Skip to main content
Log in

Reflections on knowledge-based approaches to the organization of production

  • Published:
Journal of Management & Governance Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Knowledge-based approaches to the firm offer valuable insights into some of the central issues of governance and organizational design—especially into long neglected problems of coordination. I start from the assumption that the fundamental problem of economic organization is reconciling efficiency in knowledge development with efficiency in knowledge application. The paper extends the knowledge-based view of the firm and knowledge integration approach to organizational capability that I outlined in earlier papers (Grant in Strategic Management Journal, 1996a; Grant in Journal of Management Studies 7(4)375–387, 1996b) and draws upon subsequent contributions to the literature. From this basis, I derive implications for the relative efficiencies of alternative institutions of economic organization and for the design of firm structures.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The paper also draws upon a paper I presented at the conference on information flows in knowledge intensive firms, Bocconi University, 27 November 2001.

  2. H. Demsetz (1995) makes a similar point. Demsetz distinguishes transaction and specialization theories of the firm, pointing out that transaction costs are the costs of exchange while production costs are the costs of converting inputs into output.

References

  • Almeida, P., Song, J., & Grant, R. M. (2002). Are firms superior to alliances and markets? An empirical test of cross-border knowledge building. Organization Science, 13, 147–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arrow, K. (1962). Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In National Bureau of Economic Research (Ed.), The rate and direction of inventive activity (pp. 609–625). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin, C. Y., & Clark, K. B. (1997). Managing in an age of modularity. Harvard Business Review, 75(5), 84–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: toward a unified view of working, learning and innovation. Organization Science, 2, 140–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camerer, C., & Knez, M. (1996). Coordination, organizational boundaries and fads in business practices. Industrial and Corporate Change, 5(1), 89–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Child, J., & McGrath, R. (1999). Special research forum call for papers: New and evolving organizational forms. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Choi, C. J., & Hilton, B. (2005). Knowledge resources: Critical systems thinking, viable system model and ‘gifts’. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 22, 561–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conner, K. R., & Prahalad, C. K. (1996). A resource-based theory of the firm: Knowledge versus opportunism. Organization Science;, 7(5), 477–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cusumano, M. A. (1997). How microsoft makes large teams work like small teams. Sloan Management Review, Fall, 9–20.

  • Cusumano, M. A., & Yoffie, D. B. (1998). Competing on internet time: Lessons from netscape and its battle with microsoft. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daft, R., & Lewin, A. (1993). Where are the theories of the ‘new’ organizational forms? Organization Science, 4, i–iv.

  • Demsetz, H. (1995). The economics of the business firm: Seven critical commentaries (pp. 1–14). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, L. (1995). American anti-management theories of organization: A critique of paradigm proliferation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, M. S., & Pentland, B. T. (2003). Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(1), 94–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Felin, T., & Foss, N. J. (2005). Strategic organization: A field in search of microfoundations. Strategic Organization, 3(4), 441–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foss, N. J. (1996). More critical comments on knowledge-based theories of the firm. Organization Science, 7(5), 519–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gavetti, G., & Levinthal, D. (2000). Looking forward and looking backward: Cognitive and experiential search. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(1), 113–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghoshal, S., & Moran, P. (1996). Bad for practice: A critique of transaction cost theory. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 13–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant, R. M. (1996a). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(winter special issue), 109–122.

  • Grant, R. M. (1996b). Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments: organizational capability as knowledge integration. Organization Science, 7(4), 375–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant, R. M., & Baden-Fuller, C. (2004). A knowledge accessing theory of strategic alliances. Journal of Management Studies, 41(1), 61–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamel, G. (1991). Competition for competence and inter-partner learning within international strategic alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 12(Summer Special Issue), 83–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M. C. (1998). Foundations of organizational strategy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1998). Specific and general knowledge and organizational structure. In M. C. Jensen (Ed.), Foundations of organizational strategy (pp. 103–125). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  • Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3(3), 384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1996). What firms do? Coordination, identity, and learning. Organization Science, 7, 502–518.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyles, M. A. (1988). Learning among joint-venture sophisticated firms. Management International Review, 28(special issues), 85–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milgrom, P., & Roberts, J. (1992). Economics, organization and management (p. 91). Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Narduzzo, A., Rocco, E., & Warglien, M. (2000). Talking about routines in the field. In G. Dosi, R. R. Nelson, & S. G. Winter (Eds.), The nature and dynamics of organizational capabilities (pp. 27–50). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nickerson, J. A., & Zenger, T. R. (2004). A knowledge-based theory of the firm—the problem-solving perspective. Organization Science, 15(6), 617–632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ouchi, W. (1980). Markets, bureaucracies, and clans. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 129–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pentland, B. T. (1992). Organizing moves in software support hot lines. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(4), 527–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pisano, G. P. (1994). Knowledge, integration, and the locus of learning: an empirical analysis of process development. Strategic Management Journal, 15(Winter special issue), 85–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E., & Siggelkow, N. (2008). Contextual interactions within activity systems and sustainability of competitive advantage. Academy of Management Perspectives, 22(2), 34–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 68(3), 79–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prencipe, A., & Tell, F. (2001). Inter-project learning: Processes and outcomes of knowledge codification in project-based firms. Research Policy, 30(9), 1373–1394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puranam, P., & Jacobides, M. C. (2006).The dynamics of coordination regimes: Implications for organizational design. London Business School discussion paper (April).

  • Robertson, D. H. (1930). Control of industry (p. 85). London: Nisbet & Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez, R., & Mahoney, T. (1996). Modularity, flexibility and knowledge management in product and organization design. Strategic Management Journal, 17(winter special issue), 63–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selznick, P. (1957). Leadership in administration. New York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1962). The architecture of complexity. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 106, 467–482.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1982). Sciences of the artificial (2nd ed.). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1991). Organizations and markets. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(2), 25–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simonin, B. L. (1997). The importance of collaborative know-how: An empirical test of the learning organization. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 1150–1174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, A. (1937). An inquiry into the nature and consequences of the wealth of nations. New York: Modern Library Edition, chapter 1. (Originally published 1776).

  • Spender, J.-C. (1992). Limits to learning from the west: How Western management advice may prove limited in Eastern Europe. International Executive, 34(5), 389–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, F. W. (1916). The principles of scientific management. Bulletin of the Taylor Society. Reprinted in J. M. Shafritz and J. S. Ott (Eds.), Classics of Organization Theory, pp. 66–81. Chicago: Dorsey Press.

  • Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action. New York: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, J. P., Meyer, A. D., & Schoonhoven, C. B. (2006). A future for organization theory: Living in and living with changing organizations. Organization Science, 17(5), 657–671.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely-coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O. E. (1975). Markets and hierarchies. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O. E. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism (p. 143). New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O. E. (1991). Comparative economic organization: The analysis of discrete structural alternatives. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 269–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winter, S. G. (2000). The satisficing principle in capability learning. Strategic Management Journal, 21(10/11), 981–996.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Womack, J., Jones, D., & Roos, D. (1990). The machine that changed the world. New York: Rawson Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wruck, K. H., & Jensen, M. C. (1994). Science, specific knowledge, and total quality management. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 18, 247–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert M. Grant.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Grant, R.M. Reflections on knowledge-based approaches to the organization of production. J Manag Gov 17, 541–558 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-011-9195-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-011-9195-0

Keywords

Navigation