Christina Garsten and Helena Wulff (eds), New Technologies at Work: People, Screens and Social Virtuality, Berg Publishers, 2003
See the full review at the RCCS website.
Excerpts:
New Technologies at Work: People, Screens and Social Virtuality, edited by Christina Garsten and Helena Wulff, is a set of ethnographies, and as such it is no surprise that the authors aim to bring people, place, and social interactions to the forefront in their discussion of technology. Computers and the internet are treated as objects in a world still bound by geography and sociality. Computers are objects bought and sold; technology and its application are subject to rhetoric and false expectations; people integrate the virtual into their lives with surprisingly little fuss.
The chapters in this volume cover an impressive range of both subject matter and technology discourse. Reading about dancers, stockbrokers, and hospital porters side-by-side is not only fascinating, but also frames technology discourse in a broader context than the white-collar environment it is often implicitly limited to.
The contributions provide interesting, detailed insight into people's actual experiences with technology and debunk some of the more extreme utopian and dystopian rhetoric around computers and the internet. The authors remind us that technology may help or hinder people in navigating their lives, but it won't uproot their social and physical nature.
Showing posts with label tacit knowledge. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tacit knowledge. Show all posts
Saturday
Monday
40 meters or 4'000 kilometers apart - how much does it matter?
Thomas J. Allen, Architecture and communication among product development engineers, Engineering Management Society, 2000. Proceedings of the 2000 IEEE
One of the articles on collaboration, distance and technology that is most often recommended to me is Thomas Allen's 'Architecture and communication among product engineers'. It is most famous for its finding that people separated by more than a certain distance (40m is usually cited), are far less likely to work together than people whose workspaces are closer to each other.
Probability of communication
Allen finds a dramatic decrease even within the first 50m of separation.
Plotting ... results produces a curve that to no one's surprise shows probability of communication declining with distance. ... Communication probability declines to asymptotic level within the first 50 meters of separation.
Organizational affiliation modifies the effect. The decrease in communication is still found, but
the existence of a departmental relationship adds to communication probability by a constant amount, which is independent of distance. Project relationships produce a similar, but usually stronger, effect. This is due to the interdependence of project activities and the strong need for technical communication [for coordination].
Allen goes on to identify a more comprehensive set of influences.
So the probability that a pair of scientists or engineers will engage in frequent technical communication is a function of the degree to which they share a common base of knowledge; the rate at which that knowledge base is developing' the size of their organizational unit; the degree of interdependence in their work and the distance between their workstations.
Effect of telecommunications
When we had engineers report telephone and electronic mail as well as face-to-face communications, we found that, following a 'near field' rise the use of all media decayed with distance. ... One reason for the pattern observed in our data is that all of these media, as well as the written medium, are correlated in their use. We communicate with nearly the same people through all of these media. ... The more often we see someone face-to-face, the more likely that we will telephone that person or communicate by another medium.
Allen also observes qualitative differences between various media of communications. He cites a study by Hauptman (Allen & Hauptman, 1989) that shows that the telephone was used for less complex communication. Face-to-face was used for more complex information.
Many things, particularly technical ideas and problems, are difficult to communicate verbally. We need the assistance of diagrams or sketches. In addition, we often need the feedback that often comes from looking into the other person's eyes. The eyes communicate understanding. ... Similarly, in describing an idea or technical problem to someone, you can tell whether they are following you. If the indication is negative, you are prompted to restate the information in a different way. This feedback is invaluable in guiding communication.
Needless to say, it is strongest in face-to-face communication and weaker when speaking on the phone. The use of letters or e-mail not only reduces the possibilities for this kind of feedback, but also delays it.
3 types of communication
Allen uses a typology of communication to organize his work:
Type I communication is used to coordinate work.
Type II is necessary when the knowledge base of work changes rapidly (keeping up to date).
Type III is used for creative work.
While the article only touches in parts on the differences in communication behavior by type of communication, this would certainly be an avenue to explore further.
One of the articles on collaboration, distance and technology that is most often recommended to me is Thomas Allen's 'Architecture and communication among product engineers'. It is most famous for its finding that people separated by more than a certain distance (40m is usually cited), are far less likely to work together than people whose workspaces are closer to each other.
Probability of communication
Allen finds a dramatic decrease even within the first 50m of separation.
Plotting ... results produces a curve that to no one's surprise shows probability of communication declining with distance. ... Communication probability declines to asymptotic level within the first 50 meters of separation.
Organizational affiliation modifies the effect. The decrease in communication is still found, but
the existence of a departmental relationship adds to communication probability by a constant amount, which is independent of distance. Project relationships produce a similar, but usually stronger, effect. This is due to the interdependence of project activities and the strong need for technical communication [for coordination].
Allen goes on to identify a more comprehensive set of influences.
So the probability that a pair of scientists or engineers will engage in frequent technical communication is a function of the degree to which they share a common base of knowledge; the rate at which that knowledge base is developing' the size of their organizational unit; the degree of interdependence in their work and the distance between their workstations.
