Research Proposal.docx

1、Research ProposalResearch ProposalThe Knowledge Deployment Mechanism in Technology-Based Teams of SMEs: An Integrated Perspective(Han Jin, Business School of Hunan University, Changsha, 410082)Abstract: Numerous studies have discussed individual-level and organization-level absorptive capacity regar

2、ded as a key power for SMEs growing sustainably and acquiring competitive edge, neglecting to construct the bridge that how teams in SMEs deploy new-obtained knowledge in an efficient way to transfer this resources into innovation performance substantially and the mechanism is seemly ambiguous. Buil

3、t upon and compared with absorptive capacity theory and related literature, this paper intends to address the following issues: (1) distinguish the similarities and differences between concepts of knowledge absorptive capacity, knowledge integration, knowledge allocation, knowledge distribution etc.

4、 with knowledge deployment, (2) build a possible conceptual framework to discuss the knowledge deployment mechanism in technology-based teams, (3) list possible innovation points and challenges of research practically. 1 Introduction Innovative new products and able to response to market changes pos

5、itively are firmly considered as keys to survival and continuous success for technology-based and new product-oriented teams in SMEs in a highly competitive market environment. Increasingly studies have pointed out individual and organizational absorptive capacity (ACAP) equipped by SMEs will effect

6、ively acquire enough new, external, decoded knowledge, technology, even human resources who have these and eventually produce high innovation performance and other positive outcomes owing to its smallness and newness. However, some uncertain and overlooked parts of these studies need to be re-consid

7、ered and re-discussed clearly within a new framework. First, Teams in SMEs will occasionally encounter knowledge spillover, knowledge surplus and knowledge outdated even after absorbing enough relevant knowledge outside because of task-knowledges dynamic inadaptability such as team members mutual te

8、mporal conflict behaviorally and mutual knowledge incoordination cognitively. These untouched problems can result from two possible aspects: (1) during knowledge usage process after acquiring needed knowledge form outside, time congruity as an important element could be put aside and underemphasized

9、 all the time, (2) flexible organization structures and the corresponding organizational knowledge networks would be seen as static and automatically-adjusted (while this mechanism is unclear) which may be the main reason of inadaptability. Second, extant papers come into agreement ACAP including kn

10、owledge recognition, acquisition, assimilation, transformation and even exploitation as an effective tool would bring out innovation performance and competitive advantages. But how these positive outcomes are achieved even though some of them treat regimes appropriability and some activation trigger

11、s as driving instruments to make it? It can be concluded that they just have pulled out a nail that teams how to get necessary knowledge form knowledge markets or they only have solved a problem transferring knowledge from a room to another spatially. As to how to achieve the optimal allocation of k

12、nowledge are rarely mentioned especially in a dynamic knowledge network which this process leading to positive results is a breathtaking leap. Third, if ACAP is viewed as a dynamic concept, so every stages of ACAP may contain factors of knowledge deployment especially embodied in the last main stage

13、s (knowledge assimilation, knowledge transformation and knowledge exploitation). For two reasons: (1) knowledge deployment can be regarded as a matching issue and optimal fit stage in using new-learned knowledge process but the former would stress that member-task-knowledge is coordinated dynamicall

14、y under the dominant role of teams leader, (2) To assimilate, transformer, exploit knowledge in a team would need fully collaboration and interaction among members which means a member should figure out what he or she has and have not and then ask for help to acquire knowledge what is vital to accom

15、plish missions and share knowledge with others based on the principle of validity and effectiveness, while the leader can be an indispensable part in the whole process. In conclusion, knowledge deployment would pay more attention to the effects come from human resources compared with ACAP in a joint

16、 linkage-mechanism of three main parts (member-task-knowledge). Finally, although existed papers have explored and defined the concept of knowledge deployment on the macro foundation and discussed individual knowledge deployment non-fully, one proposition may be presented that whether the sum of ind

17、ividuals optimal knowledge deployment means the whole technology-based teams knowledge deployment would realize a optimal condition? If it does, what makes it, or if not, what impedes it? Besides, whether the concept of organization-level knowledge deployment can be treated as teams knowledge deploy

