Knowledge creation through

boundary-spanning

Rebecca Mitchell1

Stephen Nicholas1

1Economics and Business, University of Sydney,

Sydney, Australia

Correspondence: Rebecca Mitchell, Carrel251A, H69 Economics and Business,University of Sydney, Sydney 2206, Australia.Tel: þ61 2 9559 6855;E-mail: rebeccajmitchell@hotmail.com

Received: 27 February 2005Accepted: 13 September 2006

AbstractThis paper contributes to our understanding of the process of knowledge

creation in organisations. Based on a process model, the paper

develops propositions relating to factors facilitating knowledge creation incross-functional work teams. These propositions relate to the constructs of

cognitive diversity, transactional memory, trans-specialist knowledge and their

contribution to new knowledge development through knowledge boundaryspanning.

Knowledge Management Research & Practice (2006) 4, 310–318.

doi:10.1057/palgrave.kmrp.8500113

Keywords: knowledge creation; functional diversity; cognitive diversity; knowledgeboundary-spanning; small teams

IntroductionCreating knowledge provides value to organisations and is the potentialsource of sustained competitive advantage (Boisot, 1998; Bryant, 2005;Grant, 1997; Spender, 1996; Tsoukas & Mylonopoulos, 2004). As noted byTsoukas & Mylonopoulos (2004), an organisation that can create knowl-edge on an ongoing basis has developed a dynamic and unique capabilitythat potentially underpins continuous organisational learning.

In view of the potential benefit from developing a knowledge creatingcapability, and the number of failed attempts by organisations to do so(Dachler, 1992), it is not surprising that knowledge management continuesto be a research priority (Un & Cuervo-Cazurra, 2004). Yet, much of theexisting research investigates knowledge sharing and transfer (Eisenhardt& Santos, 2002) or the use of technologies through which knowledge canbe effectively managed (Akbar, 2003; Bryant, 2005; Chang et al., 2004;Cummings & Teng, 2003). The processes underpinning effective know-ledge creation continue to warrant theoretical and empirical investigation(Corti & Storto, 2000; Peltonen & Lamsa, 2004; Un & Cuervo-Cazurra,2004). This paper responds to this research need by exploring a model ofknowledge creation in groups to generate specific, testable propositionsrelating to factors capable of facilitating or thwarting the creation process.

The model and propositions developed are underpinned by the under-standing that knowledge is created through the integration of previouslydisconnected knowledge, which implies movement of knowledge from itsoriginating source across significant boundaries. Knowledge boundaries referto the cognitive borders around organisational units, such as communities-of-practice or functional areas, within which there are significant common-alities in tacit knowledge, and across which exist distinct cognitivedifferences (Adams, 1976; Brown & Duguid, 2001; Tushman, 1977).

These commonalities have been the subject of considerable research, inpart because they have the potential not only to promote, but also to limit,

Knowledge Management Research & Practice (2006) 4, 310–318

& 2006 Operational Research Society Ltd. All rights reserved 1477–8238/06 $30.00

www.palgrave-journals.com/kmrp

the development of novelty. For example, embeddednessresearch emphasises how on-going patterns of socialrelations, in which all economic activity exists, homo-genise tacit and explicit knowledge within their knowl-edge areas thereby constraining the ability of actors todevelop truly novel solutions (Dacin et al., 1999; Uzzi,1997). Similarly, institutional research suggests that bothinstitutional and task pressures influence actors’ percep-tual frameworks leading to a convergence within organi-sations and industries (Dimaggio, 1997; Dimaggio &Powell, 1983). These convergent pressures act as ‘ideaboundaries’ limiting new knowledge creation by pressingactors to develop only ideas that are perceived aslegitimate or sanctioned by the task or institutionalenvironment. Along the same lines, path dependencyresearch identifies the paradigm within which indivi-duals and groups are working as facilitating positive stepsin certain knowledge directions and mitigating againststeps into ‘uncharted’ areas. The mental frameworkswithin which innovative ideas are generated are stronglyinfluenced by past experience and the limits imposed byparadigmatic boundaries (Hargadon & Yellowlees, 2001;Teece et al., 1997) Taken together, this research indicatesthat a critical aspect of the knowledge creation process isthe ability to overcome the subconscious pressures tolimit the development of novelty within knowledgeareas. One approach to overcoming these pressures isthe spanning of knowledge boundaries to enable theintegration of knowledge from diverse areas.

Knowledge creation through boundary spanningThe process of spanning knowledge boundaries connectsdistinct knowledge areas (Carlile, 2002; Tushman, 1977).There is evidence that the process of connectingpreviously disparate knowledge areas facilitates knowl-edge creation (Swan et al., 2002). For example, McLoughlin(1999) found that radical innovations often occur atthe interstices of communities-of-practice, because theyreflect and rely on the integration of community-specificknowledge. Within social network research, roles respon-sible for linking one knowledge area to another havebeen shown to significantly facilitate the innovationprocess by transferring knowledge across boundaries(Carlile, 2002; Tushman, 1977).

One mechanism that has been highlighted as apotentially effective location for knowledge transferacross knowledge boundaries is the cross-functionalteam (Carlile, 2004; Jehn et al., 1999). By establishingthe circumstances that facilitate the manifestation ofrepresentations of specialised tacit knowledge, cross-functional groups enable the assimilation of diverseknowledge by individuals as they operate in a bound-ary-spanning role across discrete areas (Swan et al., 2002).This occurs either through a process of drawing out,analysing and integrating the tacit knowledge of cogni-tively diverse individuals or through the application ofdifferent perspectives to codified knowledge, which maylead to the application of novel interpretations (Bhatt,

2000; Brown & Duguid, 2001). The integration ofdivergent perspectives overcomes the constraints onnovelty imposed by pressures acting to converge themental models of those operating within industriesand communities (McLoughlin, 1999). In addition, theraising and debating of dissenting issues within a groupstimulates divergent thinking in individual members,which is closely linked to creativity output (Nemeth &Nemeth-Brown, 2003).

Evidence suggests that cross-functional teams havethe potential to develop new knowledge efficiently. Forexample, brainstorming processes across distinct cogni-tive areas have been linked to more innovative problemsolutions (Hargadon & Sutton, 1997; Sutton & Hargadon,1996). Similarly the movement of professionals, such asengineers, from one distinct project area to another hasbeen shown to allow them to broker across knowledgediscontinuities and stimulate novel approaches to pro-blem solving (Fleming, 2002). Cross-functional teamshave greater absorptive capacity (Cohen & Levinthal,1990; Zahra & George, 2002), which is linked to capacityto generate new ideas (Vissers & Dankbaar, 2002).Also, cross-functional teams are more likely to engagein cognitive conflict, which fosters a deeper under-standing of task issues and an exchange of informationthat facilitates problem solving, decision making and thegeneration of ideas (Pelled et al., 1999), and whichimproves the clarity of the groups task-related mentalmap (Ensley & Pearce, 2001). However, the empiricalevidence is mixed, with a substantial body of researchsuggesting a negative relationship between cross-func-tional membership in groups and the development ofcreative new knowledge. Ancona & Caldwell’s (1992)study of 45 product teams indicated that functionaldiversity had a negative direct effect on innovation andteam-related performance. In the case of corporateboards, heterogeneity in the occupational backgroundsof board members was found to be negatively related tothe likelihood that hospitals would make innovativestrategic changes (Goodstein et al., 1994).

These results indicate that the ability to combine cross-functionally, while potentially linked to knowledgedevelopment, is thwarted in many organisations. Toanalyse this problem and to investigate cross-functionalknowledge creating mechanisms further, the followingdiscussion describes a model, comprising group andindividual level process integral to knowledge bound-ary-spanning, and propositions relating to the construc-tion and management of teams charged with creatingnew knowledge are developed.

Model of knowledge creationKnowledge creation in groups involves social interaction.A basic assumption of this paper is that knowledgecreation occurs in individuals, but that this does notoccur independent of group context and influence(Crossan et al., 1999; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Nonaka& Takeuchi, 1996; Simon, 1991, 1993). While individuals

Knowledge and competititve advantage Rebecca Mitchell and Stephen Nicholas 311

Knowledge Management Research & Practice

intuit, gain insight and have innovative ideas(Crossan et al., 1999), knowledge is shared and commonmeaning is developed which impacts these processes(Argyris & Schon, 1996; Huber, 1991) meaning thatknowledge creation can usefully be considered from bothan individual and group level.

Group knowledge creating processesEffective knowledge creation is reliant on group processesthrough which ideas are formed, facilitated by theinteractions and patterns of connections between mem-bers (Un & Cuervo-Cazurra, 2004). Numerous schemashave been built to depict group knowledge creationprocesses (Crossan et al., 1999; Drach-Zahavy & Somech,2001; Gibson, 2001; Jarvinen & Poikela, 2001). Whenanalysed, a number of generic phases emerge, whichtogether depict the core processes demonstrated ingroups tasked with creating new knowledge.

The first process, accumulation, occurs both outsideand within the knowledge-creating group. Outside thegroup, diverse tacit knowledge is accumulated in differ-ent functional areas. Within the group, accumulationdescribes the congress of individual inputs of knowledgethat are theoretically available to the team.

The accumulation of knowledge within functionalareas is based on extended in-depth interaction, andshared practice, leading to similar experiences, similarinterpretation of those experiences and the developmentof shared tacit knowledge (Bhatt, 2000; Brown et al.,1989; Brown & Duguid, 1991, 2001). Different functionalareas develop divergent knowledge bases because sharedifferent work experiences and belong to horizontallysegregated organisations, which are seldom connectedthrough anything more than infrequent ad hoc inter-actions (Dougherty, 1992). Commonalities in tacitknowledge differentiate members of one functional areafrom members of other areas. In cross-functional knowl-edge-creating groups, members operate as functionalrepresentatives, defined by the perspectives and knowl-edge that make up their functional area’s distinctparadigms. This knowledge creates their capability formeaningful input.

The accumulation of knowledge within knowledge-creating groups is based on the connection of segregatedfunctional areas, providing an opportunity for sharingtheir unique knowledge. Accumulation recognises thatknowledge is derived in some way from the priorexistence of its components, often emerging from therecombination of existing disparate ideas or by applying anew perspective to an existing technology (Hargadon,2002). Cross-functional teams have the potential tobridge structural holes, or gaps in the knowledge flow,between disconnected functional areas, thereby provid-ing access to a broader array of knowledge (Burt, 2004).By co-locating representatives from different nodes in aknowledge network temporally and spatially, cross-func-tional groups can facilitate the brokerage of knowledgeacross these previously disconnected nodes (DeDreu &

West, 2001; Huang & Newell, 2003; Jehn et al., 1997;Randel & Jaussi, 2003; Vissers & Dankbaar, 2002).Accumulating diverse knowledge contributes to thedevelopment of an effective social architecture forboundary-spanning by removing temporal and spatialbarriers to knowledge transfer (Bogenrieder, 2002; Davenport& Bruce, 2002; Nonaka & Konno, 1998; Nonaka et al., 2000).

The second group process, interaction, describes theuse of language and other symbols to develop enrichedand shared understanding. The most effective language-based group interaction method, dialogue, combinesboth the message and a deep interconnected meaning(Crossan et al., 1999; Isaacs, 1993). It is described as adiscipline of collective inquiry focused on the thinkingthat underlies messages. The aim of dialogue incorporatesa desire to evolve deeper and shared understandings,which encompasses and is partly directed by theobjective of knowledge boundary-spanning (Isaacs,1993). However, research also indicates that knowledgesharing across unit boundaries is difficult (Dougherty,1992; Postrel, 2002), which has been labelled the knowl-edge ‘stickiness’ problem (Szulanski, 1996).

Many factors have been identified with the stickiness ofknowledge within functional boundaries – they arerelated mainly to the understanding that what is learntis strongly determined by background mental modelsdeveloped through generalisation from prior experience(Brown & Duguid, 2001; Carlile, 2004). While similarpractices and perspectives allow the flow of knowledgeeven across organisational boundaries, disparate areaswith distinct perspectives and practices do not have thecognate mental models that enable the translation ofknowledge across cognitive boundaries (Carlile, 2004).The negative impact of divergent cognate mental modelson group performance is well documented. Knowledgethat is outside the existing schema is more difficult toabsorb than knowledge that is consistent with a sharedmental model (Houghton et al., 2000). Teams with broad-ranging unshared mental models tend to access theintersection, but not the union of their knowledge, yet itis the union of individual mental models that is vital tonew knowledge creation and this is often prevented by alack of shared understandings (Dougherty, 1992). Similarissues have been noted in organisational learningresearch, in which it is acknowledged that the sharedinterpretation of knowledge is affected by the uniformityof prior cognitive maps (Huber, 1991).

The barriers posed by cognitive difference necessitatethe translation and frequently the transformation ofknowledge. Translation implies that difference in thetype of specialised knowledge within a team leads tointerpretive ambiguities requiring processes that facilitatethe development of common understanding. Transfor-mation implies that different interests among teammembers generate costs inhibiting the effective sharingof knowledge (Carlile, 2004). To overcome barriersassociated with lack of shared meaning, knowledgeneeds to be translated from that which is semantically

Knowledge and competititve advantage Rebecca Mitchell and Stephen Nicholas312

Knowledge Management Research & Practice

ambiguous to that which is cognitively accessible. It mayalso need to be transformed from that which createspotentially negative consequences for other members tothat which is less costly to assimilate (Carlile, 2004).

The third process is analysis, during which groupmembers debate points of view, understandings, assump-tions and the merits of possible solutions and sugges-tions. The group’s analytical discussion impactsindividual analytical processes by highlighting certainpieces of knowledge, drawing attention to faulty logicand presenting arguments in support of particularconclusions (Gibson, 2001). Effective group analysisencompasses analogic reasoning, described as the recog-nition of links between the current issue and previousproblems and their solutions, which facilitates creativesolutions because it allows group members to link theirinventory of past experiences to the current situation(Hargadon & Sutton, 1997). By bringing together mem-bers from diverse backgrounds, group analogic reasoningresults in the application of a broader variety ofexperiences and knowledge than would be available toindividuals operating alone. One member’s experiencesprompts the introduction and exploration of furtherexperiences from other members – one suggested pre-vious experience shifts the groups’ perspective in waysthat make another seem relevant (Hargadon, 1999).

The fourth process is integration and creation. Theobjective of this phase is the articulation of an agreedposition or solution that integrates the best of knowledgeavailable to members and incorporates new knowledgecreated on the basis of the previous phases. Integrationand creation may be described as the externalisedconstruction of problem solutions or decisions, involvingthe manipulation and integration of knowledge throughdebate, bargaining and agreement.

Individual (group member) knowledge creatingprocessesAn examination of extant models evidences threeindividual processes that are identified as central to theprocess of new knowledge creation within a team. Theseprocesses occur in repeated patterns, with each processcapable of stimulating another.

The first individual process is transmission, encom-passing Nonaka and Takeuchi’s (1996) process of ex-ternalisation. Transmission is understood not as thecodification of tacit knowledge, but as the developmentof an explicit representation of what is known. Becausetacit knowledge is available fully to the individual only inaction, an incomplete representation is available throughcodification (Polyani & Prosch, 1975). During transmis-sion, the sender uses language to partially express whathas been interiorised during their work through, forexample, analogy and metaphor.

As well as sending a message, the transmission processincludes interpretation through application of the recei-ver’s tacit knowledge. Tacit knowledge can be conceivedas the interpretive tool enabling understanding of all

experience – as such, all codified knowledge hassome tacit component when being used by individuals(Tsoukas, 2002). Without the requisite application oftacit understanding, no explicit knowledge is meaningful.A diagram cannot interpret itself – all codified knowledgerequires personal judgment to interpret representa-tions (Polyani, 1966; Tsoukas, 1996, 2002). As codifiedmessages are decoded, the receiver deciphers the sender’smessage. In cross-functional groups, this interpretationcan be described as a process of construal in which themeaning of words and phrases is investigated with theaim of converting the decoded message into a mean-ingful message. Members’ ability to interpret othermember’s messages accurately is dependent on theirability to apply their own mental models successfully tomessage content. If an individual with tacit knowledgemarkedly different to the original knower is asked tointerpret knowledge codified by the latter, the process ofinterpretation may lead to generation of a novelconstrual (Brown & Duguid, 2001), which is an importantcomponent in the development of creativity (DeDreu &West, 2001).

The second process is cognition encompassing accom-modation and assimilation. Assimilation occurs as newknowledge is integrated into existing schemata, andaccommodation occurs when schemata are altered orrecreated to more comprehensively reflect new knowl-edge (Piaget, 1969). The process of cognition alsoincorporates intuiting, described as the perception ofpatterns or possibilities in a personal stream of experience(Crossan et al., 1999). Intuiting occurs during the processof applying tacit knowledge to new experiences, and isrelated to the level and depth of tacit knowledgeavailable. A highly complex mental model, associatedwith the development of expertise, facilitates the percep-tions of patterns that may not be apparent to novices(Crossan et al., 1999). Within cross-functional groups, theapplication of complex mental models to knowledgepresented from different functional areas provides anopportunity for new patterns to be recognised. Theprocess of cognition can also be viewed as encompassingthe process of internalisation (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1996)and underpinning the process of knowledge generation(Fong, 2003).

The third process, task-focused positioning, involvesthe development and implementation of strategies torealise the best possible outcome for individuals (actingas functional area representatives). As their understand-ing of issues related to the task and others’ perspectivesdevelops, members prioritise, search for possible alliancesand agreements, and opportunities to collaborate and/orcompromise. Task-focused positioning recognises thatindividual members may work against effective knowl-edge creation, by selectively revealing informationor discounting valuable ideas, to obtain a beneficialoutcome.

The dynamics and processes outlined in this modelof knowledge creation inform the construction and

Knowledge and competititve advantage Rebecca Mitchell and Stephen Nicholas 313

Knowledge Management Research & Practice

management of groups as knowledge creating mechan-isms. As organisations become expert at manipulatingthese factors, their knowledge creation capability in-creases. In other words, the organisation becomes betterat developing knowledge critical to its success (such asaction-outcome relationships and the impact of theenvironment), or its becomes better at learning (Duncan& Weiss, 1978). In an effort to lend greater clarity to theprocess of knowledge creation through boundary-span-ning and to provide a means for testing the utility of thismodel, a number of propositions are developed relatingto the group processes of accumulation and the indivi-dual process of transmission. Investigation into the initialgroup and individual processes provides a basis for futureresearch into subsequent processes.

Accumulation – cognitive diversity andtransactive memoryAs the first group process, accumulation is based onacquisition of knowledge, both the knowledge provideddirectly as a result of individual membership andindirectly as a result of members access to externalknowledge sources, its success depends on members’cognitive diversity and transactive memory.

Cognitive diversityCognitive diversity refers to diversity in the type anddepth of knowledge available to the group through itsteam members. As a group accumulates knowledge itpotentially increases it cognitive diversity. The existenceof cognitive diversity in groups allows knowledgeintegration, which overcomes the pressures to convergemental models operating with organisational functionalareas. While there is empirical evidence that synthesisingknowledge from different areas leads to new ideas(Fleming, 2002; Sutton & Hargadon, 1996), muchresearch uses demographic variables to proxy underlyingcognitive variation and the assumption that cognitivediversity is linked to knowledge creation requires specificinvestigation (Lawrence & Lewin, 1997). In particular,research investigating the impact of functional diversityassumes a connection with underlying tacit knowledge(Pelled et al., 1999), yet functional diversity is unlikely touniformly parallel cognitive diversity. It has been shownthat numerous additional variables have the ability toincrease or decrease the correspondence between func-tional diversity proxies and group outcomes (Lawrence &Lewin, 1997). Further, it is likely that functional diver-sity’s relationship with cognitive diversity is not simple orlinear. For example, organisational culture has beenlinked to decreased cognitive diversity in organisations(Tan, 1998), and in organisations with strong organisa-tional cultures, functional diversity may be less likely toresult in dissimilarity in perspective or approach to thegroup’s task. Similarly, political pressure may reduce thelikelihood that cognitive diversity will manifest withinfunctionally diverse groups (Janis, 1973). According tothe arguments posited above, without cognitive diversity,

functionally diverse teams are no more likely to developnew knowledge as their homogeneous counterparts.

Proposition 1. High levels of cognitive diversity will increasethe likelihood of creative new knowledgeemerging in teams.

Proposition 2. Cognitive diversity will mediate the relation-ship between functional diversity and knowl-edge creation.

Transactive memoryThe process of accumulation relies not only on theexistence of a broad range of knowledge, but also theability of group members to access this knowledge. Suchaccess relies on members’ knowing ‘who knows what’.Transactive memory is described as a team’s under-standing of who has access to what specialised knowledgewithin the team (Yoo & Kanawattanachai, 2001). Groupswith high transactive memory have good understandingof the knowledge and skills available to each individualmember, and this has been found to facilitate both accessto knowledge and co-ordination of tasks. Recent researchhas generated support for the idea that transactivememory is central to effective team performance parti-cularly in the completion of complex tasks requiringcontribution from different areas of expertise (Yoo &Kanawattanachai, 2001). The importance of this tocognitively diverse teams relates to the enhancement ofgroup performance through the accurate understandingof the knowledge available to the group and where it islocated in terms of member expertise.

Proposition 3. High levels of transactive memory willincrease the likelihood of creative newknowledge emerging in teams.

Transmission – trans-specialist knowledgeThe first individual level process, transmission, incorpo-rates both the externalisation and interpretation ofknowledge. Because interpretation relies on the degreeto which the tacit knowledge of the receiver parallels thatof the sender, interpretation between cross-functionalteam members is often inaccurate (Bhatt, 2000; Carlile,2004; Polyani, 1966; Tsoukas, 1996). The importance ofthis gap in tacit knowledge is highlighted in research intospecial boundary roles. Special boundary roles deal withthe problem of contrasting languages and coding schemaacross-functional areas, which impede the free flow ofknowledge, making it sticky (Rogers & Shoemaker, 1971;Tushman, 1977). Individuals filling special boundaryroles are capable of translating contrasting coding andcan channel knowledge between individuals from func-tional areas. The existence of these roles has been foundto increase the innovative capacity of cross-specialisationforums (Tushman, 1977). As translators, special boundaryroles are mechanisms through which the knowledge gap,especially the tacit knowledge gap, between sender andreceiver is minimised.

Knowledge and competititve advantage Rebecca Mitchell and Stephen Nicholas314

Knowledge Management Research & Practice

The existence of different knowledge bases does notnecessarily imply insurmountable communication bar-riers. If, in addition to disparate knowledge, there alsoexists mutually understood knowledge between commu-nicators, this shared knowledge can be used to constructand interpret messages effectively. The degree to whichtacit knowledge is mutually understood by individualcommunicators is reflected in the notion of trans-specialist knowledge (Postrel, 2002).

At a group level trans-specialist knowledge reflects theextent to which each communication dyad is facilitatedby mutually understood knowledge sufficient to enablea shared understanding of meaning across the dividesof functional work areas. Trans-specialist knowledgeimpacts the degree to which ideas are inter-translatableacross knowledge boundaries as it reflects the extent towhich members from diverse areas develop mentalmodels that are comparable as well as distinct. Trans-specialist knowledge does not necessarily contradict thenotion of cognitive diversity. It is possible for cognitivelydiverse group members to have sufficient shared knowl-edge to enable accurate and efficient translation ofdifferent ideas. While there is potential for diverse teamsto be defined by lower levels of trans-specialist knowl-edge, just as there is potential for them to suffer the strainof inter-cohort relationships caused by lack of sharedidentity (Pfeffer, 1983), it is possible for a diversified teamto be characterised by high levels of trans-specialistknowledge, which facilitates relations to cross-cognitiveboundaries. In these cases, teams are characterised bothby cognitive diversity and network density, or a highdegree of relationship intensity (Reagans & Zuckerman,2001). Trans-specialist knowledge enables this apparentcontradiction by facilitating communication across cog-nitive boundaries and, in doing so, connecting distinctknowledge bases.

While a review of the literature reveals little researchinto the impact of trans-specialist knowledge, researchinto mutual understanding supports its link with inter-pretation and understanding. Trans-specialist knowledgeis similar to the construct of mutual understanding,defined as knowledge that actors share and know theyshare (Cramton, 2001). Mutual understanding increasesthe likelihood that communication will be understood(Clark, 1996) and that the interpretation of communi-cated knowledge will reflect the intention of the sender(Cramton, 2001). It increases the likelihood of compre-hension by the receiver because, firstly, the receiver ismore likely to have a direct understanding of theconcepts and meanings that are included in the sender’smessage and, secondly, because the sender is more likelyto craft their message with an awareness of what thereceiver does or does not know (Cramton, 2001).

The existence of trans-specialist knowledge enhancesteams’ ability to transmit knowledge by improving theirability to both construct and interpret messages. Inaddition, trans-specialist knowledge may facilitate theeffectiveness of boundary objects, or tools that are

adaptable enough to make sense across different knowl-edge areas without losing their identity or meaning (Star& Griesemer, 1989). Trans-specialist knowledge can makeit easier to identify and build a tool with sufficientsymbolic adequacy to enable conversation (Tenkasi &Boland, 1996), because having some degree of knowledgethat spans specialisms, and knowing that this knowledgeis shared, is likely to facilitate the identification of imagesor labels that can represent knowledge from one func-tional area to the next.

It should be noted that trans-specialist knowledge maynot be equally distributed across members. Those mem-bers that have sufficient trans-specialist knowledge toenable translation of knowledge across boundaries mayoperate in special boundary spanning roles. In this case,their existence facilitates communication across cogni-tive boundaries and may also facilitate the ongoingdevelopment of trans-specialist knowledge across allmembers.

Proposition 4. High levels of trans-specialist knowledge willincrease the likelihood of creative new knowl-edge emerging in teams.

Proposition 5. The existence of special boundary roles willbe linked to the development of trans-specialist knowledge over time.

Conclusions, implications and future researchThis paper articulates a model of knowledge creationbased on the process of knowledge boundary-spanning.The fact that most knowledge creation occurs at theinterstices of knowledge areas (Carlile, 2004) tells us thatthe ability to transfer knowledge across boundaries isparamount to continued learning and innovation inorganisations. An understanding of the factors that assistin transferring knowledge will lessen the impact of theconsiderable pressures on novelty operating in distinctspecialist areas, and in doing so, facilitate organisationalsuccess in areas of fast-paced change. Within cross-functional groups, boundary spanning enhances knowl-edge creation efforts when it allows the connection ofcognitively diverse individuals. This necessitates bothaccess to the range of knowledge available to and throughgroup members, via well-developed transactive memorysystems, and the ability to translate knowledge, viasufficient trans-specialist knowledge. Transactive mem-ory systems lessen the likelihood that knowledge willremain hidden from group members, which is commonin diverse groups and detrimental to their effectiveness(Stasser & Titus, 2003; Stasser et al., 2000). Trans-specialistknowledge overcomes the significant semantic dividesbetween members of different knowledge areas, either byincreasing the likelihood that there will be sufficientshared meaning to enable understanding or by facilitat-ing the manifestation of special boundary roles. Enablingthe translation of knowledge across boundaries facilitatesknowledge integration, which is key to the creation ofnew knowledge and consequently to organisational

Knowledge and competititve advantage Rebecca Mitchell and Stephen Nicholas 315

Knowledge Management Research & Practice

competitive advantage (Conner & Prahalad, 1996;DeGeus, 1988; Grant, 1996, 1997; Kogut & Zander,1992; Spender, 1996; Tsoukas, 1996).

The next step in the research agenda is to test thepropositions developed above. In particular, empiricalinvestigation should concentrate on the notion that thevariables of cognitive diversity, transactive memory andtrans-specialist knowledge positively impact on knowl-edge creation.

Initially, a quantitative investigation could usefullyassess the variable relationships. Scale items exist for theconstruct of transactive memory, however the constructsof trans-specialist knowledge and cognitive diversitywould require the development of new measures. Trans-specialist knowledge is closely linked to the communica-tions literature concept of mutual knowledge, which isdescribed as task-relevant knowledge that the commu-nicating parties share (and know they share) (Cramton,2001). Using this connection to assist operationalisation,the measure of trans-specialist knowledge should en-compass the extent to which group members sharemutual knowledge relevant to the task that enables themto understand issues and concerns raised. A question-

naire-based investigation would likely be limited to studyof manifest cognitive diversity, defined as the extent towhich a variety of different perspectives were revealedduring group discussion. Scale items for manifest cogni-tive diversity should measure the different ways ofunderstanding and thinking about the groups’ task.

Empirical investigation will facilitate our understand-ing of how to construct and manage teams taskedwith creating new knowledge. The more specificmechanisms through which trans-specialist knowledgeoperates at an individual member and group levelboth to span cognitive boundaries and facilitate theprogressive reduction of semantic communicationbarriers warrants further investigation. Given thattrans-specialist knowledge is a relatively new area ofanalysis, it may also be useful to assess its impacton group processes such as perception of goal co-cooperativeness, which has been linked to innovation(Tjosvold & Sun, 2003). These research suggestionswould contribute to our understanding of the practiceof managing and creating knowledge, which is requiredto balance the advanced theoretical work that exists inthis area.

ReferencesADAMS JS (1976) The structural dynamics of behavior in organizational

boundary roles. In Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology(DUNNETTE MD, Ed), pp 1175–1199, Rand McNally, Chicago.

AKBAR H (2003) Knowledge levels and their transformation: towards theintegration of knowledge creation and individual learning. Journal ofManagement Studies 48(8), 1997.

ANCONA DG and CALDWELL DF (1992) Demography and design:predictors of new product team performance. Organization Science3(2), 321–341.

ARGYRIS C and SCHON DA (1996) Organizational Learning II: Theory,Method and Practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

BHATT G (2000) Information dynamics, learning and knowledge creationin organizations. The Learning Organization 7(2), 89–99.

BOGENRIEDER I (2002) Social architecture as a prerequisite fororganizational learning. Management Learning 33(2), 197–212.

BOISOT M (1998) Knowledge Assets: Securing Competitive Advantage in theInformation Economy. Oxford University Press, New York.

BROWN JS, COLLINS A and DUGUID P (1989) Situated cognition and theculture of learning. Educational Researcher 18(1), 32–42.

BROWN JS and DUGUID P (1991) Organizational learning andcommunities-of-practice: toward a unified view of working, learningand innovation. Organization Science 2(1), 40–57.

BROWN JS and DUGUID P (2001) Knowledge and organization: a social-practice perspective. Organization Science 12(2), 198–216.

BRYANT S (2005) The impact of peer mentoring on organizationalknowledge creation and sharing: an empirical study in a software firm.Group and Organization Management 30(3), 319–338.

BURT R (2004) Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal ofSociology 110(2), 349–399.

CARLILE PR (2002) A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries:boundary objects in new product development. Organization Science13(4), 442–455.

CARLILE PR (2004) Transferring, translating and transforming: anintegrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries.Organization Science 15(5), 555–568.

CHANG J, CHOI B and LEE H (2004) An organizational memory forfacilitating knowledge: an application to e-business architecture. ExpertSystems with Applications 26(2), 203–215.

CLARK H (1996) Using Language. Cambridge University Press, New York.COHEN WM and LEVINTHAL DA (1990) Absorptive capacity: a new

perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative ScienceQuarterly 35(1), 128–152.

CONNER KR and PRAHALAD CK (1996) A resource-based theory of thefirm: knowledge versus opportunism. Organization Science: A Journal ofthe Institute of Management Sciences 7(5), 477–501.

CORTI E and STORTO C (2000) Knowledge creation in small manufacturingfirms during product innovation: an empirical analysis of cause–effetrelationships among its determinants. Enterprise and InnovationManagement Studies 1(3), 245–264.

CRAMTON CD (2001) The mutual knowledge problem and its con-sequences for dispersed collaboration. Organization Science 12(3),346–371.

CROSSAN M, LANE H and WHITE R (1999) An organizational learningframework: from intuition to institution. Academy of ManagementReview 24, 522–538.

CUMMINGS JL and TENG BS (2003) Transferring R&D knowledge: the keyfactors affecting knowledge transfer success. Journal of Engineering andTechnology Management 20(1–2), 39–68.

DACHLER HP (1992) Management and leadership as relational phenom-ena. In Social representations and the social bases of knowledge.Swiss monographs in pscyhology, Vol. 1 (VON CRANACH M, DOISE Wand MUGNY G, Eds), pp 169–178, Hogrefe and Huber Publishers,Lewiston, NY.

DACIN MT, BEAL BD and VENTRESCA MJ (1999) The embeddedness oforganizations: dialogue & directions. Journal of Management 25(3),317–356.

DAVENPORT E and BRUCE I (2002) Innovation, knowledge managementand the use of space: questioning assumptions about non-traditionaloffice work. Journal of Information Science 28(3), 225–230.

DEDREU C and WEST M (2001) Minority dissent and team innovation: theimportance of participation in decision-making. Journal of AppliedPsychology 86(6), 1191–1201.

DEGEUS A (1988) Planning as learning. Harvard Business Review 66(2),70–74.

DIMAGGIO P (1997) Culture and cognition. Annual Review of Sociology23(1), 263–284.

Knowledge and competititve advantage Rebecca Mitchell and Stephen Nicholas316

Knowledge Management Research & Practice

DIMAGGIO P and POWELL W (1983) The iron cage revisited: institutionalisomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. AmericalSociological Review 48(2), 147–160.

DOUGHERTY D (1992) Interpretive barriers to successful productinnovation in large firms. Organization Science 3(2), 179–202.

DRACH-ZAHAVY A and SOMECH A (2001) Understanding team’s innovation:the role of team processes and structures. Group Dynamics 5(2),111–123.

DUNCAN RB and WEISS A (1978) Organizational learning: implications fororganizational design. In Research in organizational behavior (STAW ,BEd), JAI Press, Greenwich, Conn.

EISENHARDT KM and SANTOS F (2002) Knowledge-based view: a newtheory of strategy. In Handbook of Strategy and Management(PETTIGREW A, THOMAS H and WITTINGTON R, Eds), Sage, London.

ENSLEY M and PEARCE C (2001) Shared cognition in top managementteams: implications for new venture performance. Journal of Organiza-tional Behavior 22(2), 145–160.

FLEMING L (2002) Finding the organizational sources of technologicalbreakthroughs: the story of Hewlett-Packard’s thermal ink-jet.Industrial and Corporate Change 11, 1059–1084.

FONG P (2003) Knowledge creation in multidisciplinary project teams: anempirical study of the processes and their dynamic interrelationships.International Journal of Project Management 21(7), 479–486.

GIBSON CB (2001) From knowledge accumulation to accommodation:cycles of collective cognition in work groups. Journal of OrganizationalBehavior 22(2), 121–134.

GOODSTEIN J, GAUTAM K and BOEKER W (1994) The Effects of board sizeand diversity on strategic change. Strategic Management Journal 15(3),241–250.

GRANT RM (1996) Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments:organizational capability as knowledge integration. OrganizationScience 7, 375–383.

GRANT RM (1997) The knowledge based view of the firm: implications formanagement practice. Long Range Planning 30(3), 450–454.

HARGADON A (1999) Group cognition and creativity in organizations.JAI Press, Stamford, Conn.

HARGADON A (2002) Brokering knowledge: linking learning andinnovation. Research in Organizational Behavior 24, 41–85.

HARGADON A and YELLOWLEES D (2001) When innovations meetinstitutions: Edison and the design of the electric light. AdministrativeScience Quarterly 46(3), 476–501.

HARGADON AB and SUTTON RI (1997) Technology brokering andinnovation in a product development firm. Administrative ScienceQuarterly 42, 716–749.

HOUGHTON S, SIMON M, AQUINO K and GOLDBERG C (2000) No safety innumbers. Group and Organization Management 25(4), 325–353.

HUANG J and NEWELL S (2003) Knowledge integration processes anddynamics within the context of cross-functional projects. InternationalJournal of Project Management 21(3), 167–176.

HUBER GP (1991) Organizational learning: the contributing process andthe literatures. Organization Science 2(1), 88–115.

ISAACS WN (1993) Taking flight: dialogue, collective thinking andorganizational learning. Organizational Dynamics 22(2), 24–49.

JANIS IL (1973) Groupthink and group dynamics: a social psychologicalanalysis of defective policy decisions. Policy Studies Journal 2(1), 19–25.

JARVINEN A and POIKELA E (2001) Modelling reflective and contextuallearning at work. Journal of Workplace Learning 13(7/8), 282–289.

JEHN K, NORTHCRAFT GB and NEALE M (1999) Why differences make adifference: a field study of diversity, conflict and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly 44(4), 741–763.

JEHN KA, CHADWICK C and THATCHER SMB (1997) To agree or not to agree:the effects of value congruence, individual demographic dissimilarity,and conflict on workgroup outcomes. International Journal of ConflictManagement 8(4), 287–305.

KOGUT B and ZANDER U (1992) Knowledge of the firm, combinativecapabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science: AJournal of the Institute of Management Sciences 3(3), 383–397.

LAWRENCE BS and LEWIN A (1997) The black box of organizationaldemography. Organization Science 8(1), 1–22.

MCLOUGHLIN I (1999) Creative technological change. Routledge, London.NEMETH CJ and NEMETH-BROWN B (2003) Better than individuals? The

potential benefits of dissent and diversity for group creativity. In Group

Creativity: Innovation Through Collaboration (PAULUS PB, Ed), pp 63–84,Oxford University Press, London.