Effect of telecommunications
When we had engineers report telephone and electronic mail as well as face-to-face communications, we found that, following a 'near field' rise the use of all media decayed with distance. ... One reason for the pattern observed in our data is that all of these media, as well as the written medium, are correlated in their use. We communicate with nearly the same people through all of these media. ... The more often we see someone face-to-face, the more likely that we will telephone that person or communicate by another medium.
Allen also observes qualitative differences between various media of communications. He cites a study by Hauptman (Allen & Hauptman, 1989) that shows that the telephone was used for less complex communication. Face-to-face was used for more complex information.
Many things, particularly technical ideas and problems, are difficult to communicate verbally. We need the assistance of diagrams or sketches. In addition, we often need the feedback that often comes from looking into the other person's eyes. The eyes communicate understanding. ... Similarly, in describing an idea or technical problem to someone, you can tell whether they are following you. If the indication is negative, you are prompted to restate the information in a different way. This feedback is invaluable in guiding communication.
Needless to say, it is strongest in face-to-face communication and weaker when speaking on the phone. The use of letters or e-mail not only reduces the possibilities for this kind of feedback, but also delays it.
3 types of communication
Allen uses a typology of communication to organize his work:
Type I communication is used to coordinate work.
Type II is necessary when the knowledge base of work changes rapidly (keeping up to date).
Type III is used for creative work.
While the article only touches in parts on the differences in communication behavior by type of communication, this would certainly be an avenue to explore further.
Sunday
Biotech knowledge and market exchange
Inter-institutional spillover effects in the commercialization of bioscience, Lynne Zucker, Michael Darby and Jeff Armstrong, ISSR Working Paper, vol. 6, no. 3, 1994.
In this study, Zucker, Darby and Armstrong lay out a proposition that partly contradicts a study on knowledge networks by Liebeskind et al. Both studies try to answer the question of how scientific knowledge flows into biotech firms.
Summary
Liebeskind et al. propose that firms source their knowledge through social networks to overcome the problems of market failure and inefficiencies involved in internalizing knowledge. On the other hand, Zucker et al. propose that there is a market exchange at work, especially for knowledge that is successfully commercialized. They work from the observation that much work in rDNA research is characterized by natural excludability, e.g. acquiring it requires working together with someone in a lab and/or a time-consuming effort to learn new skills. This results in intellectual capital for the discovering scientists. This intellectual capital diminishes as the new skills and knowledge diffuse throughout the industry. However, during an initial phase, companies that want to commercialize the intellectual capital must employ the services of the scientist who embody it. Scientists can be formally employed or hired as consultants. Links can also be less evident: full or partial ownership, membership in a scientific advisory board, etc.
Zucker, Darby and Armstrong find that formal affiliation or less formal links (joint publications and various forms of compensation) with 'star' scientists are a significant success factor for biotechnology enterprises. This, together with the presence of scientific and financial links, suggests that there is a market exchange at work.
Market or social network and hierarchy?
Which is true? Do biotech firms source their knowledge primarily through market exchange or primarily through social networks and the internal hierarchy?
Both seem to be relevant to some extent. Many of the market exchange mechanisms described above seem designed to bring a 'star' scientist within the firm boundaries, so that knowledge can then be transferred through the hierarchy. Social networks become relevant when scientific knowledge embodied in leading scientists is scarce and human mobility is limited (e.g. limits on the amount of time professors can spend consulting or formal full-time employment of scientists in a firm ). Where lack of mobility hinders market exchanges, social networks become more important. Also, Liebeskind et al. point out that it is very difficult for firms to evaluate newly available knowledge. Social networks play an important role in assessing knowledge before formal evaluations have ascertained its value or relevance to a specific firm.
Finally, social networks and market exchange are not entirely independent in this case. In both cases a great deal of trust is necessary for successful cooperation between a 'star' scientist and a biotech firm. This trust is probably established to a large degree through the social network: the norms and values of the scientific community provide a basis for cooperation; the reputation of the cooperating partners and initial informal contacts will likely be established through the network. A great deal of knowledge exchange mediated through the social network will probably precede a market exchange, which involves closer cooperation and knowledge, which has greater direct commercial benefits.
Apparently, the market only comes into play where factors such as tacitness and absorptive capacity reduce the market failure generally encountered in trading knowledge (Arrow).
Questions of location
Liebeskind et al. found that most successful partnerships involved a 'star' scientist who lived in the same region as the participating biotech enterprise was located. They mention that a few stars have been affiliated with NBEs (new biotechnology enterprises) outside California or published with NBEs outside of their region. Though they seem to be few cases, it would be interesting to see whether they were as successful as cases of local cooperation. Data may be available at the ISSR site...
New rules of work
A few days ago I wrote about Frances Cairncross's book 'The death of distance'. One of the chapters that I didn't mention dealt with new forms of work in the networked economy. Traditional lifetime employment has been disappearing for a long time now. In a continuation of this development, more and more people are engaging in non-traditional employment: freelancing, entrepreneurship, personnel "leasing" and many others.
