Journal Article Critique “From common to uncommon Knowledge: Foundations of Firm-specific use of Knowledge as a Resource” Essay

Research question How can managers create particular(prenominal) experience when rivals ware access to similar, commonly available companionship? (page 425) seeds purpose The importance of companionship is puff up established in research. The association-based possibleness considers familiarity as the or so strategically significant alternative of a firm. Notwithstanding, the authors illustrate that it is not kn possess much about how firms create, acquire, and utilize association better than other(a) firms (page 421). chaw and Gioia set up a qualitative intimacy to develop an inducive model to reveal the processes how and chthonic which circumstances managers transform common into classifiable familiarity.The foundry industry in the northeast and midatlantic United States served as study population. The authors conducted 53 interviews with CEOs and other recognise members involving 22 disaccordent foundries. Major conclusions The model developed trey holdin gs how executives differ in the process from common to uncommon knowledge executive knowledge schemes, executive examine and uncommon knowledge social occasion. The study indicates the personal move of executive behavior how they identified, searched for and used uncommon knowledge Under selfsame(prenominal) international circumstances they act in different ways to allot strategic situations. (1) Interpretation of the resultsThe interviews were structured like following. There argon three aggregated dimensions (executive knowledge schemes, executive examine and uncommon knowledge use). distributively of these dimensions consists of two second-order makeups. These feed on the first-order categories which are coded quotes. Executive knowledge schemes plastered how executives are determined towards theirs perceptions of knowledge. They are also called knowledge structures.A more(prenominal) detailed view onto these structures reveals that they consist first of the second-or der-themes knowledge significance (criticality and peculiarity relate to the importance of knowledge to the strategic performance of a firm). The rule of knowledge is mostly seen in three areas technical effectiveness, operational capability and customer responsiveness. Second, the knowledge schemes consist of knowledge source (external accessibility, personal competency and lower-echelon knowledgeability relate to the usefulness and quality of different origins of knowledge). Executive scanning means the activity to acquire additional knowledge. It differs in the quantity and the fount how managers search to extend the strategic visions. Scanning intensity describes the amount of succession and effort managers invest to acquire naked as a jaybird knowledge.The other second-order theme scanning proactiveness goes beyond the intensity in order to get better and other development than competitors do. Uncommon knowledge use means the application of knowledge to a firms challeng es. As long as a foundry does not know how to use common knowledge for its own problems it does not have a competitive advantage of knowledge (it does designate about costs as differentiation). Only if it is using uncommon knowledge it becomes distinctive knowledge and therefore turns into a competitive advantage. In the second-order themes this dimension is separated into knowledge adaption and knowledge augmentation. The first one and only(a) describes how to use new knowledge to solve specific problems and devolve new methods.The second one goes beyond it is about understanding problems in convention. When you are familiar with the principle you can adapt knowledge to related problems and through that it is possible to generate new knowledge by you. Different emphases in second-order themes are more plausibly to be linked with certain emphases on another second-order theme (e.g. strong believe in technological effectiveness is associated with engaging in proactive scanning). Through those linkages Nag and Gioia were able to draw tree knowledge pathways.The knowledge adaption pathways describe the track how managerial distinctions emerge to knowledge adaption. The knowledge augmentation pathways describe the way to the augmentation of knowledge and the third track describes how it happens that uncommon knowledge is not used. In the knowledge adaption pathways executives consider knowledge as most important for operational efficiency.They believe its hard to obtain from external sources and they have confidence in their own knowledge but modified trust in workers knowledge. They are scan-ning intensively for knowledge and personally they had a greater share in knowledge work. Firms on that pathway are adapting knowledge and come more likely to an incremental development. In business described before in the knowledge augmentation pathways leaders have a strong confidence on own knowledge, on workers capabilities and they believe their know-ledge is dis tinctive and hard to imitate for competitors. Therefore they are scanning pro-actively and engaging others to knowledge work.These companies use uncommon know-ledge through augmentation. Radical innovations are more likely in those companies. On the path for no uncommon knowledge use the executives contribute knowledge mostly to raise customers responsiveness. They have low confidence in companys knowledge, their own and in workers knowledge. Through low and infrequent scanning activity they reduce the information available and therefore they avoid uncommon knowledge usage. Companies on that path are less(prenominal) cost efficient than companies on the paths described before. (2) Strengths and weaknesses of the methodological approach In general the study appears consistent and methodologically come up done. While interpreting participants the authors included quotations (in vivo codes) of the respondents in the paper to emphasize their interpretations. For member checking they o rganized two group discussions with executives to verify the findings.They had a grounded theory approach. Starting from the interviews they developed inductively the model. In a quite good direction they developed graphics illustrating their model which make the study easier comprehensible for outsiders. It could be criticized that the authors did not reveal their bias and research background to the topic. In 2006 Nag published his dissertation with the title From common to uncommon knowledge An investigating into the socio-cognitive foundations of inter-firm heterogeneity in the use of knowledge as a resource. Gioia was the chair of the dissertation committee.The dissertation had the same study population from the foundry industry with partially identical interviewees. In that dissertation more and less detailed sketches of the model in the current paper were presented. Against this backdrop the inductive approach could be suspected. It is more likely that there already existed most detailed ideas how the outcome could look like. Maybe here is the reason wherefore the authors presented the literature review in the beginning which is unusual for an inductive approach. that nevertheless the developed model seems to be fully founded in the data. It could be mentioned more clearly when actually common knowledge becomes uncommon knowledge.The miscellany of knowledge which is spoken about is not clear enough. For example in the dimension knowledge schemes there are mentioned market insights as well as technological insights. But concurrent the dimension uncommon knowledge usage is all about technological and process effectiveness issues. what is more following there are detailed critiques concerning the sampling and the interviews. SamplingThe study population like chosen in the study is well delimit and concrete Firms belong with the same industry Saturated industry with a lot of established common knowledge (=same basis) and where uncommon knowledge is t he way to compete Foundries have a comparable (low) complexity (