Research units in state government transportation agencies exist within traditionally hierarchical, or mechanistic, organizations. They manage and conduct research studies and ensure the successful transfer of knowledge through both inter- and intraorganizational relationships and through knowledge transfer activities. These activities may entail the transfer of knowledge at the local, state, federal or international level. Improving knowledge transfer ultimately improves organizational performance. Use of Burns and Stalkers' dualism—mechanistic versus organic management systems—to describe government organizations aids in the recognition of the current condition and in the identification of the characteristics of an environment that will be more conducive to efficient knowledge transfer. This information will help decision makers within these organizations to select the appropriate organizational structure, or processes, to enhance knowledge transfer. The increasing amount of information and growing organizational complexity require a systems thinking approach to identifying opportunities for improvement within these organizations. This paper describes how systems thinking can aid in exploring knowledge transfer within organic and mechanistic state government organizations and offers contributions to the body of knowledge concerning government entities and intentional knowledge transfer.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlaviM., and LeidnerD. E.Review: Knowledge Management and Knowledge Management System: Conceptual Foundations and Research. MIS Quarterly, Vol. 25, 2001, pp. 107–136.
2.
AllenT. J.The Role of Person to Person Communication Networks in the Dissemination of Industrial Technology. Working Paper 939-77. Alfred P. Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass., 1977.
3.
YiJ.A Measure of Knowledge Sharing Behavior: Scale Development and Validation. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, Vol. 7, 2009, pp. 65–81.
4.
FossN., HustedK., and MichailovaS.Governing Knowledge Sharing in Organizations: Levels of Analysis, Governance Mechanisms, and Research Directions. Management Studies, Vol. 47, No. 3, 2010, pp. 455–482.
5.
CrossR., and ParkerA.The Hidden Power of Social Networks.Harvard Business School Publishing, Boston, Mass., 2004.
6.
AikenM., and HageJ.The Organic Organization and Innovation. Sociology, Vol. 5, No. 1, 1971, pp. 63–82.
7.
SingerJ., and HelferichJ.Supporting R&D Support Groups. Research–Technology Management, Vol. 51, No. 1, 2008, p. 49.
8.
TsaiW.Knowledge Transfer in Intraorganizational Networks: Effects of Network Position and Absorptive Capacity on Business Unit Innovation and Performance. Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44, No. 5, 2001, pp. 996–1004.
9.
Albors-GarrigosJ., ZabaletaN. J., and GanzarainJ.New R&D Management Paradigms: Rethinking Research and Technology Organizations Strategies in Regions. R&D Management, Vol. 40, No. 5, 2010, pp. 435–454.
10.
HutzschenreuterT., and HorstkotteJ.Knowledge Transfer to Partners: A Firm Level Perspective. Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 14, No. 3, 2010, pp. 428–448.
11.
SzulanskiG.Exploring Internal Stickiness: Impediments to the Transfer of Best Practice Within the Firm. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 17, 1996, pp. 27–43.
12.
MoteJ.R&D Ecology: Using 2-Mode Network Analysis to Explore Complexity in R&D Environments. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, Vol. 22, 2005, pp. 93–111.
13.
GrevesenC., and DamanpourF.Performance Implications of Organisational Structure and Knowledge Sharing in Multinational R&D Networks. International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 38, No. 1-2, 2007, pp. 113–136.
14.
GopalakrishnanS., and SantoroM. D.Distinguishing Between Knowledge Transfer and Technology Transfer Activities: The Role of Key Organizational Factors. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 51, No. 1, 2004, pp. 57–69.
15.
BurnsT., and StalkerG. M.The Management of Innovation, 3rd ed. Oxford University Press, New York, 1994.
16.
MischenP. A., and JacksonS. K.Connecting the Dots: Applying Complexity Theory, Knowledge Management and Social Network Analysis to Policy Implementation. Public Administration Quarterly, Vol. 32, No. 3, 2008, pp. 314–338.
CummingsJ. L., and TengB.-S.Transferring R&D Knowledge: The Key Factors Affecting Knowledge Transfer Success. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, Vol. 20, No. 1-2, 2003, pp. 39–68.
19.
ChungK., and HossainL.Measuring Performance of Knowledge Intensive Workgroups Through Social Networks. Project Management Journal, Vol. 40, No. 2, 2009, pp. 34–58.
20.
CarlssonS.Knowledge Managing and Knowledge Management Systems in Interorganizational Networks. Knowledge and Process Management., Vol. 10, No. 3, 2003, pp. 196–206.
21.
Javernick-WillA.Motivating Knowledge Sharing in Engineering and Construction Organizations: Power of Social Motivations. Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 28, No. 2, 2012, pp. 193–202.
22.
StrohmaierM., YuE., HorkoffJ., AransaJ., and EasterbrookS.Analyzing Knowledge Transfer Effectiveness: An Agent-Oriented Modeling Approach.Proc., 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences, IEEE, Waikoloa, Big Island, Hawaii, 2007, p. 188b.
23.
Pérez-NordtvedtL., KediaB. L., DattaD. K., and RasheedA. A.Effectiveness and Efficiency of Cross-Border Knowledge Transfer: An Empirical Examination. Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 45, No. 4, 2008, pp. 714–744.
24.
CarayannisE. G., and FormicaP.Knowledge Matters: Technology, Innovation and Entrepreneurship in Innovation Networks and Knowledge Clusters.Palgrave Macmillan, Houndmills, United Kingdom, 2008.
25.
HansenM., MorsM., and LovasB.Knowledge Sharing in Organizations: Multiple Networks, Multiple Phases. Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 48, No. 5, 2005, pp. 776–793.
26.
ElrahmanO. A.Effective Transfer of Research Results: Human Element for Successful Transfer. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1848, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2003, pp. 118–124.
27.
BestA., TrochimW., HaggertyJ., MoorG., and NormanC.Systems Thinking for Knowledge Integration: New Models for Policy Research Collaboration.Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2008, pp. 154–166.
28.
GilbertM., and Cordey-HayesM.Understanding the Process of Knowledge Transfer to Achieve Successful Technological Innovation. Technovation, Vol. 16, No. 6, 1996, pp. 301–312.
29.
NathP., and MrinaliniN.Benchmarking the Best Practices of Non-Corporate R&D Organizations. Benchmarking, Vol. 7, No. 2, 2000, pp. 89–97.
30.
DeenT. B., and HarderB. T.NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 280: Seven Keys to Building a Robust Research Program.TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1999.
31.
FossN.The Emerging Knowledge Governance Approach: Challenges and Characteristics.Danish Research Unit for Industrial Dynamics, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark, 2006.
32.
ConsidineM., and LewisJ. M.Innovation and Innovators Inside Government: From Institutions to Networks. Governance, Vol. 20, No. 4, 2007, pp. 581–607.
33.
BogasonP.Public Administration Under Postmodern Conditions. Administrative Theory & Praxis, Vol. 30, No. 3, 2008, pp. 359–362.
34.
McKeenJ. D., and SmithH. A.Developments in Practice XXVI: Social Networks: Knowledge Management's Killer App?Communications of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 19, 2007, pp. 611–621.
35.
BennettJ. W.Jr., and DeWittW. J.IIThe Development of State Departments of Transportation: A Recent Organizational Phenomenon. Transportation Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1, 1972, pp. 5–14.
36.
HazardJ. L.The Institutionalization of Transportation Policy: Two Decade of DOT. Transportation Journal, Vol. 26, No. 1, 1986, pp. 17–32.
37.
HenttonenK.Exploring Social Networks on the Team Level: A Review of the Empirical Literature. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, Vol. 27, No. 1-2, 2010, pp. 74–109.
38.
SammarraA., and BiggieroL.Heterogeneity and Specificity of Inter-Firm Knowledge Flows in Innovation Networks. Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 45, No. 4, 2008, pp. 800–829.
39.
AllenT. J., PiepmeierJ. M., and CooneyS.Technology Transfer to Developing Countries: The International Technological Gatekeeper.Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, 1971.
40.
RogersJ. D.Evaluation in R&D Management and Knowledge Use: A Knowledge Value Mapping Approach to Currency Accessible to the Visually Impaired. Research Evaluation, Vol. 17, No. 4, 2008, pp. 237–249.
41.
AllenJ., JamesA. D., and GamlenP.Formal Versus Informal Knowledge Networks in R&D: A Case Study Using Social Network Analysis. R&D Management, Vol. 37, No. 3, 2007, pp. 179–196.
42.
BirkinshawJ., NobelR., and RidderstraleJ.Knowledge as a Contingency Variable: Do the Characteristics of Knowledge Predict Organization Structure?Organization Science, Vol. 13, No. 3, 2002, pp. 274–289.
43.
Smith-DoerrL., ManevI. M., and RizovaP.The Meaning of Success: Network Position and the Social Construction of Project Outcomes in an R&D Lab. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, Vol. 21, 2004, pp. 51–81.
44.
ByosiereP., LuethgeD. J., VasA., and SalmadorM. P.Diffusion of Organisational Innovation: Knowledge Transfer Through Social Networks. International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 49, No. 4, 2010, pp. 401–420.
45.
GranovetterM.The Strength of Weak Ties: A Network Theory Revisited. Sociological Theory, Vol. 1, 1983, pp. 201–233.
46.
DavisJ., FusfeldA., ScrivenE., and TritleG.Determining A Project's Probability of Success. Research–Technology Management, Vol. 44, No. 3, 2001, pp. 51–57.
47.
MoteJ., GretchenJ., HageJ., and WhitestoneY.New Directions in the Use of Network Analysis in Research and Product Development. Research Evaluation, Vol. 16, No. 3, 2007.
48.
WardM.NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 365: Preserving and Using Institutional Memory Through Knowledge Management Practices.Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2007.
49.
HarderB. T., and BenkeR.NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 355: Transportation Technology Transfer: Successes, Challenges, and Needs.Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2005.
50.
NCHRP Report 643: Implementing Transportation Knowledge Networks.Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2009.
51.
ChinowskyP., MolenaarK., and RealphA.Learning Organizations in Construction. Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 23, No. 1, 2007, pp. 27–34.
52.
LiebeskindJ., OliverA. L., ZuckerL., and BrewerM.Social Networks, Learning and Flexibility: Sourcing Scientific Knowledge in New Biotechnology Firms. Organization Science, Vol. 7, No. 4, 1996, pp. 428–441.
53.
SengeP. M.The Fifth Discipline.Doubleday, New York, 1990.
54.
AugsdorferP.Managing the Unmanageable. Research–Technology Management, Vol. 51, No. 4, 2008, p. 41.
55.
VamanuI.Organizations as Complex Adaptive Systems: Implications for Knowledge Management. In Knowledge About Knowledge, Knowledge Management in Organizations Series, School of Communication, Information, and Library Science, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, N.J., 2008, pp. 232–241.
56.
HageJ., and AikenM.Program Change and Organizational Properties: A Comparative Analysis. American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 72, No. 5, 1967, pp. 503–519.
57.
Mitleton-KellyE.A Complexity Approach to Co-Creating an Innovative Environment. World Futures: The Journal of General Evolution, Vol. 62, No. 3, 2006, pp. 223–239.
58.
SavoryC.Building Knowledge Translation Capability into Public-Sector Innovation Processes. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, Vol. 21, No. 2, 2009, pp. 149–171.
59.
ZeinS. R., and NavinF. P. D.Improving Traffic Safety: A New Systems Approach. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1830, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2003, pp. 1–9.
60.
BoardmanJ., and SauserB.Systems Thinking: Coping with 21st Century Problems.CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group, Fla., 2008.
61.
DooleyK. J.A Complex Adaptive Systems Model of Organizational Change. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1997, pp. 69–97.
