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

query question How can managers create un ballpark acquaintance when rivals charter adit to similar, roughhewnly available companionship? (page 425) Authors purpose The magnificence of hit the hayledge is well established in research. The cognition-based theory considers experience as the most strategically significant resource of a firm. Notwithstanding, the authors illustrate that it is not known much almost how firms create, get ahead, and apply friendship better than other(a) firms (page 421). nag and Gioia set up a qualitative study to generate an inductive work to reveal the processes how and under which circumstances managers transform putting surface into distinctive knowledge.The foundry industry in the northeast and midatlantic United States served as study population. The authors conducted 53 interviews with CEOs and other key members involving 22 different foundries. study conclusions The poser developed three dimensions how executive directors differ in the process from common to erratic knowledge executive knowledge schemes, executive scanning and uncommon knowledge economic consumption. The study indicates the personal imp mo of executive behavior how they identified, searched for and use uncommon knowledge Under alike(p) external circumstances they act in different ways to address strategic situations. (1) Interpretation of the resultsThe interviews were integrated like following. There be three aggregated dimensions (executive knowledge schemes, executive scanning and uncommon knowledge use). Each of these dimensions dwells of 2 second-order themes. These feed on the first-order categories which atomic number 18 coded quotes. Executive knowledge schemes mean how executives atomic number 18 determined towards theirs perceptions of knowledge. They are also called knowledge structures.A much detailed view onto these structures reveals that they dwell first of the second-order-themes knowledge significance (criticalit y and distinctiveness relate to the importance of knowledge to the strategic performance of a firm). The usage of knowledge is broadly speaking seen in three areas technical effectiveness, operational efficiency and customer responsiveness. Second, the knowledge schemes consist of knowledge source (external accessibility, personal competence and lower-echelon knowledgeability relate to the service program and quality of different origins of knowledge). Executive scanning means the activity to modernize additional knowledge. It differs in the quantity and the character how managers search to extend the strategic resources. Scanning intensity describes the amount of time and effort managers invest to acquire new knowledge.The other second-order theme scanning proactiveness goes beyond the intensity in order to get better and other information than competitors do. Uncommon knowledge use means the application of knowledge to a firms challenges. 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 define or so greets as differentiation). Only if it is using uncommon knowledge it becomes distinctive knowledge and consequently turns into a competitive advantage. In the second-order themes this dimension is separated into knowledge adaption and knowledge augmentation. The first one describes how to use new knowledge to solve particularized problems and generate new methods.The second one goes beyond it is about apprehensiveness problems in principle. When you are familiar with the principle you can adapt knowledge to related problems and by means of that it is possible to generate new knowledge by you. Different emphases in second-order themes are more(prenominal) likely to be coupled with certain emphases on another second-order theme (e.g. strong consider in technological effectiveness is associated with engaging in proactive scanning). Through those linkages Nag and Gioia were able to draw tree knowledge styleways.The knowledge adaption pathways describe the wrap up 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 limited 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 contrast 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 distinctive and hard to imita te for competitors. accordingly 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 unprecedented scanning activity they reduce the information available and in that respectfore they eliminate uncommon knowledge usage. Companies on that path are less cost efficient than companies on the paths described before. (2) Strengths and weaknesses of the methodological approach In worldwide the study appears consistent and methodologically well done. While interpreting participants the authors include quotations (in vivo codes) of the respondents in the paper to underline their interpretations. For member checking they organized 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 manner 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 predetermine and research background to the topic. In 2006 Nag published his discourse with the prenomen From common to uncommon knowledge An investigation 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 homogeneous 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 some deta iled ideas how the outcome could grammatical construction like. Maybe here is the reason why the authors presented the literature review in the beginning which is unusual for an inductive approach. only when nevertheless the developed model seems to be fully founded in the data. It could be mentioned more clearly when very common knowledge becomes uncommon knowledge.The kind 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. Furthermore following there are detailed critiques concerning the sampling and the interviews. SamplingThe study population like chosen in the study is well defined and concrete Firms belong with the same industry Saturated industry with a lot of established common knowledge (=same basis) and where uncommon knowledge is the way to compete Foundries have a comparable (low) complexity (