Cairncross specifically mentioned that firms will pay a high premium for top talent, especially since the most highly qualified knowledge workers will be scarce and demand for them will be worldwide. 'Star' scientists fall squarely in this category. Zucker, Darby and Armstrong mention a study finding that bioscientists act as individual actors, as opposed to acting as agents of their primary ties, whether to the university or the firm (Zucker, Brewer, Oliver, and Liebeskind, 1993). These bioscientists can exercise their expertise independently primarily because they are recognized as having excellent "scientific taste" in the selection of rescues problems and using exceptional care and expertise in exuding that research. They use their 'scientific taste' to advise firms on the relative merit of different lines of research - certainly an example of intellectual capital that has characteristics of excludability, since this 'scientific taste' is highly tacit, embodied knowledge based to a large extent on personal experience.
In this study, Zucker, Darby and Armstrong lay out a proposition that partly contradicts a study on knowledge networks by Liebeskind et al. Both studies try to answer the question of how scientific knowledge flows into biotech firms.
Summary
Liebeskind et al. propose that firms source their knowledge through social networks to overcome the problems of market failure and inefficiencies involved in internalizing knowledge. On the other hand, Zucker et al. propose that there is a market exchange at work, especially for knowledge that is successfully commercialized. They work from the observation that much work in rDNA research is characterized by natural excludability, e.g. acquiring it requires working together with someone in a lab and/or a time-consuming effort to learn new skills. This results in intellectual capital for the discovering scientists. This intellectual capital diminishes as the new skills and knowledge diffuse throughout the industry. However, during an initial phase, companies that want to commercialize the intellectual capital must employ the services of the scientist who embody it. Scientists can be formally employed or hired as consultants. Links can also be less evident: full or partial ownership, membership in a scientific advisory board, etc.
Zucker, Darby and Armstrong find that formal affiliation or less formal links (joint publications and various forms of compensation) with 'star' scientists are a significant success factor for biotechnology enterprises. This, together with the presence of scientific and financial links, suggests that there is a market exchange at work.
Market or social network and hierarchy?
Which is true? Do biotech firms source their knowledge primarily through market exchange or primarily through social networks and the internal hierarchy?
Both seem to be relevant to some extent. Many of the market exchange mechanisms described above seem designed to bring a 'star' scientist within the firm boundaries, so that knowledge can then be transferred through the hierarchy. Social networks become relevant when scientific knowledge embodied in leading scientists is scarce and human mobility is limited (e.g. limits on the amount of time professors can spend consulting or formal full-time employment of scientists in a firm ). Where lack of mobility hinders market exchanges, social networks become more important. Also, Liebeskind et al. point out that it is very difficult for firms to evaluate newly available knowledge. Social networks play an important role in assessing knowledge before formal evaluations have ascertained its value or relevance to a specific firm.
Finally, social networks and market exchange are not entirely independent in this case. In both cases a great deal of trust is necessary for successful cooperation between a 'star' scientist and a biotech firm. This trust is probably established to a large degree through the social network: the norms and values of the scientific community provide a basis for cooperation; the reputation of the cooperating partners and initial informal contacts will likely be established through the network. A great deal of knowledge exchange mediated through the social network will probably precede a market exchange, which involves closer cooperation and knowledge, which has greater direct commercial benefits.
Apparently, the market only comes into play where factors such as tacitness and absorptive capacity reduce the market failure generally encountered in trading knowledge (Arrow).
Questions of location
Liebeskind et al. found that most successful partnerships involved a 'star' scientist who lived in the same region as the participating biotech enterprise was located. They mention that a few stars have been affiliated with NBEs (new biotechnology enterprises) outside California or published with NBEs outside of their region. Though they seem to be few cases, it would be interesting to see whether they were as successful as cases of local cooperation. Data may be available at the ISSR site...
New rules of work
A few days ago I wrote about Frances Cairncross's book 'The death of distance'. One of the chapters that I didn't mention dealt with new forms of work in the networked economy. Traditional lifetime employment has been disappearing for a long time now. In a continuation of this development, more and more people are engaging in non-traditional employment: freelancing, entrepreneurship, personnel "leasing" and many others.
Cairncross specifically mentioned that firms will pay a high premium for top talent, especially since the most highly qualified knowledge workers will be scarce and demand for them will be worldwide. 'Star' scientists fall squarely in this category. Zucker, Darby and Armstrong mention a study finding that bioscientists act as individual actors, as opposed to acting as agents of their primary ties, whether to the university or the firm (Zucker, Brewer, Oliver, and Liebeskind, 1993). These bioscientists can exercise their expertise independently primarily because they are recognized as having excellent "scientific taste" in the selection of rescues problems and using exceptional care and expertise in exuding that research. They use their 'scientific taste' to advise firms on the relative merit of different lines of research - certainly an example of intellectual capital that has characteristics of excludability, since this 'scientific taste' is highly tacit, embodied knowledge based to a large extent on personal experience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
