Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-v5vhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-23T02:58:33.733Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

12 - Harnessing knowledge resources for increasing returns: scalable structuration at Infosys Technologies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 December 2009

Raghu Garud
Affiliation:
New York University, Associate Professor of Management and Organizations at the Leonard Stern School of Business
Arun Kumaraswamy
Affiliation:
Singapore Management University, Visiting Associate Professor of Management at the Lee Kong Chian School of Business
Vallabh Sambamurthy
Affiliation:
Michigan State University, Eli Broad Professor of Information Technology at the Graduate School of Management
Edward D. Hess
Affiliation:
Emory University, Atlanta
Robert K. Kazanjian
Affiliation:
Emory University, Atlanta
Get access

Summary

Practitioners and researchers increasingly view knowledge as being a strategic resource (Winter, 1987). With rapid advances being made in information-based technologies, we are witnessing nothing short of another industrial revolution – one in which artisans are “using their heads and not their hands” (Fortune, 1991). Echoing the sentiments of a growing number of scholars and practitioners, an article in Business Week (1992) suggested “competitive advantage no longer belongs to the biggest or those blessed with abundant natural resources or the most capital. In the global economy, knowledge is king.”

Although knowledge is now gaining the recognition that it rightfully deserves, it has always played a key role in the functioning of modern firms. Penrose's (1995) work is illustrative in this regard. She pointed out that a firm is a bundle of resources possessing only an unrealized potential to yield different services. Eventually, it is the firm's managerial capacity to identify and realize productive services from these resources that yields competitive advantage.

Since Penrose's time, a key shift has occurred in the nature of resources that firms harness. Specifically, a firm's productive resources are no longer inert but, instead, infused with knowledge. This shift has profound implications for processes associated with knowledge production and use. Arthur (1991), for instance, pointed out that knowledge-infused resources have properties that are different from traditional resources such as land, labor, and financial capital.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alavi, M. & Leidner, D. 2001. Review: Knowledge management and knowledge management foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly, 1: 107–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Argote, L. 1999. Organizational Learning: Creating, Retaining, and Transferring Knowledge. Boston: Kluwer AcademicGoogle Scholar
Arrow, K. 1962. The economic implications of learning by doing. Review of Economic Studies, 29 (June): 155–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arthur, W. B. 1991. Now capital means brains not bucks. Fortune, 14 (January): 31–32Google Scholar
Barley, S. R. 1986. Technology as an occasion for structuring: evidence from observations of CT scanners and the social order of radiology departments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31: 78–108CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barney, J. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17: 99–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boland, R. J. Jr., & Collopy, F. (eds.) 2004. Managing as Designing. Stanford: Stanford University PressGoogle Scholar
Bowker, G. S. & Star, S. L. 2000. Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences. Cambridge, MA: MIT PressGoogle Scholar
Brown, J. S. & Duguid, P. 1991. Organizational learning and communities of practice: toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organization Science, 2: 40–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, S. L. & Eisenhardt, K. M. 1998. Competing on the Edge: Strategy as Structured Chaos. Boston: Harvard Business School PressGoogle Scholar
Business Week. 1992. Industrial policy: call it what you will, the nation needs a plan to nurture growth. Business Week, 6 (April): 70–104
Callon, M. 1986. The sociology of an actor-network: the case of the electric vehicle. In Callon, M., Law, J. & Rip, A. (eds.), Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology. London: MacmillanCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, C. & Raynor, M. 2003. The Innovator's Solution. Boston: Harvard Business School PressGoogle Scholar
Cohen, M. D. & Bacdayan, P. 1994. Organizational routines are stored as procedural memory: evidence from a laboratory study. Organizational Science, 5: 554–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, W. & Levinthal, D. A. 1990. Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35: 128–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collis, D. J. & Montgomery, C. A. 1997. Corporate Strategy: A Resource-Based View. New York: Irwin/McGraw-HillGoogle Scholar
Czarniawska, B. 1997. Narrating the Organization: Dramas of Institutional Identity. Chicago: University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar
David, P. A. 1985. Clio and the economics of QWERTY. American Economic Review, 75: 332–337Google Scholar
DeSanctis, G. & Poole, M. S. 1994. Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: adaptive structuration theory. Organization Science, 5: 121–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewey, J. 1934. Art as Experience. New York: Minton, Balch & CompanyGoogle Scholar
Dierickx, I. & Cool, K. 1989. Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive advantage. Management Science, 35: 1504–1511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dosi, G. & Marengo, L. 1994. Some element of an evolutionary theory of organizational competencies. In England, R. W. (ed.), Evolutionary Concepts in Contemporary Economies. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dougherty, D. 1992. A practice-centered model of organizational renewal through product innovation. Strategic Management Journal, 13: 77–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drazin, R. & Sandelands, L. 1992. Autogenesis: a perspective on the process of organizing. Organization Science, 2: 230–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dutton, J. M. & Thomas, A. 1985. Relating technological change and learning by doing. In Rosenbloom, R. D. (ed.), Research on Technological Innovation, Management, and Policy. Greenwich, CT: JAI PressGoogle Scholar
Eisenhardt, K. M. & Martin, J. M. 2000. Dynamic capabilities: what are they?Strategic Management Journal, 21: 1105–11213.0.CO;2-E>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fahey, L. & Prusak, L. 1998. The seven deadliest sins of knowledge management. California Management Review, 40(3): 265–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, M. S. & Pentland, B. T. 2003. Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48: 94–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fortune 1991. The most fascinating ideas for 1991: managing. Fortune, 123(1): 30–33
Foss, N. J. & Robertson, P. L. 2000. Resources, Technology and Strategy: Explorations in the Resource-Based Perspective. New York: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
Galbraith, J. R. & Kazanjian, R. K. 1986. Strategy Implementation: Structure, Systems and Process. St. Paul: West Publishing CompanyGoogle Scholar
Garud, R. 1997. On the distinction between know-how, know-why and know-what in technological systems. In Walsh, J. & Huff, A. (eds.), Advances in Strategic Management. Greenwich, CT: JAI PressGoogle Scholar
Garud, R. & Karnoe, P. 2001. Path creation as a process of mindful deviation. In Garud, R. & Karnoe, P. (eds.), Path Dependence and Creation.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesGoogle Scholar
Garud, R., Kumaraswamy, A., & Malhotra, M. 2003. Infosys: architecture of a scalable corporation. Stern School of Business Case, New York UniversityGoogle Scholar
Garud, R. & Nayyar, P. 1994. Transformative capacity: continual structuring by inter-temporal technology transfer. Strategic Management Journal, 15: 265–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garud, R. & Rappa, M. 1994. A socio-cognitive model of technology evolution. Organization Science, 5: 344–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gavetti, G. & Levinthal, D. 2000. Looking forward and looking backward: cognitive and experiential search. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45: 113–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Georges, A. & Romme, L. 2003. Making a difference: organization as design. Organization Science, 14(5): 558–573Google Scholar
Giddens, A. 1986. Central Problems in Social Theory. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies of Qualitative Research. London: Weidenfeld and NicolsonGoogle Scholar