18、ment capability regardless of teams structure, components and related characteristics? 2 Literature review2.1 ACAP theory and knowledge deployment Although academicians might stand at different sides on the concept of absorptive capacity (ACAP), a basic consensus has been reached that ACAP is valued

19、 as an ability of a person, a team or an organization to positively acquire knowledge from outside knowledge markets, and then to assimilate it, to transform it, to exploit it, and finally to get new competitive products and services (Zahra & George, 2002). Acted as a strategic instrument and relati

20、ve cost-saving way to overcome liabilities especially for start-up enterprises and SMEs when they want to be competitive in their markets, organization-level ACAP is not simply the sum of the absorptive capacities of its different parts while it can be converted by organizational mechanisms and acti

21、vation triggers. However, in a long term, ACAP will not be an absolute advantage if absorbing knowledge through collaborations and alliances has become an addiction even if most literature emphasize ACAP is dynamic one that teams and organizations could always identify and obtain external knowledge

22、effectively and efficiently (Lane, Koka & Pathak, 2006). There are two doubts left to be eradicated: (1) spatially, the dynamic ACAP process from recognition, acquisition, assimilation, transformation, etc. have mainly fixed out moving knowledge from one holder to another but there is alotofmumbo-ju

23、mboabout how to deploy, allocate, distribute new-owned knowledge in a reasonable style and eventually bridge ACAP to organizational advantages successfully. Namely, to get knowledge (ACAP) and to put or use knowledge (deployment capability) is two sides of a coin and these two parts is intermingled,

24、 complementary and importantly clearly-distinguished. As Zahra and George (2002) re-conceptualized: ACAP is a dynamic capability consisting of routines and processes that create and deploy knowledge to build other organizational capabilities such as R&D and marketing. (2) Temporally, every stages of

25、 ACAP are linked logically and constituted as a whole but to recognize, to acquire, to assimilate, to transform knowledge, etc. is a continuous procedure (path-dependent character) for a team accomplishing a big mission. While most studies are dumb about a practical situation when it requires severa

26、l times or different channels rather than to resolve it once for all to converge enough knowledge to undertake a tough project. So it is a dilemma whether waiting for getting adequate knowledge and integrating internal and external knowledge and then timely transforming and exploiting (using) it or

27、allocating the new-obtained knowledge to the most suitable member or two to transform and exploit it and distributing new-gained knowledge to other members of the teams at the following time until making member-task-knowledge three parts dynamically matched at last. The former one seems lack of effi

28、ciency and inconsistent while the latter would be more practical and demands high knowledge deployment capability from teams and department on a micro-foundation. 2.2 Knowledge integration and knowledge deployment Built on ACAP perspective, knowledge integration is an ongoing collective process of c

29、onstructing, articulating and redefining shared beliefs through the social interaction of organizational members (Grant, 1996) and this process accommodates several influential factorsincluding constraints in teams transitive memory, insufficient mutual understanding, failure to share and retain con

30、textual knowledge, and inflexibility of organizational ties which constrain the special mechanism that teams employ to integrate and apply knowledge (Alavi & Tiwana, 2002). Holistically and more specifically, Huang & Newell (2003) incline to define knowledge integration as the synthesis of individua

31、ls specialized knowledge put into right-specific parts or situations of the system in which individuals tacit knowledge can be pooled and recombined to create group-level knowledge and in which teams coordinated practices, past integration experience and teams communicating mechanism plays a key rol

32、e in shaping the level of coordination results that in turn influences the efficiency and scope of integration. However, as the scope of integration expands, the need for a higher level of coordination is required and team members need to use their social bridges (involving dialogue and negotiation)

33、 for the project and then to access dispersed internal knowledge (Yang, 2005) and appreciate the relevance and importance of their teammates knowledge that is going to help to complete objectives (Newell, Tansley & Huang, 2004). So, in order to be more competitive on integrating knowledge: (1) considerable powers and resources will ne