comparative de deux programmes d’avions de combat de Dassault Aviation dans le cadre d’une approche abductive. Nous nous situons dans une approche par les micro-fondations. Nous discutons plusieurs propriétés des objets frontières dans le cadre de l’orchestration des ressources : type, granularité, ouverture, malléabilité, et complétude. Notre conclusion indique que les objets frontières jouent un rôle critique pour l’orchestration des ressources. Ces propriétés ont des impacts différents sur les trois aspects du « sensing », « seizing » et « reconfiguring ». Nous mettons en évidence que les aspects les plus importants concernent l’articulation de la connaissance et le travail en équipe, ainsi que de nouvelles modalités de travail.
Mots-clés :
- Capacités dynamiques,
- orchestration des ressources,
- connaissance,
- articulation,
- objets frontières,
- micro-fondations
Resumen
En esta contribución analizamos la utilización de los objetos frontera (Star y Griesemer) para la organización de recursos (Teece). Proponemos un estudio de caso comparativo de dos programas de aviones de combate de Dassault Aviation en el marco de una aproximación abductiva, situándonos en el enfoque de las microfundaciones. Analizamos varias propiedades de los objetos frontera en relación a la organización de recursos: tipo, granularidad, apertura, maleabilidad y completitud. Nuestra conclusión indica que los objetos frontera juegan un papel crítico para la organización de recursos. Vemos como sus propiedades hacen que afecten de manera distinta los tres aspectos de "sensing", "seizing" y "reconfiguring". Mostramos también que sus efectos más importantes se producen a nivel de articulación del conocimiento y trabajo en equipo, así como en nuevas modalidades de trabajo.
Palabras clave:
- Capacidades dinámicas,
- organización de recursos,
- conocimiento,
- articulación,
- objetos frontera,
- microfundaciones
Parties annexes
Bibliography
- Adner, Ron; Kapport, Rahul (2010). “Value creation in innovation ecosystems: how the structure of technological interdependence affects firms performance in new technology generations”, Strategic management journal, Vol. 31, pp. 306-333
- Augier, Mie; Teece, David J. (2009). “Dynamic capabilities and the role of managers in Business strategy and economic performance”, Organization Science, Vol. 20 N° 2, pp. 410-421
- Barney, Jay B; Felin, Teppo (2013). “What are microfoundations?” The Academy of management perspective, Vol. 27 N° 2, pp. 138-155.
- Bechky, Beth A. (2003). “Sharing meaning across occupational communities: the transformation of understanding on a production floor”, Organization Science, Vol. 14 N° 3, pp. 312-330.
- Boisot, Max H. (1998). Knowledge assets. Securing competitive advantage in the information economy. New York: Oxford University Press.
- Boisot, Max H.; Canals, Agustí (2004), “Data, information and knowledge: have we got it right?”, Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Vol. 14 N° 1, pp. 43-67.
- Boland, Lawrence A. (2003). The foundations of economic method, A Popperian perspective, London: Routledge, 2nd edition
- Brown, John S.; Duguid, Paul (1998). “Organizing knowledge”, California Manag. Review, Vol. 40 N° 3, pp. 90-111
- Brusoni Stefano; Prencipe, Andrea; Pavitt, Keith (2001). “Knowledge specialization, organizational coupling, and the boundaries of the firm: Why do firms know more than they make?”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 46 N° 4, pp. 597-621.
- Campbell, Donald T. (1974). “Evolutionary epistemology”, in P. A. Schilpp, ed; The philosophy of Karl R. Popper, La Salle, Ill.: Open Court, pp. 413-463
- Capron, Laurence; Mitchell, Will (2009). “Selection capability: How capability gaps and internal social frictions affect internal and external strategic renewal”, Organization Science, Vol. 20 N° 2, pp. 294.312.
- Carlile, Paul R. (2002). “A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development”, Organization Science, Vol. 13 N° 4, pp. 442-455
- Dougherty, Deborah (2001). “Reimaging the differentiation and integration of work for sustained product innovation”, Organization science, Vol. 12 N° 5 pp. 612-631
- Eisenhardt, Kathleen M. (1989). “Building theories from case study research”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14 N° 4, pp. 532-550.
- Espinosa, J. Alberto; Lerch, F. Javier; Kraut Robert E. (2004). “Explicit versus implicit coordination mechanisms and task dependencies: One size does not fit all” in Eduardo Salas and Stephen M. Fiore (eds.), Team Cognition: Understanding the Factors That Drive Process and Performance. Chapter 6: pp. 107-130. US Psychological Association.
