How does PLM technology support knowledge transfer and translation in new product development? Transparency and boundary spanners in an international context

Information and Organization

Volumn 22, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 295-322

  Merminod, Valéry ^a,b   Rowe, Frantz ^b,c  

^a IAE de Grenoble   (France)

^b SKEMA BUSINESS SCHOOL   (France)

^c UNIVERSITÉ DE NANTES   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84864855106     PISSN: 14717727     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.infoandorg.2012.07.002     Document Type: Article

References (99)

1. Adams M., Day G., Dougherty D. Enhancing new product development performance: An organizational learning perspective. Journal of Product Innovation Management 1998, 15(5):403-422.
2. Alavi M., Leidner D.E. Review: Knowledge management and knowledge management systems. MIS Quarterly 2001, 25(1):107-136.
3. Alavi M., Tiwana M. Knowledge integration in virtual teams: The potential role of KMS. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2002, 53(12):1029.
4. Alemanni M., Alessia G., Tornincasa S., Vezzetti E. Key performance indicators for PLM benefits evaluation: The Alcatel Alenia Space case study. Computers in Industry 2008, 59(8):833-841.
5. Ameri F., Dutta D. Product lifecycle management: Closing the knowledge loops. Computer-Aided Design & Applications 2005, 2(5):577-590.
6. Andersson M., Lindgren R., Henfridsson O. Architectural knowledge in inter-organizational IT innovation. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems 2008, 17(1):19-38.
7. Argyres N. The impact of information technologies on coordination: evidence from B-2 "stealth" bomber. Organization Science 1999, 10(2):162-180.
8. Balaji S., Ranganathan C., Coleman T. IT-led process reegineering: How Sloan valve redesigned its new product development process. MIS Quarterly Executive 2011, 10(2):81-92.
9. Banker R., Bardhan I., Asdemir O. Understanding the impact of collaboration software on product design and development. Information Systems Research 2006, 17(4):352-373.
10. Barrett M., Oborn E. Boundary object use in cross-cultural software development teams. Human Relations 2010, 63(8):1199-1221.
11. Batenburg R., Helms R., Versendaal J. The maturity of product lifecycle management in Dutch organizations: A strategic alignment perspective 2004, Inderscience Enterprises.
12. Baxter R.J. Middle range theorizing of information technology impact: a study of 3D CAD impact on construction work practices 2008, Case Western Reserve University.
13. Bjorn P., Ngwenyama O. Virtual team collaboration: building shared meaning, resolving breakdowns and creating translucence. Information Systems Journal 2009, 19(1):227-253.
14. Boland R., Lyytinen K., Yoo Y. Wakes of innovation in project networks: The case of digital 3D representations in architecture, engineering and construction. Organization Science 2007, 18(4):631-647.
15. Boudreau M.C., Robey D. Enacting integrated information technology: A human agency perspective. Organization Science 2005, 16(1):3-18.
16. Boutelier R., Gassman, Macho H., Roux M. Management of dispersed product development teams: The role of information technologies. R&D Management 1998, 28(1):13-25.
17. Carlile P. A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development. Organization Science 2002, 13(4):442-455.
18. Carlile P. Transferring, translating and transforming: An integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organization Science 2004, 15(5):558-568.
19. Cheung W., Matthews P., Gao J., Maropoulos P. Advanced product development integration architecture: An out-of-box solution to support distributed production networks. International Journal of Production Research 2008, 46(12):3185-3206.
20. Child J., Mollering G. Contextual confidence and active trust development in the Chinese business environment. Organization Science 2003, 14(1):69-80.
21. Cooper G. Perspective: The stage gate idea-to-launch process update, what's new, and NexGen Systems. Journal of Product Innovation Management 2008, 25(1):213-232.
22. Cramton C. The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences for dispersed collaboration. Organization Science 2001, 12(1):346-371.
23. Davenport T. The coming commodization of processes. Harvard Business Review 2005, June, 101-108.
24. Elmes M.B., Strong D.M., Volkoff O. Panoptic empowerment and reflective conformity in enterprise systems-enabled organizations. Information and Organization 2005, 15(1):1-37.
25. Ewenstein B., Whyte J. Knowledge practices in design: The role of visual representations as 'epistemic objects'. Organization Studies 2009, 30(1):7-30.
26. Ferneley E., Sobreperez P. Resist, comply or workaround? An examination of different facets of user engagement with information systems. European Journal of Information Systems 2006, 15(4):345-356.
27. Fong Boh W. Mechanisms for sharing knowledge in project-based organizations. Information and Organization 2006, 17(1):27-58.
28. Gal U., Lyytinen K., Yoo Y. The dynamics of IT boundary objects, information infrastructures and organisational identities: The introduction of 3D modelling technologies into the architecture, engineering and construction industry. European Journal of Information Systems 2008, 17(3):290-305.
29. Gattiker T., Goodhue D. What happens after ERP implementation: Understanding the impact of inter-dependence and differentiation on plant level outcomes. MIS Quarterly 2005, 29(3):559-585.
30. Gomes S., Varret A., Bluntzer J.B., Sagot J.C. Functional design and optimisation of parametric CAD models in a knowledge-based PLM environment. International Journal of Product Development 2009, 9(1/3):3-13.
31. Gosain S. Enterprise information systems as objects and carriers of institutional forces: The new iron cage?. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 2004, 5(4):45-70.
32. Grant R.M. Prospering in dynamically competitive environments: Organizational capability as knowledge integration. Organization Science 1996, 7(4):375-387.
33. Grant R.M. Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal 1996, 17:109-122. (Winter Special Issue).
34. Grieves M. Product lifecycle management: Driving the next generation of lean management 2006, McGraw Hill.
35. Hayes N. Boundless and bounded interactions in the knowledge work process: The role of groupware technologies. Information and Organization 2001, 11(2):79-101.
36. Henderson K. Flexible sketches and inflexible data bases: Visual communication, conscription devices, and boundary objects in design engineering. Science, Technology & Human Values 1991, 16(4):448-474.
37. Henderson R., Clark K. Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly 1990, 35(1):9-30.
38. Hoopes D. Where are the glitches in product development. R&D Management 2002, 31(4):381-389.
39. Hoopes D., Postrel S. Shared knowledge, glitches, and product development performance. Strategic Management Journal 1999, 20:837-865.
40. Hu G., Wang Y., Bidanda B. Product lifecycle management challenges in trans-national environments. Proceedings of Industrial Engineering Research Conference (IERC), Orlando 2006.
41. Jensen R., Szulanski G. Template use and the effectiveness of knowledge transfer. Management Science 2007, 53(11):1716-1730.
42. Jensen R.J., Szulanski G., Casaburi M. Templates and the effectiveness of knowledge transfer. Academy of Management Best Conference Paper 2003.
43. Jonsson K., Holmstrom J., Lyytinen K. Turn to the material: Remote diagnostics systems and new forms of boundary-spannings. Information and Organization 2009, 19(1):233-252.
44. Joshi K.D., Sarker S., Sarker S. Knowledge transfer within information systems development teams: Examining the role of knowledge source attributes. Decision Support Systems 2007, 43(1):322-335.
45. Kallinikos J. Deconstructing information packages: Organizational and behavioural implications of ERP systems. Information Technology & People 2004, 17(1):8-30.
46. Kirkman B., Rosen B., Telsluk P., Gibson C. The impact of team empowerment on virtual team performance: The moderating role of face-to-face interaction. Academy of Management Journal 2004, 47:175-192.
47. Klein H., Rowe F. Marshalling the professional experience of doctoral students: A contribution to the practical relevance debate. MIS Quarterly 2008, 32(4):675-686.
48. Kogut B., Zander U. Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science 1992, 3(3):383-397.
49. Krishnan P., Ranganathan C. Boundary spanning in offshored ISD projects: A project social capital perspective. 47th annual conference on Computer personnel research 2009.
50. Lam A. Embedded firms, embedded knowledge: Problems of collaboration and knowledge transfer in global cooperative ventures. Organization Studies 1997, 18(6):973-996.
51. Lam P.-K., Chin K.-S. Identifying and prioritizing critical success factors for conflict management in collaborative new product development. Industrial Marketing Management 2005, 34:761-772.
52. Lee Z., Lee J. An ERP implementation case study from a knowledge transfer perspective. Journal of Information Technology 2000, 15(4):281-288.
53. Leonardi P.M., Bailey D.E. Transformational technologies and the creation of new work practices: making implicit knowledge explicit in task-based offshoring. MIS Quarterly 2008, 32(2):411-436.
54. Levina N., Vaast E. The emergence of boundary spanning competence in practice: Implications for implementation and use of information systems. MIS Quarterly 2005, 29(2):335-363.
55. Levina N., Vaast E. Turning a community into a market: a practice perspective on information technology use in boundary spanning. Journal of Management Information Systems 2006, 26(4):13-37.
56. Levina N., Vaast E. Innovation or doing as told? Status differences and overlapping boundaries in offshore collaboration. MIS Quarterly 2008, 32(2):307-332.
57. Ling H., Zhang W., Li J., Xie H. Data modeling for an integrated PLM and CSP framework for configuration design. Computer-Aided Design & Applications 2005, 2(1-4):223-232.
58. Majchrzak A., Malhotra A., John R. Perceived individual collaboration know-how development through information technology enabled contextualization: evidence from distributed teams. Information Systems Research 2005, 16(1):9-27.
59. Manolopoulos D., Söderquist K., Pearce R. Coordinating decentralized research and development laboratories: A survey analysis. Journal of International Management 2011, 17(2):114-129.
60. Merminod V., Rowe F. How does PLM technology enhance international inter organizational new product development? 2010, AMCIS, Lima.
61. Merminod V., Rowe F., Mothe C. Effets de Product Lifecycle Management sur la fiabilité de la productivité: une comparaison entre deux contextes. Management 2009, 12(4).
62. Merminod V., Rowe F., Watts S. Product lifecycle management, knowledge integration and reliability in new product co-development: A case study between Europe and China 2008, ICIS, Paris.
63. Miner A., Bassoff P., Moorman C. Organizational improvisation and learning: A field study. Administrative Science Quarterly 2001, June, 46:304-337.
64. Moenaert R.K., Caeldries F., Lievens A., Wauters E. Communication flows in international product innovation teams. Journal of Product Innovation Management 2000, 17(1):360-377.
65. Montoya-Weiss M., Massey A., Song M. Getting it together: Temporal coordination and conflict management in global virtual teams. Academy of Management Journal 2001, 44(6):1251-1262.
66. Morrison A. Gatekeepers of knowledge within industrial districts: Who they are, how they interact. Regional Studies 2008, 42(6):817-835.
67. Nambisan S. Information systems as a reference discipline for new product development. MIS Quarterly 2003, 27(1):1-18.
68. Nambisan S. Information technology and product development 2010, Springer.
69. Nobel R., Birkinshaw J. Innovation in multinational corporations: Control and communication patterns in international R&D operations. Strategic Management Journal 1998, 19(1):479-496.
70. Nonaka I., Takeuchi H. The knowledge creating company: How japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation 1995, Oxford University Press, New York.
71. Okhuysen G., Eisenhardt K.M. Integrating knowledge in groups: How formal interventions enable flexibility. Organization Science 2002, 13(4):370-386.
72. Pavlou P.A., El Sawy O. From IT leveraging competence to competitive advantage in turbulent environments: The case of new product development. Information Systems Research 2006, 17(3):198-230.
73. Pawlowski S.D., Robey D. Bridging user organizations: Knowledge brokering and the work of information technology professionals. MIS Quarterly 2004, 28(4):645-672.
74. Petersen K.J., Handfield R.B., Ragatz G.L. Supplier integration into new product development: Coordinating product, process and supply chain design. Journal of Operations Management 2005, 23(1):371-388.
75. Robey D., Boudreau M.C. Accounting for the contradictory organizational consequences of information technology: Theoretical directions and methodological implications. Information Systems Research 1999, 10(2):167-185.
76. Romano N.C., Pick J., Roztocki N. A motivational model for technology-supported cross-organizational and cross-border collaboration. European Journal of Information Systems 2010, 19(2):117-133.
77. Sambamurthy V., Bharadwaj A., Grover V. Shaping agility through digital options: Reconceptualizing the role of information technology in contemporary firms. MIS Quarterly 2003, 27(2):237-263.
78. Sanchez R., Mahoney J.T. Modularity, flexibility and knowledge management in product and organization design. Strategic Management Journal 1996, 17:63-76. (Winter special issue).
79. Sang S., Tae H., Sang D. XML-based neutral file and PLM integrator for PPR information exchange between heterogeneous PLM systems. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing 2010, 23(3):216-228.
80. Sethi R., Iqbal Z. Stage-gate controls, learning failure, and adverse effect on novel new products. Journal of Marketing 2008, 72(1):18-134.
81. Sosa M., Eppinger S., Pich M., McKendrick D., Stout S. Factors that influence technical communication in distributed product development: an empirical study in the telecommunications industry. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 2002, 49(1):45-58.
82. Star S., Griesemer J. Institutional ecology, translations and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's museum of vertebrate zoology. Social Studies of Science 1989, 19(3):387-420.
83. Stark J. Product lifecycle management - 21st century paradigm for product realization 2004, Springer, Decision Engineering series, Berlin.
84. Strong D., Volkoff O. Understanding organization-enterprise system fit: A path to theorizing the information technology artifact. MIS Quarterly 2010, 34(4):731-756.
85. Subramaniam M. Integrating cross border knowledge for transnational new product development. Journal of Product Innovation Management 2006, 23(1):541-555.
86. Sussman S., Siegal W. Informational influence in organizations: An integrated approach to knowledge adoption. Information Systems Research 2003, 14(1):47-65.
87. Szulanski G., Jensen R.J. Presumptive adaptation and the effectiveness of knowledge transfer. Strategic Management Journal 2006, 27(1):937-957.
88. Te'eni D. Review: A cognitive-affective model of organizational communication for designing IT. MIS Quarterly 2001, 25(2):251-312.
89. Tushman M.L., Katz R. External communication and project performance: an investigation into the role of gatekeepers. Management Science 1980, 26(11):1071-1085.
90. Vaast E., Levina N. Multiple faces of codification: Organizational redesign in an IT organization. Organization Science 2006, 17(2):190-201.
91. Von Hippel E. Sticky information and the locus of problem solving. Management Science 1994, 40(4):429-439.
92. Von Zedtwidtz M., Gassmann, Boutelier R. Organizing global R&D: Challenges and dilemmas. Journal of International Management 2004, 10(1):21-29.
93. Wenger E., Roy P., Brown J. Communities of practice: learning, Meaning and identity 1999, Cambridge University Press.
94. Yap A.Y., Ngwenyama O., Osei-Bryson K.M. Leveraging knowledge representation, usage, and interpretation to help reegineering the product development cycle: Visual computing and the tacit dimension of product development. Computer Industry 2003, 51(1):89-110.
95. Yi L., Ming X. Multi-level contextual product development knowledge management in PLM. International Journal of Computer Applications in Technology 2010, 37(3/4):12.
96. Yin R.K., Campbell D. Case study research: design and methods 2002, Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage. 3rd edition.
97. Yoo Y., Boland R.J., Lyytinen K. From organization design to organization designing. Organization Science 2006, 17(2):215-229.
98. Young R., Gunendran A., Cutting-Decelle A., Gruninger M. Manufacturing knowledge sharing in PLM: A progression towards the use of heavy weight ontologies. International Journal of Production Research 2007, 45(7):1505-1519.
99. Young M.L., Kuo F.Y., Myers M.D. To share or not to share: A critical research perspective on knowledge management systems. European Journal of Information Systems 2012, 10.1057/ejis.2012.10.