Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Boundaries Synchronization and Capabilities Congruence: Discussion and Implications

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Collaborative Dynamic Capabilities for Service Innovation

  • 845 Accesses

Abstract

In this chapter, I derive common theoretical and empirical knowledge through cross-case analysis of multiple in-depth case studies in Part 2, and at the same time present a new theoretical framework derived from case studies while verifying the propositions and hypotheses derived in Chaps. 1 and 2.

This chapter first discusses the characteristics of capabilities on knowledge boundaries between stakeholders. Then it discusses how synchronization of stakeholder activities on knowledge boundaries promotes synchronization of the dynamic capabilities (DC) of the various individual players involved, which brings about collaborative dynamic capabilities (C-DC) among players. The chapter shows the necessity of synchronizing pragmatic boundaries by forming strategic communities with the main player and partners. Moreover, pragmatic boundaries synchronization between main player(s) and partner(s) on the Capabilities Map brings about synchronization of the strategic innovation loop (boundaries synchronization).

This chapter also discusses the importance of optimized asset orchestration in companies, between companies and between industries, the formation of strategic communities within companies, between companies and between industries, and the acquisition of C-DC in companies, between companies and between industries for success in building ecosystems through service innovation, and clarifies the potential of these factors in bringing about the construction of health support ecosystems.

As an element of C-DC, the chapter also clarifies the importance of the concept of “capabilities congruence” among ecosystem partners in achieving capability synthesis to maximize capabilities in ecosystems. As requirements for the five capabilities elements of ecosystem partners, (1) strategy capabilities, (2) organizational capabilities, (3) technology capabilities, (4) operational capabilities, and (5) leadership capabilities, the chapter presents the concept of “congruence among capabilities elements” as well as new theoretical and practical implications.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Changes to the frameworks that arise from the new boundaries between businesses and industries are bringing about products, product systems, services, and complex systems that integrate these products and systems. For example, such integrated (complex) systems can be found in the smart houses being promoted by the real estate industry and smart cities being driven by private enterprise (e.g., Fujisawa Sustainable Smart Town , Kashiwa-no-ha Smart city, and Funabashi Smart Share Town) in Japan.

  2. 2.

    The holistic leadership discussed by Kodama (2017a) entails dynamic usage and combination of centralized, distributed, and dialectical leadership by practitioners (the three management layers of top management, middle management, staff) on the three practice layers of the formal organization layer, the psychological boundary layer, and the informal organization layer. As well as that, holistic leadership has a fractal quality. In other words, the three-layered structure of the leadership systems of the centralized, distributed, and dialectical leadership of practitioners in management layers (three practical layers) has a fractal nature. Moreover, leadership in entire corporate organizations that integrate top, middle, and lower management is also a three-layered leadership system in the same way.

References

  • Ahuja, M., & Carley, K. (1999). Network Structure in Virtual Organizations. Organization Science, 10(6), 741–757.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Albert, R., & Barabasi, A. (2000). Topology of Evolving Networks: Local Events and Universality. Physical Review Letter, 85(24), 5234–5237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barabasi, A.-L. (2002). Linked: The New Science of Networks. Boston: Perseus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baum, J. A. C., Rowley, T. J., & Shipilov, A. V. (2004). The Small World of Canadian Capital Markets: Statistical Mechanics of Investment Bank Syndicate Networks. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 21(4), 307–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braha, D., & Bar-Yam, Y. (2004). Information Flow Structure in Large-Scale Product Development Organizational Networks. Journal of Information Technology, 19(4), 234–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2001). Knowledge and Organization: A Social-Practice Perspective. Organization Science, 12(2), 198–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlile, P. (2002). A Pragmatic View of Knowledge and Boundaries: Boundary Objects in New Product Development. Organization Science, 13(4), 442–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlile, P. (2004). Transferring, Translating, and Transforming: An Integrative Framework for Managing Knowledge Across Boundaries. Organization Science, 15(5), 555–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlile, P. R., & Rebentisch, E. S. (2003). Into the Black Box: The Knowledge Transformation Cycle. Management Science, 49(9), 1180–1195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, C. M. (1997). The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collis, D. J., & Montgomery, C. A. (1998). Corporate Strategy: A Resource-Based View. Chicago: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cramton, C. D. (2001). The Mutual Knowledge Problem and Its Consequences for Dispersed Collaboration. Organization Science, 12(3), 346–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dougherty, D. (1992). Interpretive Barriers to Successful Product Innovation in Large Firms. Organization Science, 3(2), 179–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dougherty, D. (1996). Organizing for Innovation. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of Organization Studies (pp. 424–439). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K., & Martine, J. (2000). Dynamic Capabilities: What Are They? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10–11), 1105–1121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M., & Tabrizi, B. N. (1995). Accelerating Adaptive Processes: Product Innovation in the Global Computer Industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 84–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faust, K. (1997). Centrality in Affiliation Networks. Social Networks, 19, 157–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiedler, F. E. (1964). A Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 1, 149–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiedler, F. E., & Chemers, M. M. (1967). A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiedler, F. E., & Garcia, J. E. (1987). New Approaches to Effective Leadership: Cognitive Resources and Organizational Performance. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gawer, A., & Cusumano, M. A. (2002). Platform Leadership: How Intel, Microsoft, and Cisco Drive Industry Innovation (pp. 29–30). Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagel, J., III, & Brown, J. S. (2005). Productive Friction. Harvard Business Review, 83(2), 139–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hargadon, A., & Sutton, R. I. (1997). Technology Brokering and Innovation in a Product Development Firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 716–749.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helfat, C. E., & Peteraf, M. A. (2003). The Dynamic Resource-Based View: Capability Lifecycles. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10), 997–1010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helfat, C. E., Finkelstein, S., Mitchell, W., Peteraf, M. A., Singh, H., Teece, D. J., & Winter, S. G. (2007). Dynamic Capabilities: Understanding Strategic Change in Organizations. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iansiti, M., & Levien, R. (2004). The Keystone Advantage: What the New Dynamics of Business Ecosystems Mean for Strategy, Innovation, and Sustainability. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jantsch, E. (1980). The Self-Organizing Universe. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. (2005). Blue Ocean Strategy. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kodama, M. (1999). Strategic Innovation at Large Companies Through Strategic Community Management–An NTT Multimedia Revolution Case Study. European Journal of Innovation Management, 2(3), 95–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kodama, M. (2002). Transforming an Old Economy Company Through Strategic Communities. Long Range Planning, 35(4), 349–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kodama, M. (2003). Strategic Innovation in Traditional Big Business. Organization Studies, 24(2), 235–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kodama, M. (2004). Strategic Community-Based Theory of Firms: Case Study of Dialectical Management at NTT DoCoMo. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 21(6), 603–634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kodama, M. (2005a). Knowledge Creation Through Networked Strategic Communities: Case Studies on New Product Development in Japanese Companies. Long Range Planning, 38(1), 27–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kodama, M. (2005b). How Two Japanese High-Tech Companies Achieved Rapid Innovation Via Strategic Community Networks. Strategy & Leadership, 33(6), 39–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kodama, M. (2006). Knowledge-Based View of Corporate Strategy. Technovation, 26(12), 1390–1406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kodama, M. (2007a). The Strategic Community-Based Firm. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kodama, M. (2007b). Knowledge Innovation –Strategic Management as Practice. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kodama, M. (2007c). Project-Based Organization in the Knowledge-Based Society. London: Imperial College Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kodama, M. (2007d). Innovation Through Boundary Management—A Case Study in Reforms at Matsushita Electric. Technovation, 27(1), 15–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kodama, M. (2007e). Innovation and Knowledge Creation Through Leadership-Based Strategic Community: Case Study on High-Tech Company in Japan. Technovation, 27(3), 115–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kodama, M. (2009a). Boundaries Innovation and Knowledge Integration in the Japanese Firm. Long Range Planning, 42(4), 463–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kodama, M. (2009b). Innovation Networks in Knowledge-Based Firm –Developing ICT-Based Integrative Competences. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kodama, M. (2011). Interactive Business Communities. London: Gower Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kodama, M. (2014). Winning Through Boundaries Innovation – Communities of Boundaries Generate Convergence. Oxford: Peter Lang.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kodama, M. (Ed.). (2015). Collaborative Innovation: Developing Health Support Ecosystems (Vol. 39). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kodama, M. (2017a). Developing Holistic Leadership: A Source of Business Innovation. Bingley: Emerald.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kodama, M. (2017b). Developing Strategic Innovation in Large Corporations—The Dynamic Capability View of the Firm. Knowledge and Process Management, 24(4), 221–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kodama, M. (2018). Sustainable Growth Through Strategic Innovation: Driving Congruence in Capabilities. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kodama, M., & Shibata, T. (2014a). Strategy Transformation Through Strategic Innovation Capability—A Case Study of Fanuc. R&D Management, 44(1), 75–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kodama, M., & Shibata, T. (2014b). Research into Ambidextrous R&D in Product Development—New Product Development at a Precision Device Maker: A Case Study. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 26(3), 279–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kodama, M., & Shibata, T. (2016). Developing Knowledge Convergence Through a Boundaries Vision—A Case Study of Fujifilm in Japan. Knowledge and Process Management, 23(4), 274–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the Firm, Combinative Capabilities, and the Replication of Technology. Organization Science, 3, 383–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kramer, N., & de Smit, J. (1977). Systems Thinking—Concepts and Notions. Leiden: M Nijhoff Social Sciences Division.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Le Dain, M. A., & Merminod, V. (2014). A Knowledge Sharing Framework for Black, Grey and White Box Supplier Configurations in New Product Development. Technovation, 34(11), 688–701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leonard‐Barton, D. (1992). Core Capabilities and Core Rigidities: A Paradox in Managing New Product Development. Strategic Management Journal, 13(S1), 111–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leonard-Barton, D. (1995). Wellsprings of Knowledge: Building and Sustaining the Source of Innovation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, M. W., Welsh, M. A., Dehler, G. E., & Green, S. G. (2002). Product Development Tensions: Exploring Contrasting Styles of Project Management. Academy of Management Journal, 45(3), 546–564.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, L., & Kulatilaka, N. (2006). Network Effects and Technology Licensing with Fixed Fee, Royalty, and Hybrid Contracts. Journal of Management Information Systems, 23(2), 91–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marjolein, A. G., van Offenbeek, M. A., & Vos, J. F. (2016). An Integrative Framework for Managing Project Issues Across Stakeholder Groups. International Journal of Project Management, 34(1), 44–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonough, F. E., & Barczak, G. (1991). Speeding Up New Product Development: The Effects of Leadership Style and Source of Technology. Journal of Product Innovation Development, 8(2), 203–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C. (1994). Fit, Failure, and the Hall of Fame: How Companies Succeed or Fail. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, J. (1993). Predators and Prey: A New Ecology of Competition. Harvard Business Review, 71(3), 75–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Motter, A. E. (2004). Cascade Control and Defense in Complex Networks. Physical Review Letter, 93(098701), 1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman, M. E. J. (2004). Fast Algorithm for Detecting Community Structure in Networks. Physical Review E, 69(6), 1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nishiguchi, T., & Beaudet, A. (1998). The Toyota Group and the Aisin Fire. Sloan Management Review, 40(1), 49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I., & Konno, N. (1998). The Concept of “Ba”: Building a Foundation for Knowledge Creation. California Management Review, 40(1), 40–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge-Creating Company. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I., & Toyama, R. (2004). Knowledge Creation as a Synthesizing Process. In H. Takeuchi & I. Nonaka (Eds.), Hitotsubashi on Knowledge Management (pp. 91–124). Singapore: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I., & Toyama, R. (2007). Strategic Management as Distributed Practical Wisdom (Phronesis). Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(3), 371–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I., Kodama, M., Hirose, A., & Kohlbacher, F. (2014). Dynamic Fractal Organizations for Promoting Knowledge-Based Transformation—A New Paradigm for Organizational Theory. European Management Journal, 32(1), 137–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly, C., & Tushman, M. (2004). The Ambidextrous Organization. Harvard Business Review, 82(4), 74–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly, C., & Tushman, M. L. (2008). Ambidexterity as a Dynamic Capability: Resolving the Innovator’s Dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 185–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. W. (2004). Knowledge Networks as Channels and Conduits: The Effects of Spillovers in the Boston Biotechnology Community. Organization Science, 15(1), 5–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. (1996, November–December). What Is Strategy?. Harvard Business Review, 74, 61–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roethlisberger, F. (1977). The Elusive Phenomena: An Autobiographical Account of My Work in the Field of Organizational Behavior at the Harvard Business School. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roethlisberger, F., & Dickson, R. (1939). Management and the Worker. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schad, J., Lewis, M. W., Raisch, S., & Smith, W. K. (2016). Paradox Research in Management Science: Looking Back to Move Forward. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 5–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shah, P. (2000). Network Destruction: The Structural Implications of Downsizing. Academy of Management Journal, 43(1), 101–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1949). The Mathematical Theory of Information. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sirmon, D. G., Hitt, M. A., & Ireland, R. D. (2007). Managing Firm Resources in Dynamic Environments to Create Value: Looking Inside the Black Box. Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 273–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J. (1980). Economies of Scope and the Scope of the Enterprise. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 1(3), 223–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J. (1986). Profiting from Technological Innovation: Implications for Integration, Collaboration, Licensing and Public Policy. Research Policy, 15(6), 285–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J. (2000). Strategies for Managing Knowledge Assets: The Role of Firm Structure and Industrial Context. Long Range Planning, 33(1), 35–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating Dynamic Capabilities: The Nature and Microfoundations of (Sustainable) Enterprise Performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319–1350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J. (2014). The Foundations of Enterprise Performance: Dynamic and Ordinary Capabilities in an (Economic) Theory of Firms. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 28(4), 328–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tushman, M. L. (1977). Special Boundary Roles in the Innovation Process. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, 587–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1997). Winning Through Innovation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Mieghem, J. A. (2008). Operations Strategy: Principles and Practices. Belmont: Dynamic Ideas.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Offenbeek, M. A., & Vos, J. F. (2016). An Integrative Framework for Managing Project Issues Across Stakeholder Groups. International Journal of Project Management, 34(1), 44–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Krogh, G., Nonaka, I., & Rechsteiner, L. (2012). Leadership in Organizational Knowledge Creation: A Review and Framework. Journal of Management Studies, 49(1), 240–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Watts, J. (2003). Six Degrees: The Science of a Connected Age. New York: W.W. Norton and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watts, J., & Strogatz, S. (1998). Collective Dynamics of “Small-World” Networks. Nature, 393(4), 440–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wenger, E. (1998). Community of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wenger, E. C. (2000). Communities of Practice: The Organizational Frontier. Harvard Business Review, 78(1), 139–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, D., & Houseman, M. (2003). The Navigability of Strong Ties: Small Worlds, Tie Strength, and Network Topology. Complexity, 8(1), 82–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitehead, A. N. (1929/1978). Process and Reality: An Essay in Cosmology (D. R. Griffin & D. W. Sherburne, Eds.). New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winter, S. (2000). The Satisficing Principle in Capability Learning. Strategic Management Journal, 21(10–11), 981–996.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Nihon University, College of Commerce, Tokyo, Japan

    Mitsuru Kodama

Authors
  1. Mitsuru Kodama
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mitsuru Kodama .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Nihon University, College of Commerce, Tokyo, Japan

    Mitsuru Kodama

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Kodama, M. (2018). Boundaries Synchronization and Capabilities Congruence: Discussion and Implications. In: Kodama, M. (eds) Collaborative Dynamic Capabilities for Service Innovation. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77240-0_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation