Updates

International ID for Author Rights and protection Intellectual Property

Updates

Why Publish Your Article in IJSURP

36572
Manuscript
submission

9855
Public Research
Papers

26.94
Acceptance
Ratio

100
Articles from over
100 Countries

A design theory for collaborative interorganizational knowledge management systems

Volume : (3), Issue : 211, November - 2018

Abstract : This paper addresses the design problem of providing IT support to organizational knowledge creation within a geographical cluster. This study is based on a design science approach that serves to successfully introduce and implement a new IT artefact as a tool for interorganizational knowledge management. We draw on a case study of developing a portal for mapping competencies in an IT cluster in France. Abstracting from the experience of building this system, we developed an IS design theory for collaborative interorganizational knowledge management systems.

Keywords :Design science, design theory, knowledge management, cluster, interorganizational system.

Article: Download PDF Journal DOI : 2364/2018

Cite This Article:

knowledge management systems

Vol.I (3), Issue.I 211



Article No : 10044


Number of Downloads : 102


References :
  • Akrich, M., Callon, M., Latour, B. 2002. The key to success in innovation, International Journal of Innovation Management 6(2) 207-225.
  • Arrègle, J.-L., Amburgey, T. Dacin, T. 1998. Le rôle des capacités organisationnelles dans le développement des réseaux d’entreprises: Une application aux alliances Finance Contrôle Stratégie 1: 7-25.
  • Avison, D.E., Taylor, V. 1997. Information Systems Development Methodologies: A Classification According to Problem Situation, Journal of Information Technology 12 (1) 73-81.
  • Baskerville, R. 2008. What design science is not, European Journal of Information Systems 17, 441443.
  • Boland, R. J., Collopy, F. 2004. Managing as designing. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
  • Butler, T., Feller, J., Pope, A., Emerson, B., Murphy, C. 2008. Designing a core IT artefact for Knowledge Management Systems using participatory action research in a government and a nongovernment organization, The Journal of Strategic Information Systems 17: 249-267.
  • Capaldo, A. 2007. Network structure and innovation: The leveraging of a dual network as a distinctive relational capability, Strategic Management Journal 28: 585-608.
  • Carrincazeaux, C. 2001. Une évaluation du rôle de la proximité dans la coordination des activités de R&D des firmes, Revue d'Economie Régionale et Urbaine 1 : 53-74.
  • Castells, M., Hall, P. 1994. Technopoles of the World: The making of 21st Century Industrial Complexes. London: Routledge.
  • Cook, P., Huggins R. 2003. High-technology clustering in Cambridge (UK) in The institutions of local development. Fabio Sforzi (eds), 51-74. Aldershot, Ashgate.
  • David, A. 2000. La Recherche-Intervention: Cadre Général pour la Recherche en Management? in Les Nouvelles Fondations des Sciences de Gestion: Eléments Epistémologiques de la Recherche en Management. A. David, A. Hatchuel and R. Laufer (eds.), 193-213. Paris: Vuibert-Fnege.
  • Denyer, D., Tranfield, D., van Aken, J.E. 2008. Developing design propositions through research synthesis, Organization Studies 29, 393-414.
  • Doherty, N.F., Terry, M. 2009. The role of IS capabilities in delivering sustainable improvements to competitive positioning, Journal of Strategic Information Systems 18, 100-116.
  • Dyer, J.H., Singh, H., 1998. The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage, Academy of Management Review 23, 660-679.
  • Eckert, C., Boujut, J.-F. 2003. The role of objects in design co-operation: communication through physical or virtual objects. Computer Supported Cooperative Work 12(2) 145-151.
  • Foss, J.F. 1999. Networks, Capabilities, and Competitive advantage, Scandinavian Journal of Management 15, 1-15.
  • Gandon F., 2001. Engineering an Ontology for a Multi-Agents Corporate Memory System, Conference ISMICK.
  • Goldkuhl, G. 2004. Meanings of pragmatism: Ways to conduct information systems research, Action in Language, Organisations and Information Systems.
