Advertisement

Engaging with Distributed Knowledge Management

  • Kevin C. Desouza
  • Yukika Awazu

Abstract

‘We live in a global world’ has become a cliché. More recently, we have also seen considerable interest in the term ‘distributed’, in the context of distributed work, distributed teams, and so on. A recent tragedy may help illustrate the critical issues of globalization. On September 11, 2001, the USA was attacked by the terrorist organization of Al Qaeda. The terrorists who hijacked the aircrafts resided in various geographical locations in the USA. The command-and-control centers for the coordinated attacks were based in the USA, Germany, Afghanistan, and Malaysia. The resources and skills required to carry out the attacks were garnered from multiple global locations. The success of the effort can be linked to the ability of the terrorists to blend into local cultures and go undetected by law enforcement officials. A wide assortment of communication tools were used to exchange the information and knowledge required to coordinate the attacks. Every aspect of the assault was global and distributed in nature.

Keywords

Knowledge Management Parent Company Virtual Team Knowledge Broker Contingent Worker 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    Grant, R. (1996). “Toward a Knowledge-Based theory of the Firm,” Strategic Management Journal, 17 (Special Issue), 109–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Tsoukas, H. (1996). “The Firm as a Distributed Knowledge System: A Constructionist Approach,” Strategic Management Journal, 17, 11–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 2.
    Hayek, F. (1945). “The Use of Knowledge in Society,” American Economic Review, 35 (4), 519–30, p. 520.Google Scholar
  4. 3.
    Ghoshal, S. and Bartlett, C. (1998). Managing across Borders. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gupta, A.K. and Govindarajan, V. (1991). “Knowledge Flows and The Structure of Control within Multinational Corporations,” Academy of Management Journal, 16 (4), 768–92Google Scholar
  6. Gupta, A.K. and Govindarajan, V. (2000). “Knowledge Flows within Multinational Corporations,” Strategic Management Journal, 21 (4), 473–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 6.
    Desouza, K.C. and Evaristo, J.R. (2003). “Global Knowledge Management Strategies,” European Management Journal, 21 (1), 62–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Desouza, K.C. and Evaristo, J.R. (2004). “Managing Knowledge in Distributed Projects,” Communications of the ACM, 47 (4), 87–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 7.
    Zeigler, C.A. (1985). “Innovation and the Imitative Entrepreneur,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 6 (2), 103–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 8.
    Katz, R. and Allen, T.J. (1982). “Investigating the Not Invented Here (NIH) Syndrome: A Look at the Performance, Tenure and Communication Patterns of 50 R&D Projects Groups,” R&D Management, 12 (1), 7–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 9.
    Michailova, S. and Husted, K. (2003). “Knowledge-Sharing Hostility in Russian Firms,” California Management Review, 45 (3), 59–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 10.
    Evaristo, J.R. and Fenema, P.C.V. (1999). “A Typology of Project Management: Emergence and Evolution of New Forms,” International Journal of Project Management, 17 (5), 275–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 11.
    Evaristo, J.R., Scudder, R., Desouza, K.C., and Sato, O. (2004). “A Dimensional Analysis of Geographically Distributed Project Teams: A case study,” Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 21 (3), 175–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 12.
    Desouza, K.C. and Evaristo, J.R. (2004). “Managing Knowledge in Distributed Projects,” Communications of the ACM, 47 (4), 87–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 13.
    Awazu, Y., Desouza, K.C. and Evaristo, J.R. (2004). “Stopping Runaway Information Technology Projects,” Business Horizons, 47 (1), 73–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 14.
    Hargadon, A. (1998). “Firms as Knowledge Brokers: Lessons in Pursuing Continuous Innovation,” California Management Review, 40 (3), 209–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hargadon, A. and Sutton, R. (1997). “Technology Brokering and Innovation in a Product Development Firm,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 42 (4), 716–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 15.
    Hoopes, D.G. and Postrel, S. (1999) “Shared Knowledge ‘Glitches’ and Product Development Performance,” Strategic Management Journal, 20 (9), 837–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 17.
    Desouza, K.C., Dingsøyr, T. and Awazu, Y. (2005). “Experiences with Conducting Project Postmortems: Reports vs. Stories and Practitioner Perspective,” in Proceedings of the Thirty-Eighth Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-38), Big Island, HI, Jan. 3–6, 2005. Los Alamos, CA: IEEE.Google Scholar
  20. 18.
    Birk, A., Dingsøyr, T., and Stålhane, T. (2002). “Postmortem: Never Leave a Project Without It,” IEEE Software, 19 (3), 43–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 19.
    Collier, B., DeMarco, T. and Fearey, P. (1996). “A Defined Process for Project Postmortem Review,” IEEE Software, 13 (4), 65–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kevin C. Desouza and Yukika Awazu 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kevin C. Desouza
    • 1
  • Yukika Awazu
    • 2
  1. 1.ChicagoUSA
  2. 2.ChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations