- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10239573
- Publisher / Repository:
- Wiley Blackwell (John Wiley & Sons)
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Strategic Management Journal
- Volume:
- 37
- Issue:
- 10
- ISSN:
- 0143-2095
- Format(s):
- Medium: X Size: p. 2092-2103
- Size(s):
- ["p. 2092-2103"]
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
more » « less
Research Summary :passable trust that enables them to connect and share knowledge. Paradoxically, the very nonwork‐related content that attracts users to social media and shapes passable trust can become a source of tension, thwarting a firm's ability to encapsulate knowledge in the form of routines and to use it to enact its strategy.Managerial Summary :passable trust that they need to share knowledge on the sites or offline. Paradoxically, the nonwork‐related content that attracts users to the sites can become a source of tension, thwarting the production of knowledge to enact firms’ knowledge‐based strategies. To foster work‐related knowledge sharing, managers should accommodate nonwork‐related interactions on social media. -
more » « less
Current explanations undertheorize success across the broad stages of innovation, which include product invention, development, implementation, and success. While existing scholarship typically examines one, sometimes two, of these stages, innovation must be viewed more broadly with success resulting from the involvement of a wide range of actors including the firm, alliance partner, and overall network. In this article, I apply a network perspective to explain success across these stages. The argument I develop is that different types of networks are more relevant to certain stages of innovation. Network activity that increases from lower to higher levels of analysis is associated with success across the stages of innovation. Specifically, firm inventors influence product invention, successful product development and implementation are associated with dyadic‐level relationships between strategic alliance partners, and product success is impacted by a firm's central location in its entire network of strategic alliances. Results from regression models provide broad support for network approach advocated in this article.
-
From co-authored publications to sponsored projects involving multiple partner institutions, collaborative practice is an expected part of work in the academy. As evaluators of a National Science Foundation (NSF) Alliances for Graduate Education and the Professoriate (AGEP) grant awarded to four university partners in a large southern state, the authors recognized the increasing value of collaborative practice in the design, implementation, evaluation, and dissemination of findings in the partnership over time. When planning a program among partnering institutions, stakeholders may underestimate the need for, and value of, collaborative practice in facilitating partnership functioning. This method paper outlines an evaluative model to increase the use of collaborative practice in funded academic partnership programs. The model highlights collaborative practice across multiple stakeholder groups in the academic ecology: Sponsors of funded programs (S), Program partners and participants (P), Assessment and evaluation professionals (A), academic researchers (R), and the national and global Community (C). The SPARC model emphasizes evidence-based benefits of collaborative practice across multiple outcome domains. Tools and frameworks for evaluating collaborative practice take a view of optimizing partnership operational performance in achieving stated goals. Collaborative practice can also be an integral element of program activities that support the academic success and scholarly productivity, psychosocial adjustment, and physical and psychological well-being of stakeholders participating in the program. Given the goal of our alliance to promote diversification of the professoriate, the model highlights the use of collaborative practice in supporting stakeholders from groups historically underrepresented in STEM fields across these outcome domains. Using data from a mixed-methods program evaluation of our AGEP alliance over 4 years, the authors provide concrete examples of collaborative practice and their measurement. Results discuss important themes regarding collaborative practice that emerged in each stakeholder group. Authors operationalize the SPARC model with a checklist to assist program stakeholders in designing for and assessing collaborative practice in support of project goals in funded academic partnership projects, emphasizing the contributions of collaborative practice in promoting diversification of the professoriate.more » « less
-
more » « less
<italic>Research Summary</italic> While much research suggests that capabilities are critical for firms, little is known about the individual‐level origins (“microfoundations”) of capabilities. Using in‐depth nested case studies, we explore how firms develop an internationalization capability. The setting is six entrepreneurial firms from three culturally distinct countries. Our data show that executives begin by
seeding the process with imperfect heuristics and then managers continue development byelaborating their understanding of what task to perform and how to perform it. Importantly, managers across hierarchical levels support the development of their firm's internationalization capability byabstracting key heuristics away from any one experience such that the capabilities becomeless routine over time. Overall, we contribute to the microfoundations movement in strategy and to the literature on organizational learning.<italic>Managerial Summary</italic> Firm capabilities are not just important to strategy, but often
are the strategy of firms, especially in dynamic markets. Popular examples include Cisco's acquisition capability, Hewlett–Packard's alliance capability, Starbuck's internationalization capability, and Apple's product development capability. Unfortunately, it is often unclear to executives how to build a firm capability. We explore how entrepreneurial firms develop their own internationalization capability over time. Our data show that these capabilities develop through a process of seeding, elaborating, and abstracting key heuristics for internationalization. Importantly, we show that this process is shaped by extensive communication within and across multiple hierarchical levels. In this way, heuristics move from individual‐level “rules of thumb” for action to firm‐level understandings for fueling growth and creating competitive advantage. -
Researchers, evaluators and designers from an array of academic disciplines and industry sectors are turning to participatory approaches as they seek to understand and address complex social problems. We refer to participatory approaches that collaboratively engage/ partner with stakeholders in knowledge creation/problem solving for action/social change outcomes as collaborative change research, evaluation and design (CCRED). We further frame CCRED practitioners by their desire to move beyond knowledge creation for its own sake to implementation of new knowledge as a tool for social change. In March and May of 2018, we conducted a literature search of multiple discipline-specific databases seeking collaborative, change-oriented scholarly publications. The search was limited to include peerreviewed journal articles, with English language abstracts available, published in the last five years. The search resulted in 526 citations, 236 of which met inclusion criteria. Though the search was limited to English abstracts, all major geographic regions (North America, Europe, Latin America/Caribbean, APAC, Africa and the Middle East) were represented within the results, although many articles did not state a specific region. Of those identified, most studies were located in North America, with the Middle East having only one identified study. We followed a qualitative thematic synthesis process to examine the abstracts of peer-reviewed articles to identify practices that transcend individual disciplines, sectors and contexts to achieve collaborative change. We surveyed the terminology used to describe CCRED, setting, content/topic of study, type of collaboration, and related benefits/outcomes in order to discern the words used to designate collaboration, the frameworks, tools and methods employed, and the presence of action, evaluation or outcomes. Forty-three percent of the reviewed articles fell broadly within the social sciences, followed by 26 percent in education and 25 percent in health/medicine. In terms of participants and/ or collaborators in the articles reviewed, the vast majority of the 236 articles (86%) described participants, that is, those who the research was about or from whom data was collected. In contrast to participants, partners/collaborators (n=32; 14%) were individuals or groups who participated in the design or implementation of the collaborative change effort described. In terms of the goal for collaboration and/or for doing the work, the most frequently used terminology related to some aspect of engagement and empowerment. Common descriptors for the work itself were ‘social change’ (n=74; 31%), ‘action’ (n=33; 14%), ‘collaborative or participatory research/practice’ (n=13; 6%), ‘transformation’ (n=13; 6%) and ‘community engagement’ (n=10; 4%). Of the 236 articles that mentioned a specific framework or approach, the three most common were some variation of Participatory Action Research (n=30; 50%), Action Research (n=40; 16.9%) or Community-Based Participatory Research (n=17; 7.2%). Approximately a third of the 236 articles did not mention a specific method or tool in the abstract. The most commonly cited method/tool (n=30; 12.7%) was some variation of an arts-based method followed by interviews (n=18; 7.6%), case study (n=16; 6.7%), or an ethnographic-related method (n=14; 5.9%). While some articles implied action or change, only 14 of the 236 articles (6%) stated a specific action or outcome. Most often, the changes described were: the creation or modification of a model, method, process, framework or protocol (n=9; 4%), quality improvement, policy change and social change (n=8; 3%), or modifications to education/training methods and materials (n=5; 2%). The infrequent use of collaboration as a descriptor of partner engagement, coupled with few reported findings of measurable change, raises questions about the nature of CCRED. It appears that conducting CCRED is as complex an undertaking as the problems that the work is attempting to address.more » « less