  • Gupta, A., Mattarelli, E., Seshasai, S., Broschak, J. 2009. Use of collaborative technologies and knowledge sharing in co-located and distributed teams: Towards the 24-h knowledge factory, Journal of Strategic Information Systems 18, 147-161.
  • Håkansson L., 1993. Networks as a mechanism to develop resources, In Beije P., Groenewegen J., Nuys O. 1993, Networking in Dutch Industries, Garant, 207-223.
  • Hatchuel, A. 1994. Les savoirs de l’intervention en entreprise, Entreprises et Histoire 7, 59-75. Henderson, K. 1999. On line and on paper: Visual representations, visual culture and computer graphics in design engineering. Boston: MIT Press.
  • Hevner A., 2007. The three cycle views of design science, Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems 19(2) 87-92. Hevner A.R., March, S.T., Park, J., Ram, S., 2004 Design Science in Information Systems Research, Management Information Systems Quarterly 28: 75-106
  • Hodgkinson, G.P., Healey, M.P. 2008. Toward a (pragmatic) science of strategic intervention: Design propositions for scenario planning, Organization Studies (29)3 435–457.
  • Hooker J., 2004. IS Design Theory Possible?, Journal of Information Technology Theory and Applications 6(2) 73-82.
  • Iansiti, M., Levien, R. 2004. The Keystone Advantage: What the New Dynamics of Business Ecosystems Mean for Strategy, Innovation and Sustainability. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
  • Jarke M., Tung Bui X., Carroll J.M.. 1998 Scenario Management : An Interdisciplinary Approach, Requirements Engineering, 3: 155-173.
  • Jelinek, M., Romme, A.G.L., Boland, R.J. 2008. Introduction to the special issue: Organization studies as a science for design - creating collaborative artefacts and research, Organization Studies 29(3) 317-330.
  • Keeble, D., Lawson, C., Moore, B., Wilkinson, F. 1999. Collective learning processes, networking and ‘institutional thickness' in the Cambridge region, Regional Studies 33: 319-332.
  • Kogut, B. 2000. The network as knowledge: generative rules and the emergence of structure. Strategic Management Journal 21, 405-425.
  • Kogut, B., Zander, U. 1992. Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science 3, 383-97.
  • Kumar, N., L. W. Stern, and J. C. Anderson (1993). ‘Conducting interorganizational research using key informants’, Academy of Management Journal, 36, pp. 1633–1651.
  • Krafft, J. 2004. Entry, Exit and Knowledge: Evidence from a cluster in the info-communications, Research Policy 33(10) 1687-1706.
  • Latour, B. 1986. The powers of association. In J. Law (ed.), Power, action and belief: A new sociology of knowledge? Sociological Review Monograph 32: 264-280. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
  • Law, J., Callon, M. 1988. Engineering and Sociology in a Military Aircraft Project: A Network Analysis of Technological Change. Social Problems 35 (3) 284-297.
  • Lazaric N, Longhi C and Thomas C (2008) Gatekeepers of Knowledge versus Platforms of knowledge: from potential to realized absorptive capacity, Regional Studies 42(6), 837-852.
  • Lindgren R., Henfrdsson, O., Schultze, U. 2004. Design principles for competence management systems: a synthesis of an action research study. MIS Quarterly 28(3) 435-472.
  • Löfsten, H., Lindelöf, P. 2002. Science parks and the growth of new technology-based firms: academic–industry links, innovation and markets. Research Policy 31, 859– 876.
  • Longhi, C. 1999. Networks, collective learning and technology development in innovative high technology regions: The case of Sophia Antipolis, Regional Studies June, 33 (4): 333-342.
  • March, S.T., Smith, G.F. 1995. Design and Natural Science Research on Information Technology. Decision Support Systems 15(4) 251-266.
  • Markus, M.L., Majchrzak, A., Gasser, L., 2002. A design theory for systems that support emergent knowledge processes, MIS Quarterly 26: 179-212.
  • Mohrman, S. A. 2007. Having Relevance and Impact: The Benefits of Integrating the Perspectives of Design Science and Organizational Development, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 43: 1224.