- Felin, Teppo; Foss Nicolai J.; Jeimeriks, H.; Madsen T. L. (2012). “Microfoundations of routines and capabilities: individuals, processes, structure”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 49 N° 8, pp. 1351-1374
- Felin, Teppo; Foss Nicolai J. (2011). “The endogenous origin of experience, routines and organizational capabilities: the poverty of stimulus”, Journal of Institutional Economics, Vol. 7, pp. 231-256.
- Fiore, Stephen M.; Schooler, Jonathan W. (2004). “Process mapping and shared cognition: teamwork and the development of shared problem models”, chapter 7 pp. 133-152 in Salas and Fiore, eds; 2004.
- Fong, Allan; Valerdi Ricardo; Srinivasan Jayakanth (2007a). Boundary objects as framework to understand the role of systems integrators. Systems Research Forum. Vol. 2: pp. 11-8.
- Fong, Allan; Valerdi Ricardo; Srinivasan Jayakanth (2007b). Using a boundary object framework to analyze interorganizational collaboration. INCOSE.
- Foss, Karen; and Foss, Nicolai J. (2005). “Resources and transaction costs: how property rights economics furthers the resource-based view.” Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 26 N° 6, pp. 541-553.
- Foss, Nicolai J. (2011). “Why micro-foundations for resource-based theory are needed and what they may look like.” Journal of Management, Vol. 37 N° 5, pp. 1413–1428
- Fylkelnes, Torgeir Knag (2006). “Abducing abduction.” Logic Journal of the IGPL: Special issue on ‘Abduction, practical reasoning, and creative inferences in science’, Vol. 14 N° 2, March, pp. 179-88.
- Glaser, Barney G.; Strauss, Anselm L. (1967). Discovery of Grounded Theory, Strategy for Qualitative Research. Chicago (IL): Aldine Publishing.
- Helfat, Constance E.; Peteraf, Margaret A. (2015). “Managerial cognitive capabilities and the microfoundations of dynamic capabilities”, Strategic Manag. Journal, Vol. 36 N° 6, pp. 831-50.
- Helfat, Constance E.; Finkelstein, Sydney; Mitchell, Will; Peteraf, Margaret A.; Singh, Harbir; Teece, David J.; Winter, Sidney G. (2007). Dynamic capabilities: Understanding strategic change in organizations, London: Blackwell.
- Henderson, Rebecca M., Clark, Kim B. (1990). “Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 35 N° 1, pp. 9-30.
- Jansen, Justin J. P.; Tempelaar, Michael P.; Van den Bosch, Frans A.J.; Volberda, Hank W. (2009). “Structural differentiation and ambidexterity: the mediation role of integration mechanisms” Organization Science, Vol. 20 N° 4, pp. 797-811
- Kirzner, Israel M. (1979). Perception, opportunity and profit. Studies in the theory of entrepreneurship. Chicago, IL.: University of Chicago Press (1983 paperback edition).
- Kor, Yasemin Y.; Mesko, Andrea (2013). “Dynamic managerial capabilities: configuration and orchestration of top executives’ capabilities and the firm’s dominant logic”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 34, pp. 233-244.
- Lee, Charlotte P. (2005). “Boundary negotiating artifacts: Unbinding the routine of boundary objects and embracing chaos in collaborative work”. Computer Supported Cooperative Work. Vol. 16 N° 3, pp. 307-339.
- Levina, Natalia; Vaast, Emmanuelle (2005). “The emergence of boundary spanning competence in practice: implications for implementation and use of information systems”. MIS Quarterly. Vol. 29 N° 2, pp. 335-363.
- Lorenz, Konrad (1973). Behind the mirror, New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich
- Marrone, Jennifer A. (2010). “Team Boundary spanning: a multilevel review of past research and proposals for the future”, Journal of management, N° 4, pp. 911-940.
- Mérindol, Valerie; Versailles, David W. (2010). “Dual-use as knowledge-oriented policy: France during the 1990ies and the 2000ies”, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 50 N° 1, pp. 50-98.
- Miles, Matthew B.; Huberman, A. Michael (1994). Qualitative data analysis, An expanded sourcebook, London: Sage.
- Mohammed, Susan; Dumville, Brad C. (2001). “Team Mental Models in a Team Knowledge Framework: Expanding Theory and Measurement across Disciplinary Boundaries”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 22, pp. 89-106.
- Nambisan S., Lyytinen K., Majchrzak A., S. M. (2017). “Digital Innovation Management: reinventing innovation management research in a digital world”. MIS Quarterly, Vol. 41 N° 1, pp. 223–238.
- Niiniluoto, Ilkka (1999). “Defending abduction”, Philosophy of Science, Vol. 66, pp. S436-S451.
- Niiniluoto, Ilkka (2007). “Structural rules for abduction”, Theoria, Vol. 60, pp. 325-329.
- Petroni, Angelo M. (1991), “L’individualisme méthodologique”, Journal des Economistes et des Etudes Humaines, Vol. 2 N° 1, pp. 25-62.
- Popper, Karl R. (1972). Objective knowledge: an evolutionary approach, Oxford Univ Press
- Radnitzky, Gerard; Bartley W. W. (III), (editors) (1987), Evolutionary epistemology, rationality, and the sociology of knowledge, La Salle, Ill.: Open Court.
- Renzi, Barbara G.; Guilio, Napoletano (2011). Evolutionary analogies: Is the process of scientific change analogous to the organic change?, Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
- Salas, Eduardo; Fiore Stephen M. (editors.) (2004). Team Cognition: Understanding the Factors That Drive Process and Performance. US Psychological Association.
- Salas, Eduardo; Goodwin, Gerald F.; Burke, C. Shawn (editors) (2009). Team effectiveness in complex organizations, Cross-disciplinary perspectives and approaches, Routledge.
- Sapienza, Harry J.; Autio, Erkko; George; Gerard; Zahra, Shaker A. (2006). “A capabilities perspective on the effects of early internationalization on firm survival and growth”, Academy of management review, Vol. 31 N° 4, pp. 914-933.
- Sapsed, Jonathan D.; Salter, Ammon (2004). “Postcards from the edge: local communities, global programs and boundary objects”, Organization Studies. Vol. 25 N° 9, pp. 1515-34.
- Schneckenberg, Dirk; Truong, Yann; Mazloomi, Hamid (2015). “Microfoundations of innovative capabilities: The leverage of collaborative technologies on organizational learning and knowledge management in a multinational corporation” Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 100, pp. 356-368.
- Smith, Wendy K.; Lewis Marianne W. (2011). “Toward a theory of paradox: a dynamic equilibrium model of organizing”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 36 N° 2, pp. 381-403.
- Star, Susan Leigh (2010). “This is not a boundary object: reflections on the origin of the concept.” Science, Technology and Human Values. Vol. 35 N° 5, pp. 601-17.
- Star, Susan Leigh; Griesemer, James R. (1989). “Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of vertebrate zoology”, Social Studies of Science, Vol. 19 N° 3, pp. 387-420.
- Strauss, Anselm L.; Corbin, Juliet M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research, 2nd ed., Sage.
- Swarts, Jason (2004). “Textual grounding: How people turn texts into tools”, Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, Vol. 34 N° 1, pp. 67-89.
- Teece, David J., (2000). “Strategies for managing knowledge assets: the Role of firm structure and industrial context”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 33 N° 1, pp. 35-54.
- Teece, David J., (2007). “Explicating Dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of enterprise performance”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 28, pp. 1319-1350.
- Teece, David J., (2014) “A dynamic capabilities-based entrepreneurial theory of the multinational enterprise, Journal of international business studies, Vol. 45 N° 8, pp. 8-37
- Teece, David J.; Pisano, Gary (1994). “The Dynamic capability of firms: an introduction”, Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol. 3 N° 3, pp. 537-556.
- Thomas, Gary (2010). “Doing case study: abduction not induction, phronesis not theory.” Qualitative Inquiry, Vol. 16 N° 7, pp. 575-582.
- Tsoukas, Haridimos; Efi Vladimirou (2001). “What is organizational knowledge?” Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 38 N° 7, pp. 973-993.
- Tsoukas, Haridimos (1996). “The firm as a distributed knowledge system: a constructionist approach”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 17 (Winter special issue), pp. 11-25.
- Versailles, David W. (2005). “Le maître d’oeuvre dans les programmes d’armement: de l’émergence à la consolidation des réseaux de connaissances”, Revue d’Economie Industrielle, Vol. 112, pp. 83-105.
- Versailles, David. W.; Abel, Marie-Helene; Misseri, Veronique; Moulin, Claude (2015). “Digital platforms for the Facilitation of Expert groups characterized as boundary objects”. Proceedings of the 19th IEEE CSCWD conference.
- Wenger, Etienne; McDermott, Richard; Snyder, William M. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice, Harvard Business School Press.
- Wilson, Greg; Herndl, Carl G. (2007). “Boundary objects as rhetorical exigence: Knowledge mapping and interdisciplinary cooperation at the Los Alamos National Laboratory”, Journal of Business and Technical Communication, Vol. 21 N° 2, pp. 129-154.
- Yin, Robert K. (2009). Case study research: design and methods 4th edition, Sage.
- Yoo, Y.; Boland, R. J.; Lyytinen, K.; and Majchrzak, A. (2012). “Organizing for Innovation in the Digitized World. Organization Science, Vol. 23 N° 5, pp. 1398–1408.
- Zollo, Maurizio; Winter, Sydney G. (2002). “Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamics capabilities”, Organization Science, Vol. 13 N° 3, May-June, pp. 339-351.