BEM31-Coursework 1-2

8/3/2019 BEM31-Coursework 1-2

1/3

BEM31- COURSEWORK-1

1

Ghulam Abbas Niazai 08838042

INTRODUCTION

So far there has been increasing emphasis on diverse ways how organisations are structured.

Too many researches have been conducted to find out how organisations emerge in respect

with product complexity through knowledge reusability and technological diversifications,

and the effects of organisation memory on product innovations. Besides, studies focus on

how psychological contracts take various forms based on cultural variations. I am going to

review three studies how the firms emerge and the impact of organizational memory in terms

of sharing and reusability of knowledge and how the psychological contract forms are

different based on cultural changes, and draw conclusion based on the findings of review.

REVIEW OF PAPERS

The aim of the research by Ozman (2010) is to explore the influence of two dimensions of

product knowledge bases on organizational structures, and Thomas et al. (2010) did a study

to find out the variation in Individuals psychological contracts across cultures. Fiedler and

Welpe (2010) research is to examine the impact of organizational structures on organizational

memory (OM).

According to Ozman (2010) when a product is complex and knowledge is reused in different

context, then organizations form multi-product companies. Where the knowledge has

significant impact on formation of organisation, Teece (1980 cited in Ozman, 2010)

highlights that knowledge is human capital that can be used to produce a variety of related

products through diversifications and this theory results in emerging of multi-product firms.

Fiedler and Welpe (2010) argue that the organisation structure is affected by the way that the

knowledge is utilized and retrieved within an organisation. OM affects product development

processes by influencing, such as sharing and retrieving of information and knowledge and

the innovations for new complex product. The higher OM levels and the greater memory

dispersion increase the higher performance of product and innovation.

It is clearly pointed by Ozman (2010) that the significant impact on product complexity is the

technological diversification within the firm. On of the motive behind technological

diversification is to improve the absorptive capabilities of the organisation and to make better

use of it. Knowledge creativity and innovation is the key to technological diversification

success where the knowledge creativity and sharing is affected by the emotions felt by

employees involved, as Thomas et al. (2010) categorised the levels into two, short-term


2/3

BEM31- COURSEWORK-1

2


which is transactional refers to monetary exchange and long-term which is relational refers to

social exchange.

In addition, Fiedler and Welpe (2010) state that the sharing of the knowledge can be

reinforced by the effective interaction between members who use their competences and

creating OM in the forms of sheared belief, values, norms and behaviours. Thus,

organisational capacity links the capabilities and competences of an organisation, skills and

knowledge in cultural change and change in process and structures, where

Thomas et al. (2010) conforms that psychological contracts are taking various forms

regarding cultural changes.

Standardisation and specialisation have impact on OM and the relationship between them is

maintained by codification and electronic communication (EC), where standardisation

completely mediates by codification and specialisation partially mediates by EC (Fiedler andWelpe, 2010). Therefore, standardised operating procedures can lead to effective knowledge

sharing and combining various competences, where Ozman (2010) explicitly, highlights that

in addition to economies of scope, a wide range of competences are required in production

and also shape organisation structures, by intensifying inter-firm networks and technological

diversification. For instance, in automobile many distinct competences are required to

produce cars, while a chef in a restaurant can comprehend the work.

Furthermore, Ozman (2010) study reveals that when the product is complex and knowledge is

reused in a higher degree in different context, then organizations form multi-product

companies. The specialised firms emerge when the product is complex and deep. In addition,

the results of Thomas et al. (2010) study strongly suggest that psychological contract forms

across cultures are different. French interviewees (vertical individualist) have as primarily

exploitive, Canadians (horizontal individualist) as primarily instrumental, Chinese (vertical

collectivist) as primarily custodial and Norwegians (horizontal collectivist) as primarily

communitarian.

CONCLUSION

Overall, through the review of three papers I found that it is not only economies of scope is

essential for the production of complex product and shaping the organisation, while a variety

competences are required, including technological diversification, and intensifying inter-firm

networks, for example, automobile production. Technological diversification is a strong tool

which improves the absorptive capabilities of organisation. In addition, the knowledge


3/3

BEM31- COURSEWORK-1

3


dispersion is unconditionally useful to organisation, the more the knowledge is dispersed the

better the capacity of an organisation is improved and, thus the innovation will be achieved.

OM as embodied in organisational artefacts and procedures, so standard operating procedures

can drive individual competence for maintaining effective knowledge management. The

production system divided into two categories, knowledge which uses and defuses by human,and artefacts. However, each product has a unique configuration, and some draw upon a

wider knowledge than others. The difference in restaurant and automobile, in restaurant the

chef doing the entire work, while in automobile various competence are required. The

psychological contract was thought before to be universal, but now accepted to be contingent

on contexts based on cultural variations.

REFERENCE

Fiedler, M and Welpe, I. (2010) How do organizations remember? The influence of

organizational structure on organizational memory, Organization Studies Vol 31, No 04,

pp.381-407

Ozman, M. (2010) the Knowledge Base of Products: Implications for Organizational

Structures, Organization Studies Vol 31, No 08,pp. 11291154

Thomas, D.C. et al., (2010) Psychological Contracts across Cultures, Organization Studies,

Vol 31, No 11,pp.1437-1458

BEM31-Coursework 1-2

Documents

Transcript of BEM31-Coursework 1-2