  • Moran, P., Ghoshal, S., 1996. Value Creation by Firms. In Keys J.B., Dosier L.N. eds. Academy of Management Best Papers Proceedings: 41-45.
  • Nahapiet, J., Ghoshal, S. 1998. Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage, Academy of Management Review 23(2) 242-266.
  • Nevo D and Wand Y (2005) Organizational memory information systems: a transactive memory approach, Decision Support Systems 39, 549-562.
  • Newell S, Robertson M, Scarbrough H and Swan J (2009) Managing knowledge work and innovation, Basingstoke ; New York : Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Owen-Smith, J., Powell Walter W., 2004, Knowledge Network as Channels and conduits : The Effects of Spillovers in the Boston Biotechnology Community, Organization Science 15(1) 5 –21.
  • Pandza, K. and R. Thorpe (2010). ‘Management as design, but what kind of design? An appraisal of the design science analogy for management’, British Journal of Management, 21/1, pp. 171-186.
  • Pascal A, Thomas C and Romme AG (2013) Testing a human-centered and science-based design methodology, British Journal Management 24(2), 264-280.
  • Pascal, A., Rouby, E. 2006. Construire des scénarios d’usage : une approche gestionnaire - Le cas KMP -, Actes de la SdC 2006 (Semaine des Connaissances), Tome 2, Éditeurs : Rémi Lehn, Mounira Harzallah, Nathalie Aussenac-Gilles, Jean Charlet.
  • Plsek, P., Bibby, J., Whitby, E. 2007. Practical Methods for Extracting Explicit Design Rules Grounded in the Experience of Organizational Managers. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 43: 153-170.
  • Richardson, G. B. 1972. The Organisation of Industry. The Economic Journal September: 883-896.
  • Romanelli, E., Khessina, O.K. 2005. Regional Industrial Identity: Cluster Configurations and Economic Devolpment, Organization Science, 16(4) 344-358.
  • Romme, A. G. L. 2003. Making a difference: Organization as design. Organization Science 14: 558573.
  • Romme, A. G. L., Endenburg, G. 2006. Construction principles and design rules in the case of circular design, Organization Science 17: 287-297.
  • Rouby, E., Thomas, C. 2004. La codification des compétences organisationnelles: l’épreuve des faits, Revue Française de Gestion 149 (2): 51-68.
  • Sammarra, A., Biggiero, L. 2001, Identity and Identification in Industrial Districts, Journal of Management and Gouvernance 5: 61-82.
  • Shawney M., Prandelli E., 2000. Communities of Creation: Managing Distributed Innovation In Turbulent Markets, California Management Review 42(4) 24-54.
  • Semionoff-Bru, Thierry 2008. Interview available at http://www.actis-ingenierie.com/titre3.htm
  • Schultze, U., Boland, R. J.. 2000. Knowledge management technology and the reproduction of knowledge work practices, The Journal of Strategic Information Systems 9:193-212.
  • Sorenson, O., Rikvin, J.W., Fleming, L. 2006. Complexity, networks and knowledge flow, Research 23 Policy 35. 994-1017.
  • Van Aken, J. E. 2005. Management research as a design science: Articulating the research products of mode 2 knowledge production in management, British Journal of Management 16: 19-36.
  • Van de Ven, A. H., Johnson, P. E. 2006. Knowledge for theory and practice, Academy of Management Review 31: 802-821.
  • Van de Ven, A.H. 2005. Running In Packs To Develop Knowledge-Intensive Technologies. MIS Quarterly 29:365-377.
  • Volkoff, O., Chan Y.E., Newson, E.F.P. 1999. Leading the development and implementation of collaborative interorganizational systems. Information & Management 35:63-75.
  • Volkoff, O., Elmes, M.B., Strong, D.M.. 2004. Enterprise systems, knowledge transfer and power users, The Journal of Strategic Information Systems 13:279-304.
  • Walls, J. G., Widmeyer, G. R., El Sawy, O.A.. 2004. Assessing information system design theory in perspective: How useful was our 1992 initial rendition, JITTA: Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application 6:43-58.
  • Winter, R., 2008. Design Science in Europe, European Journal of Information Systems 17: 470-475.
  • Worren, N. A., Moore, K., Elliott, R. 2002. When theories become tools: Toward a framework for pragmatic validity. Human Relations, 55: 1227-1250.


WordPress Lightbox Plugin