In this article, a cognitive approach, arising from the resource-based view of the firm, is adopted to investigate how inter-firm relationships are changing in industrial districts, and how the characteristics of knowledge involved in these networking processes can affect change. Assuming that the content of any inter-firm relationship may be defined as ‘transferred knowledge’ that is required for the purpose of facilitating coordination between the firms, there are two problem areas of complexity: the complexity caused by uncertainty and the complexity caused by ambiguity. Starting from this assumption, the relations between the complexity of the ‘transferred knowledge’ and the specific types of inter-firm relationships are examined. Then, the impact of the knowledge codification process and the value of social interactions for the effectiveness and efficiency of coordination between firms are given particular attention.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BecattiniG., ‘Riflessioni sul distretto industriale marshalliano come concetto socio-economico’, Stato e Mercato, Vol 25, 1989, pp 111–128
2.
BellandiM., ‘Capacità innovativa diffusa e sistemi locali di imprese’, in BecattiniG., ed, Modelli locali di sviluppo, Il MuliNo, Bologna, 1989.
LorenzoniG., ‘Costellazione di imprese e processi di sviluppo’, Sviluppo e Organizzazione, No 102, 1987, pp 59–72.
5.
LorenzoniG.OrnatiO., ‘Constellations of firms and new ventures’, Journal of Business Venturing, No 3, 1988, pp 41–57.
6.
PioreM.SabelC., The Second Industrial Divide: Possibilities for Prosperity, Basic Books, New York, 1984.
7.
CamagniR. P., ‘Cambiamento tecnologico, milieu locale e reti di imprese: Una teoria dinamica dello spazio economico’, Economia e politica industriale, No 64, 1989, pp 209–236.
8.
MaillatD.LecoqB.NemetiF.SterM. P., ‘Technology district and innovation: The case of the Swiss Jura Arc’, Regional Studies, Vol 29, No 3, 1995, pp 251–263.
LomiA., Reti Organizzative: Teoria, tecnica e applicazioni, Il MuliNo, Bologna, 1991.
11.
LomiA., ‘L'organizzazione a rete nella teoria organizzativa’, in LorenzoniG., ed, Accordi, reti e vantaggio competitivo, Etaslibri, Milan, 1992.
12.
Becattini, 1989, op cit, Ref 1.
13.
MarshallA., Industry and Trade, Macmillan, London, 1920.
14.
BecattiniG.RullaniE., ‘Sistema locale e mercato globale’, Economia e politica industriale, No 80, 1993, pp 25–48.
15.
Unioncamere, Imprese e istituzioni nei distretti industriali che cambiano, F. Angeli, Milan, 1995.
16.
Becattini, 1989, op cit, Ref 1.
17.
ChesbroughH.W.TeeceD.J., ‘When is virtual virtuous? Organizing for innovation’, Harvard Business Review, Vol 74, No 1, 1996, pp 65–73.
18.
EspositoE.RaffaM., ‘The evolution of Italian subcontracting firms: Empirical evidence’, European Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, Vol 1, No 2, 1994, pp 67–76.
19.
EspositoE.RaffaM., ‘Similarities and differences in the Italian subcontracting system’, in CapaldoG.EspositoE.Lo StortoC.RaffaM., eds, Supply Management, Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane, Naples, 1998.
MoweryD.C.OxleyJ.E.SilvermanB.S., ‘Strategic alliances and interfirm knowledge transfer’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol 17, Winter Special Issue, 1996, pp 77–91
22.
NassimbeniG.De ToniA.TonchiaS., ‘L'evoluzione dei rapporti di subfornitura’, Sviluppo e Organizzazione, No 137, 1993, pp 96–106.
23.
EspositoRaffa, 1998, op cit, Ref 10.
24.
Lamming, op cit, Ref 10.
25.
EspositoRaffa, 1998, op cit, Ref 10.
26.
ChesbroughTeece, op cit, Ref 10.
27.
ChesbroughTeece, op cit, Ref 10.
28.
InkpenA.C., ‘Creating knowledge through collaboration’, California Management Review, Vol 39, No 1, 1996, pp 123–140
29.
Mowery, op cit, Ref 10.
30.
ChesbroughTeece, op cit, Ref 10.
31.
LamA., ‘Embedded firms, embedded knowledge: Problems of collaboration and knowledge transfer in global cooperative ventures’, Organization Studies, Vol 18, No 6, 1997, pp 973–996.
32.
Lorenzoni, op cit, Ref 2.
33.
AlbinoV.CarbonaraN.SchiumaG., (1998), ‘Le strategie di sviluppo dei network locali’, Sviluppo e Organizzazione, No 170, 1998, pp 33–46.
34.
GandolV., ‘Relazionalità e cooperazione nelle aree-sistema’, Economia e Politica industriale, No 65, 1990, pp 95–117.
35.
OnidaF., ‘Introduzione’, in OnidaF.ViestiG., eds, I distretti industriali: Crisi o evoluzione?, Egea, Torino, 1992.
36.
LippariniA.LorenzoniG., ‘Le organizzazioni ad alta intensità relazionale. Riflessioni sui processi di learning by interacting nelle aree ad alta concentrazione di imprese’, L'Industria, No 4, 1996, pp 817–839;
37.
LombardiM., ‘L'evoluzione del distretto industriale come sistema informativo: Alcuni spunti di riflessione’, L'industria, No 3, 1994, pp 523–535.
38.
Unioncamere, op cit, Ref 8.
39.
AlbinoV.GaravelliA.C.SchiumaG., ‘Knowledge transfer and inter-firm relationships in industrial districts: The role of the leader firm’, Technovation, Vol 19, 1999, pp 53–63.
40.
Ibid.
41.
GottardiG., ‘I Distretti industriali’, in BertelèU., ed, Cambiamento e Innovazione, Quaderni AiIG, 1997.
42.
LippariniLorenzoni, op cit, Ref 19.
43.
PioreSabel, op cit, Ref 3.
44.
Maillat, op cit, Ref 4.
45.
Albino, op cit, Ref 17.
46.
LippariniA., ‘Architetture relazionali inter-impresa: Promuovere l'innovazione attraverso le reti d'impresa’, Sviluppo e Organizzazione, No 153, 1996, pp 33–51.
47.
Unioncamere, op cit, Ref 8.
48.
RichardsonJ., ‘Vertical integration and rapid response in fashion apparel’, Organization Science, Vol 7, No 4, 1996, pp 400–412.
49.
BelussiF.ArcangeliF., ‘A typology of networks: Flexible and evolutionary firms’, Research Policy, Vol 27, No 4, 1998, pp 415–428.
50.
Ibid.
51.
Gottardi, op cit, Ref 23.
52.
Onida, op cit, Ref 18.
53.
Richardson, op cit, Ref 27.
54.
Albino, op cit, Ref 21.
55.
SchiumaG., ‘Knowledge codification in industrial districts’, Proceedings of the Workshop on SMEs and Districts: Hybrid Governance Forms, Knowledge Creation and Technology Transfer, Castellanza, 5–7 November 1998.
56.
The knowledge-based approach to the theory of the firm rejects the pure contractual interpretation of the nature of the firm and of the inter-firm relationship. In fact, it argues that the essential thing about the firm is not only its ‘contractual’, but also its ‘cognitive'nature: The firm is considered as a repository of distinct technological and organizational knowledge and it is able to grow on the basis of this knowledge (N.J. Foss, ‘Knowledge-based approaches to the theory of the firm: Some critical comments’, Organization Science, Vol 7, No 5, 1996, pp 470–476).
57.
Both perspectives are useful and complementary for a full understanding of inter-firm relationships. For further analysis on this topic, see ConnerK.PrahaladC.K., ‘A resource-based theory of the firm: Knowledge versus opportunism’, Organization Science, Vol 7, No 5, 1996, pp 477–501.
58.
GrantR.M.Baden-FullerC., ‘A knowledge-based theory of inter-firm collaboration’, Best Paper Proceedings 1995, Academy of Management, 1995, pp 17–21.
59.
KogutB.ZanderU., ‘Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities and the replication of technology’, Organization Science, Vol 3, No 3, 1992, pp 383–397.
60.
KogutB.ZanderU., ‘What firms do? Coordination, identity and learning’, Organization Science, Vol 7, No 5, 1996, pp 502–518.
61.
HamelG.DozY.PrahaladC.K., ‘Collaborate with your competitors and win’, Harvard Business Review, Vol 67, No 1, 1989, pp 133–139.
62.
HamelG., ‘Competition for competence and inter-partner learning within international strategic alliances’, Strategic Management Journal, Summer Special Issue, Vol 12, 1991, pp 83–103.
63.
KogutB., ‘Joint ventures: Theoretical and empirical perspectives’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol 9, No 4, 1998, pp 319–332.
64.
On this point, Kogut and Zander argue that ‘…productivity grows with the division of labour but specialization increases the costs of communication and coordination. The knowledge of the firm has an economic value over market transactions when identity leads to social knowledge that supports coordination and communication.’ (KogutZander, op cit, Ref 32, at p 502).
65.
Albino, op cit, Ref 21.
66.
GilbertM.Cordey-HayesM., ‘Understanding the process of knowledge transfer to achieve successful technological innovation’, Technovation, Vol 16, No 6, 1996, pp 301–312;
67.
HuberG.P., ‘Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literature’, Organization Science, Vol 2, No 1, 1991, pp 88–115.
68.
SteensmaK.H., ‘Acquiring technological competencies through inter-organizational collaboration: An organizational learning perspective’, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, Vol 12, 1996, pp 267–286.
69.
TeeceD. J., ‘Technology transfer by multinational firms: The resource costs of transferring technological know-how’, Economic Journal, Vol 87, 1977, pp 242–261.
70.
CohenW.M.LevinthalD.A., ‘Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation’, Administrative Science Quarterly, March 1990, pp 128–152.
71.
The division of ‘knowledge’ into two components, information and know-how, comes from the organizational and management literature, in which it is considered possible to stress two main approaches to the conceptualization of knowledge: The ‘techno-centric’ and the ‘human resource’ approaches (Y.Malhotra, ‘Knowledge management in inquiring organizations’, Proceedings of the Third American Conference on Information Systems (‘Philosophy of Information Systems’ mini-track), Indianapolis, 15–17 August 1997.
72.
MalhotraY., ‘Deciphering the knowledge management hype’, Journal for Quality & Participation, special issue on Knowledge Management, July–August 1998.). The techno-centric approach is based on the interpretation of knowledge in accordance with information theory. It considers knowledge as information and the human actor merely as an information processor. By contrast, the human resources approach considers knowledge to be strictly related to human behaviour.
73.
KogutZander, op cit, Ref 32.
74.
Schiuma, op cit, Ref 31.
75.
WinterS., ‘Knowledge and competence as strategic assets’, in TeeceD., ed, The Competitive Challenge – Strategies for Industrial Innovation and Renewal, Ballinger, Cambridge, MA, 1987.
76.
KogutZander, op cit, Ref 32.
77.
It is important to stress also that the quality of knowledge can affect the uncertainty of a communication process. This happens, for instance, when information is affected by ‘noise’.
78.
DaftR.LengelR., ‘Information richness: A new approach to managerial behaviour and organizational design’, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol 6, 1984, pp 191–233.
79.
DaftR.L.LengelR.H., ‘Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design’, Management Science, Vol 32, No 5, 1986, pp 554–571.
80.
The level of cognitive map sharing is related both to the characteristics of partner firms and to the context in which the cognitive interaction takes place. With reference to firms' characteristics, three key factors may be identified: ‘openness’, ‘trust’ and ‘prior experience’. As to the context, it is possible to distinguish two types: Internal and external (for a detailed analysis of the variables influencing the level of cognitive map sharing, see Albino, op cit, Ref 21, pp 55–56).
81.
NelsonR. R.WinterS.G., An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, Bellknap, Cambridge, 1982.
82.
NonakaI.TakeuchiH., The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation, Oxford University Press, New York, 1995;
83.
PolanyiM., Personal Knowledge – Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1962;
84.
PolanyiM., The Tacit Dimension, Doubleday, Garden City, NY, 1966.
85.
SpenderJ. C., ‘Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm’, Strategic Management Journal, No 17, 1996.
86.
Schiuma, op cit, Ref 31.
87.
GottardiG.FerrettiM., ‘Il trasferimento interorganizzativo dell'innovazione’, Sviluppo e Organizzazione, No 160, 1997, pp 35–50.
