Technical consulting plays an increasingly important role in developing and transferring knowledge in a wide range of industries and sectors. We present a case study of Swift Tech, a leading Scandinavian technical consulting firm, to identify and assess the importance of knowledge cycling—a knowledge process based on scheduled and recurrent rotation of technical consultants among organizational and problem-solving contexts. Our study identifies four main phases of knowledge cycling: entering an assignment, building experience, contributing to the project, and shifting to a new assignment. These phases underpin our model of knowledge cycling, which demonstrates that two aspects of local knowledge processes are critical: project task familiarization and project organization familiarization. We show that knowledge cycling relies on a dynamic interaction between client organization, consulting firm, and individual consultant in the ongoing transfer of knowledge among distinct contexts and communities. Knowledge cycling demonstrates the significance of “mobile knowledge” for the development of situated knowledge; hence, our results have important implications for situated learning theory.
AminACohendetP (2003) Architectures of Knowledge: Firms, Capabilities, and Communities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2.
AminARobertsJ (2008) Knowing in action: Beyond communities of practice. Research Policy37(2): 353–369.
3.
BarleySRKundaG (2004) Gurus, Hired Guns, and Warm Bodies: Itinerant Experts in a Knowledge Economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
4.
BarleySRKundaG (2006) Contracting: A new form of professional practice. Academy of Management Perspectives20(1): 45–66.
5.
BessantJRushH (1995) Building bridges for innovation: The role of consultants in technology transfer. Research Policy24(1): 97–114.
6.
BorgESöderlundJ (2014) Moving in, moving on: Liminality practices in project-based work. Employee Relations36(2): 182–197.
7.
BorgESöderlundJ (2015) Liminality competence: An interpretative study of mobile project workers’ conception of liminality at work. Management Learning46(3): 260–279.
8.
BraunVClarkeV (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology3(2): 77–101.
9.
BrownEMNathwaniD (2005) Antibiotic cycling or rotation: A systematic review of the evidence of efficacy. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy55(1): 6–9.
10.
BrownJSDuguidP (1991) Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovating. Organization Science2(1): 40–57.
11.
BrownJSDuguidP (1998) Organizing knowledge. California Management Review40(3): 90–111.
12.
CleggSRKornbergerMRhodesC (2004) Noise, parasites and translation theory and practice in management consulting. Management Learning35(1): 31–44.
13.
CohenWMLevinthalDA (1990) Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly35: 128–152.
14.
CrepletFDupouetOKernFet al. (2001) Consultants and experts in management consulting firms. Research Policy30(9): 1517–1535.
15.
CzarniawskaBMazzaC (2003) Consulting as a liminal space. Human Relations56(3): 267–290.
16.
Dicicco-BloomBCrabtreeBF (2006) The qualitative research interview. Medical Education40(4): 314–321.
17.
EdmondsonAC (2003) Speaking up in the operating room: How team leaders promote learning in interdisciplinary action teams. Journal of Management Studies40(6): 1419–1452.
18.
EisenhardtKM (1989) Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review14(4): 532–550.
19.
EisenhardtKMGraebnerME (2007) Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal50(1): 25–32.
20.
EllisNYbemaS (2010) Marketing identities: Shifting circles of identification in inter-organizational relationships. Organization Studies31(3): 279–305.
21.
EspinosaJASlaughterSAKrautREet al. (2007) Familiarity, complexity, and team performance in geographically distributed software development. Organization Science18(4): 613–630.
22.
FahyKMEasterby-SmithMLervikJE (2014) The power of spatial and temporal orderings in organizational learning. Management Learning45(2): 123–144.
23.
FelinTFossNJPloyhartRE (2015) The microfoundations movement in strategy and organization theory. Academy of Management Annals9(1): 575–632.
24.
FlickU (2014) An Introduction to Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
25.
FlyvbjergB (2011) Case study. In: DenzinNKLincolnYS (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research. 4th ed.Thousad Oaks, CA: SAGE, 301–316.
26.
GalbraithCS (1990) Transferring core manufacturing technologies in high-technology firms. California Management Review32(4): 56–70.
HandleyKClarkTFinchamRet al. (2007) Researching situated learning participation, identity and practices in client—Consultant relationships. Management Learning38(2): 173–191.
29.
HarrisonSHRouseED (2015) An inductive study of feedback interactions over the course of creative projects. Academy of Management Journal58: 375–404.
30.
HoopesDGPostrelS (1999) Shared knowledge, “glitches,” and product development performance. Strategic Management Journal20: 837–865.
31.
KallebergAL (2001) Organizing flexibility: The flexible firm in a new century. British Journal of Industrial Relations39(4): 479–504.
32.
KogutBZanderU (1992) Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science3(3): 383–397.
33.
KristensenPH (1996) On the constitution of economic actors in denmark: Interacting skill containers and project coordinators. In: WhitleyRKristensenPH (eds) The Changing European Firm: Limits to Convergence. London: Routledge, 118–158.
34.
KrylovaKOVeraDCrossanM (2016) Knowledge transfer in knowledge-intensive organizations: The crucial role of improvisation in transferring and protecting knowledge. Journal of Knowledge Management20(5): 1045–1064.
35.
LaveJWengerE (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
36.
LindkvistL (2005) Knowledge communities and knowledge collectivities: A typology of knowledge work in groups. Journal of Management Studies42(6): 1189–1210.
37.
LøwendahlBRRevangØFosstenløkkenSM (2001) Knowledge and value creation in professional service firms: A framework for analysis. Human Relations54(7): 911–931.
38.
McKennaCD (2006) The World’s Newest Profession: Management Consulting in the Twentieth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
39.
MeyersonDWeickKEKramerRM (1996) Swift trust and temporary groups. In: KramerRMTylerTR (eds) Trust in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 166–195.
40.
NonakaITakeuchiH (1995) The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
41.
RamirezM (2007) Redefining firm competencies, innovation and labour mobility: A case study in telecommunication services. Industry and Innovation14(3): 325–347.
RinkFKaneAEllemersNet al. (2013) Team receptivity to newcomers: Five decades of evidence and future research themes. Academy of Management Annals7(1): 247–293.
44.
SaldanaJ (2009) The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. London: SAGE.
45.
SankowskaASöderlundJ (2015) Trust, reflexivity and knowledge integration: Toward a conceptual framework concerning mobile engineers. Human Relations68(6): 973–1000.
46.
SarvaryM (1999) Knowledge management and connpetition in the consulting industry. California Management Review41(2): 95–107.
47.
SöderlundJBredinK (2011) Participants in the process of knowledge integration. In: BerggrenCBergekABengtssonLet al (eds) Knowledge Integration and Innovation: Critical Challenges Facing International Technology-Based Firm. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 96–124.
48.
SongJAlmeidaPWuG (2003) Learning–by–hiring: When is mobility more likely to facilitate interfirm knowledge transfer?Management Science49(4): 351–365.
49.
SturdyASchwarzMSpicerA (2006) Guess who’s coming to dinner? Structures and uses of liminality in strategic management consultancy. Human Relations59(7): 929–960.
50.
SzulanskiG (1996) Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal17(Winter): 27–43.
51.
TeeceDJ (2003) Expert talent and the design of (professional services) firms. Industrial and Corporate Change12(4): 895–916.
52.
TempestSStarkeyK (2004) The effects of liminality on individual and organizational learning. Organization Studies25(4): 507–527.
53.
TetherBSTajarA (2008) Beyond industry–University links: Sourcing knowledge for innovation from consultants, private research organisations and the public science-base. Research Policy37(6): 1079–1095.
54.
TsoukasH (1996) The firm as a distributed knowledge system: A constructionist approach. Strategic Management Journal17(Winter): 11–25.
55.
WengerE (1998) Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
56.
YakhlefA (2010) The three facets of knowledge: A critique of the practice-based learning theory. Research Policy39(1): 39–46.
57.
YinR (2009) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