NONAKA I and KONNO N (1998) The concept of ‘ba’: building afoundation for knowledge creation. California Management Review40(3), 1–15.

NONAKA I and TAKEUCHI H (1995) The knowledge creating-company.Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York.

NONAKA I and TAKEUCHI H (1996) A theory of organizational knowledgecreation. International journal of Technology Management 11(7/8),833–846.

NONAKA I, TOYAMA R and KONNO N (2000) SECI, Ba and leadership: aunified model of dynamic knowledge creation. Long Range Planning33, 5–34.

PELLED LH, EISENHARDT KM and XIN KR (1999) Exploring the black box: ananalysis of work group diversity, conflict, and performance. Adminis-trative Science Quarterly 44(1), 1–28.

PELTONEN T and LAMSA T (2004) Communities of practice and the socialprocesses of knowledge creation: towards a new vocabulary formaking sense of organizational learning. Problems and Perspectives inManagement (4), 249–263.

PFEFFER J (1983) Organizational demography: implications for manage-ment. California Management Review 28, 67–81.

PIAGET J (1969) The mechanisms of perception. Routledge & Kegan Paul,London.

POLYANI M (1966) The Tacit Dimension. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.POLYANI M and PROSCH H (1975) Meaning. University of Chicago Press,

Chicago.POSTREL S (2002) Islands of shared knowledge: specialization and mutual

understanding in problem-solving teams. Organization Science 13(3),303–321.

RANDEL A and JAUSSI K (2003) Functional background identity, diversityand individual performance in cross-functional teams. Academy ofManagement Journal 46(6), 763–774.

REAGANS R and ZUCKERMAN EW (2001) Networks, diversity, andproductivity: the social capital of corporate R&D teams. OrganizationScience 12(4), 502–517.

ROGERS E and SHOEMAKER F (1971) Communication of Innovations. FreePress, New York.

SIMON HA (1991) Bounded rationality and organizational learning.Organization Science 2, 125–134.

SIMON HA (1993) Strategy and organizational evolution. StrategicManagement Journal 14, 131–142.

SPENDER J-C (1996) Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory ofthe firm. Strategic Management Journal 17(Winter Special Issue),45–63.

STAR SL and GRIESEMER JR (1989) Institutional ecology, ‘translations’and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’sMuseum of Vertebrate Zoology. Social Studies of Science 19(3),387–420.

STASSER G and TITUS W (2003) Hidden profiles: a brief history.Psychological Inquiry 14(3/4), 304–313.

STASSER G, VAUGHAN S and STEWART D (2000) Pooling unsharedinformation: the benefits of knowing how access to information isdistributed among group members. Organizational Behavior andHuman Decision Proceses 82(1), 102–116.

SUTTON RI and HARGADON AB (1996) Brainstorming groups in context:effectiveness in a product design firm. Administrative Science Quarterly41, 685–718.

SWAN J, SCARBROUGH H and ROBERTSON M (2002) The construction of‘communities of practice’ in the management of innovation. Manage-ment Learning 33(4), 477–496.

SZULANSKI G (1996) Exploring stickiness: impediments to the transfer ofbest practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal 17(WinterSpecial Issue), 27–43.

TAN G (1998) Managing creativity in organizations: a total systemapproach. Creativity and Innovation Management 7(1), 23–32.

TEECE D, PISANO G and SHUEN A (1997) Dynamic capabilities andstrategic management. Strategic Management Journal 18(7),509–533.

TENKASI RV and BOLAND RJ (1996) Exploring knowledge diversity inknowledge intensive firms: a new role for information systems. Journalof Organizational Change Management 9(1), 79–91.

Knowledge and competititve advantage Rebecca Mitchell and Stephen Nicholas 317

Knowledge Management Research & Practice

TJOSVOLD D and SUN H (2003) Openness among Chinese in conflict:effects of direct discussion and warmth on integrative decision making.Journal of Applied Social Psychology 33(9), 1878–1897.

TSOUKAS H (1996) The firm as a distributed knowledge system: aconstructionist approach. Strategic Management Journal 17(WinterSpecial Issue), 11–25.

TSOUKAS H (2002) Knowledge-based perspectives on organizations:situated knowledge, novelty and communities of practice. Manage-ment Learning 33(4), 419–426.

TSOUKAS H and MYLONOPOULOS N (2004) Introduction: knowledgeconstruction and creation in organizations. British Journal of Manage-ment 15(1), 1–8.

TUSHMAN MT (1977) Special boundary roles in the innovation process.Administrative Science Quarterly 22, 587–605.

UN CA and CUERVO-CAZURRA A (2004) Strategies for knowledge creationin firms. British Journal of Management 15(S1), 27–41.

UZZI B (1997) Social structure and competition in interfirm networks:the paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly 42(1),37–69.

VISSERS G and DANKBAAR B (2002) Creativity in multidisciplinary newproduct development teams. Creativity & Innovation Management11(1), 31–42.

YOO Y and KANAWATTANACHAI P (2001) Development of transactivememory systems and collective mind in virtual teams. InternationalJournal of Organizational Analysis 9(2), 187–208.

ZAHRA S and GEORGE G (2002) Absorptive capacity: a review, reconcep-tualization and extension. Academy of Management Review 27(2),185–203.

Knowledge and competititve advantage Rebecca Mitchell and Stephen Nicholas318

Knowledge Management Research & Practice

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.