Grant, R. M. 1996. Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17 (Special Issue): 109–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hargadon, A. 2003. How Breakthroughs Happen: The Surprising Truth About How Companies Innovate. Boston: Harvard Business School PressGoogle Scholar
Hayek, F. A. 1945. The use of knowledge in society. American Economic Review, 35(4): 519–532Google Scholar
Henderson, R. M. & Clark, K. B. 1990. Architectural innovation: the reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35: 9–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jalote, P. 1999. CMM in Practice: Processes for Executing Software Projects at Infosys. Reading, MA: Addison-WesleyGoogle Scholar
Kanigel, R. 1997. The One Best Way: Fredrick Winslow Taylor and the Enigma of Efficiency. New York: VikingGoogle Scholar
Kochikar, V. P., Mahesh, K., & Mahind, C. S. 2002. Knowledge management in action: the experience of Infosys technologies. In Hlupic, V. (ed.), Knowledge and Business Process Management. Hershey: PA Idea GroupGoogle Scholar
Kogut, B. & Zander, U. 1992. Knowledge of the firm: combinative capabilities and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3: 383–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latour, B. 1991. Technology is society made durable. In Law, J. (ed.), A Sociology of Monsters – Essays on Power, Technology and Domination. London: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. 1994. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Law, J. 1992. Notes on the theory of the actor-network: ordering, strategy and heterogeneity. Systems Practice, 5: 379–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lei, D., Hitt, M. A., & Bettis, R. 1996. Dynamic core competences through meta-learning and strategic context. Journal of Management, 22(4): 549–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leonard, D. 1998. Wellsprings of Knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School PressGoogle Scholar
Leonard-Barton, D. 1992. Core capabilities and core rigidities: a paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 13: 111–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinthal, D. 1997. Adaptation on rugged landscapes. Management Science, 43: 934–950CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levitt, B. & March, J. G. 1988. Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14: 319–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loasby, B. J. 1999. Knowledge, Institutions and Evolution in Economics. New York: RoutledgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahoney, J. & Pandian, J. 1992. The resource-based view within the conversation of strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 13: 363–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
March, J. G. 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2: 71–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
March, J. G. & Simon, H. A. 1958. Organizations. New York: WileyGoogle Scholar
Metcalfe, J. S. & James, A. 2000. Knowledge and capabilities: a new view of the firm. In Foss, N. J. & Robertson, P. L. (eds.), Resources, Technology and Strategy: Explorations in the Resource-Based Perspective. New York: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
Miller, D. & Friesen, P. 1980. Momentum and revolution in organization adaptation. Academy of Management Journal, 23: 591–614Google Scholar
Nelson, R. & Winter, S. 1982. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H. 1995. The Knowledge Creating Company. New York: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Orlikowski, W. J. 1992. The duality of technology: rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science, 3: 398–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orlikowski, W. J. 2002. Knowing in practice: enacting a collective capability in distributed organizing. Organization Science, 13: 249–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orr, J. E. 1990. Sharing knowledge, celebrating identity: community memory in a service culture. In Middleton, D. & Edwards, D. (eds.), Collective Remembering. London: SageGoogle Scholar
Penrose, E. 1995. The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. Oxford: Oxford University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petaraf, M. A. 1993. The cornerstones of competitive advantage: a resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 14: 179–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polanyi, M. 1967. The Tacit Dimension. Garden City, NY: AnchorGoogle Scholar
Quinn, J. B. 1978. Strategic change: logical incrementalism. Sloan Management Review, 20(1): 7–21Google Scholar
Sambamurthy, V., Bharadwaj, A., & Grover, V. 2003. Shaping agility through digital options: reconceptualizing the role of information technology in contemporary firms. MIS Quarterly, 27: 237–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schon, D. A. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner. New York: Basic BooksGoogle Scholar
Spender, J. C. 1996. Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17 (Special Issue): 45–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teece, D., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. 1997. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18: 509–5343.0.CO;2-Z>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, J. 1967. Organizations in Action. New York: McGraw-HillGoogle Scholar
Tsoukas, H. 1996. The firm as a distributed knowledge system: a constructionist approach. Strategic Management Journal, 17 (Special Issue): 11–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tushman, M., Smith, W., Wood, R., Westerman, R., & Reilly, C. 2004. Innovation streams and ambidextrous organizational designs: on building dynamic capabilities. Paper presented at conference on Innovation. University of MarylandGoogle Scholar
Hippel, E. W. 1994. “Sticky information” and the locus of problem solving: implications for innovation. Management Science, 40(4): 429–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walsh, J. P. & Ungson, G. R. 1991. Organizational memory: information acquisition, retention, and retrieval. Academy of Management Review, 16: 57–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weick, K. E. 1995. Sensemaking in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SageGoogle Scholar
Weick, K. E. & Roberts, K. 1993. Collective mind in organizations: heedful interrelating on flight decks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38: 357–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wernerfelt, B. 1984. A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5: 171–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winter, S. G. 1987. Knowledge and competence as strategic assets. In Teece, D. J. (ed.), The Competitive Challenge: Strategies for Industrial Innovation and Renewal. Cambridge, MA: BallingerGoogle Scholar
Zollo, M. & Winter, S. G. 2002. Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organization Science, 13: 339–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zuboff, S. 1984. In the Age of the Smart Machine. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×