Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-rkxrd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T12:49:20.109Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Global collaboration in knowledge intensive firms: The role of activity configurations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 December 2017

Katja Maria Hydle  and
David M Brock
Katja Maria Hydle*
Affiliation:
Social Science, IRIS – International Research Institute of Stavanger, Oslo, Norway
David M Brock
Affiliation:
Department of Business Management, Guilford Glazer Faculty of Business and Management, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel
*
Corresponding author: katja.hydle@iris.no
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper discusses how transnational knowledge intensive firms manage complexity across multiple locations, integrating various functional specializations and catering to multifaceted customer demands. Practice theory is used to help us understand collaboration among experts across national borders. By exploring what experts do and analyzing their practices transnationally, different configurations to provide services were found. In total, six configuration types are identified: bilateral, trilateral, chain, star, network and co-location. These configurations differently relate to three interdependent axes: coordinated actions, interaction modes and spatial dimensions. The configurations expose the relevant integrative and responsive settings. The paper contributes to the international organization literature by extending, elaborating and providing examples of transnationality; and to practice theory by exposing shapes and qualitative complexity of transnational collaboration and service provision.

Keywords

activity configurationscollaborationknowledge intensive firms
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Management & Organization , Volume 26 , Issue 4 , July 2020 , pp. 519 - 535
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management 2017

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

Adams, T. L. (2017). Self-regulating professions: Past, present, future. Journal of Professions and Organization, 4(1), 70–87.Google Scholar
Alvesson, M. (2003). Beyond neopositivists, romantics, and localists: A reflexive approach to interviews in organizational research. Academy of Management Review, 28(1), 13–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alvesson, M. (2004). Knowledge work and knowledge intensive firms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Alvesson, M., & Sköldberg, K. (2000). Reflexive methodology, new vistas for qualitative research. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
Balogun, J., Huff, A. S., & Johnson, P. (2003). Three responses to the methodological challenges of studying strategizing. Journal of Management Studies, 40(1), 197–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartlett, C., & Ghoshal, S. (1988). Organizing for worldwide effectiveness: The transnational solution. California Management Review, 31(1), 54–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartlett, C., & Ghoshal, S. (1989). Managing across borders: The transnational solution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Boussebaa, M. (2009). Struggling to organize across national borders: The case of global resource management in professional service firms. Human Relations, 62(6), 829–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boussebaa, M., Morgan, G., & Sturdy, A. (2012). Constructing global firms? National, transnational and neocolonial effects in international management consultancies. Organization Studies, 33(4), 465–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charreire Petit, S., & Huault, I. (2008). From practice-based knowledge to the practice of research: Revisiting constructivist research works on knowledge. Management Learning, 39(1), 73–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faulconbridge, J. R. (2007). Relational networks of knowledge production in transnational law firms. Geoforum, 38(5), 925–940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faulconbridge, J. R. (2008). Managing the transnational law firm: A relational analysis of professional systems, embedded actors, and time-space-sensitive governance. Economic Geography, 84(2), 185–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Greenwood, R., Morris, T., Fairclough, S., & Boussebaa, M. (2010). The organizational design of transnational professional service firms. Organizational Dynamics, 39(2), 173–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grosse, R. (2000). Knowledge creation and transfer in global service firms. In Y. Aharoni & L. Nachum (Eds.), The globalisation of services: Some implications for theory and practice. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Harzing, A.-W. (2000). An empirical analysis and extension of the Bartlett and Ghoshal typology of multinational companies. Journal of International Business Studies, 31(1), 101–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hydle, K. M. (2015). Temporal and spatial dimensions of strategizing. Organization Studies, 36(5), 643–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klimkeit, D., & Reihlen, M. (2016). Local responses to global integration in a transnational professional service firm. Journal of Professions and Organization, 3(1), 39–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2000). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Kvålshaugen, R., Hydle, K. M., & Brehmer, P.-O. (2015). Innovative capabilities in international professional service firms: Enabling trade-offs between past, present, and future service provision. Journal of Professions and Organization, 2(2), 148–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lander, M. W., Heugens, P. P. M. A. R., & van Oosterhout, J. (2017). Drift or alignment? A configurational analysis of law firms’ ability to combine profitability with professionalism. Journal of Professions and Organization, 4(2), 123–148.Google Scholar
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Løwendahl, B. R. (2000). The globalization of professional business service firms – Fad or genuine source of competitive advantage?. In Y. Aharoni & L. Nachum (Eds.), Globalization of services – Some implications for theory and practice. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Løwendahl, B. R. (2005). Strategic management of professional service firms (3rd ed.), Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press.Google Scholar
Maister, D. H. (1993). Managing the professional service firm. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Rasche, A., & Chia, R. (2009). Researching strategy practices: A genealogical social theory perspective. Organization Studies, 30(7), 713–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schatzki, T. (2005). Peripheral vision: The sites of organizations. Organization Studies, 26(3), 465–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schatzki, T. (2006). On organizations as they happen. Organization Studies, 27(12), 1863–1873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schatzki, T. (2010). The timespace of human activity: On performance, society, and history as indeterminate teleological events. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Schatzki, T. (2012). A primer on practices: Theory and research. In J. Higgs, R. Barnett, S. Billett, M. Hutchings, & F. Trede (Eds.), Practice-based education: Perspectives and strategies (pp. 13–26). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schatzki, T. (2016a). Keeping track of large social phenomena. Geographische Zeitschrift, 104(1), 4–24.Google Scholar
Schatzki, T. (2016b). Praxistheorie als flache Ontologie. In H. Schäfer (Ed.), Praxistheorie. Ein soziologisches Forschungsprogramm (pp. 29–44). Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag.Google Scholar
Schatzki, T., Knorr Cetina, K. D., & von Savigny, E. (Eds.) 2001). The practice turn in contemporary theory. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Segal-Horn, S., & Dean, A. (2007). The globalization of law firms: Managerial issues. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 18(2), 206–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segal-Horn, S., & Dean, A. (2009). Delivering ‘effortless experience’ across borders: Managing internal consistency in professional service firms. Journal of World Business, 44(1), 41–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smets, M., Jarzabkowski, P., Burke, G. T., & Spee, P. (2015). Reinsurance trading in Lloyd’s of London: Balancing conflicting-yet-complementary logics in practice. Academy of Management Journal, 58(3), 932–970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smets, M., Morris, T. I. M., & Greenwood, R. (2012). From practice to field: A multilevel model of practice-driven institutional change. Academy of Management Journal, 55(4), 877–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thorpe, R. (2008). Introduction: Constructionist approaches to management research. Management Learning, 39(2), 115–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Nordenflycht, A. (2010). What is a professional service firm? Toward a theory and taxonomy of knowledge intensive firms. Academy of Management Review, 35(1), 155–174.Google Scholar
Whittle, A., Mueller, F., & Carter, C. (2016). The ‘Big Four’ in the spotlight: Accountability and professional legitimacy in the UK audit market. Journal of Professions and Organization, 3(2), 119–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar