Culture-Free or Culture-Bound? A Boundary Spanning...

20 Journal of Global Information Management, 11(4), 20-36, Oct-Dec 2003

Copyright © 2003, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without writtenpermission of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited.

Culture-Free or Culture-Bound?A Boundary Spanning Perspective

on Learning in KnowledgeManagement Systems

Robert M. Mason, Florida State University, USA

ABSTRACT

Knowledge management systems (KMSs) have been criticized as having a North Americanbias. The cultural dimension of KMSs, particularly the relationship of learning and culture inKM projects, are rarely discussed. This paper addresses these concerns in a review of theconceptual foundations for KM and by examining implementations of KM projects. Despite theevolutionary changes in how KM is viewed, KMSs, as they have been designed, implemented,and reported, do not appear to provide for cultural diversity among users. Instead, the reportsof KMSs indicate that such systems seek to create and maintain a homogeneous organizationalculture, and the adoption of such a shared culture appears to be a prerequisite for success. Thepaper discusses KMSs as systems that exhibit boundary spanning objects and processes inthree different categories, and an analysis of reported projects reveals that boundary spanningacross national and ethnic boundaries is rare.

Keywords: knowledge management systems, organizational learning, culture, boundaryspanning

INTRODUCTION:INFORMATION TECHNOLOGYAND KNOWLEDGEMANAGEMENT

Global enterprises increasingly turn toknowledge management systems (KMSs)to raise productivity and remain competi-tive. Although there is considerable evi-dence that applications of information tech-nology (IT) for storage and improved ac-cess of information help create value, someobservers believe that KMSs are limited in

their utility because they have been de-signed with a North American bias(Nonaka, 1995). To understand why thisbias may be of concern, it is useful to con-sider KM programs in the context of theresource-based view (RBV) of the firm(Penrose, 1959).

The dynamic economic environmentand the ever-increasing innovative capa-bilities of global organizations have renewedinterest in the RBV. In the opinion of manywriters, the RBV has had a significant im-pact on how information systems and strat-

Journal of Global Information Management, 11(4], 20-36, Oct-Dec 2003 21


egy are viewed. The RBV is closely linkedwith strategy and sustainable competitiveadvantage (Barney, 1994, 1996), plays amajor role in how the modern economictheory of the firm has developed (Madhok,2002), and perhaps has become the mostinfluential framework for the theory of stra-tegic management and sustained competi-tive advantage (Barney et al., 2001). Theknowledge-based view (KBV) of the firm,foreseen by Drucker (1988), is a specialcase of the RBV with a focus on knowl-edge as an organizational resource (Grant,1996a,1996b; Spender, 1996).

As in the more general case of theRBV’s influence on strategic managementand competitive advantage, the KBV pro-vides the conceptual foundation for muchof the research and design efforts that linkinformation technology (IT) and systems,strategic IT, organizational learning, andknowledge management systems. TheKBV has shaped the discussion of KMSsand the role of information technology instrategy and competitive advantage (Huber,1991; Mata, 1995; Kogut, 1996; Alavi,2001). While the KBV is the foundationfor IT support of knowledge management,most observers agree that knowledge byitself is not the source of a competitive ad-vantage. Instead, organizations use knowl-edge to gain a competitive advantagethrough learning (Stata, 1989), by the de-velopment of competencies (Rebentisch &Ferretti, 1995; Alavi, 2001), and throughknowledge integration (Grant, 1996b;Kogut, 1996). In other words, the valueof KM programs depends not only on theapplication of IT but on the individual andorganizational learning and knowledge in-tegration that comes from revealing andusing all the intellectual assets of the orga-nization. This requires a mix of technol-ogy and organizational processes.

From the perspective of the KBV, a

global enterprise that has members fromdistinct ethnic and cultural backgroundswould appear to have a potentially largeasset in the rich source of tacit and experi-ential knowledge of its members. KM ef-forts would be one way to access this po-tential asset. This paper addresses thequestion of how and to what extent firmsmay be taking advantage of the knowledgeasset represented by having members withdiverse backgrounds.

In the remainder of the paper, we willuse the terms “KM” and “KMS” inter-changeably; both will refer to the set ofactivities directed toward knowledge assetmanagement. Our approach is in the spiritof socio-technical systems, thus KM andKMS include physical resources (e.g., com-puters and communication infrastructures),conceptual resources (e.g., repositories ofexpressed knowledge, tacit knowledge),and the social and organizational processesassociated with the use of these resources.

The paper contributes to the discus-sion of KM by drawing attention to the im-portance of culture in KM efforts and pro-posing that KMSs may be viewed as bound-ary spanning systems. The cultural bound-ary is important for two reasons. First, eth-nic backgrounds and national cultures rep-resent a potential knowledge asset of theenterprise. Second, culture is a significantfactor in how people learn, and learning isrequired for the organization to take ad-vantage of the potential intellectual assetsin the organization. The paper usesCarlile’s boundary spanning framework(Carlile, 2002) to review the functions ofKMSs and to examine how these systemshandle culture.

In the following three sections, thispaper provides a synopsis of knowledgemanagement approaches and learning fromthree perspectives: a) a summary of thegoals and expected benefits of KMSs; b)



the role and importance of culture and eth-nic background in learning; and c) reportson the implementation and use of KMSsand the role of culture in these implemen-tations. The fourth section reviews theseKMS implementations using Carlile’sframework of practical boundary spanningsystems to gain a better understanding ofthe relative importance of culture in thedesign and use of a KMS in a particularorganization. Based on this review, mostKMSs appear to fulfill the boundary span-ning role primarily at two of Carlile’s threelevels. The KM activities at the third levelare not directed at spanning boundariesbetween or among national or ethnic cul-tures but rather at spanning hierarchicalboundaries. As a consequence, benefitsthat might accrue from the surfacing of dif-ferences in tacit cultural knowledge areunlikely to be realized. The final two sec-tions discuss the contribution of this paper,its limitations, and its potential significancefor research and practice.

KMS DIRECT AND INDIRECTBENEFITS: THE VALUE OFCULTURE AND LEARNING

Early studies of KMSs viewed suchsystems as the application of IT to improvethe information value chain (Rayport, 1995)by providing an organizational memory(Walsh & Ungson, 1991) and supportingorganizational learning (Huber, 1991). Arecent review of KM elaborates on thisbasic value chain model and summarizesprior studies as being focused on four ba-sic processes in knowledge work: creat-ing, storing/retrieving, transferring, and ap-plying knowledge, with each of these pro-cesses being subjected to more detailedanalyses (Alavi, 2001, p. 114). This con-ceptual model views KMSs as systematic

attempts to make visible the collective andindividual knowledge in an organization,develop a knowledge-intensive culture, andsupport this culture through an IT-enabledinfrastructure (Davenport & Prusak, 1998;Alavi, 2001). Specifically, a KMS is viewedas a class of information systems appliedto managing knowledge (Alavi, 2001), andIT is seen as an enabler of the basic pro-cesses of creating-storing/retrieving-trans-ferring-applying knowledge.

While much effort is devoted to cre-ating repositories of explicit knowledge, KMefforts also seek to identify sources of tacitknowledge, to surface and improve accessto this knowledge, and to enable collabora-tive learning and integration across func-tional areas (Alavi, 2001; Leonard, 2002;MacCormack, 2002; Fulmer, 2003). Intheir study of 31 KM projects, Davenportet al. (1998), identified four broad types ofobjectives: (1) create knowledge reposito-ries, (2) improve knowledge access, (3)enhance knowledge environment, and (4)manage knowledge as an asset.

Reports of tangible benefits have in-cluded cost savings (arising from, amongother things, reduced time required forknowledge access by having ready accessto needed information) and increased rev-enue and profit. These benefits are recog-nized as both direct and indirect. Directbenefits are those associated with havingthe collective knowledge readily accessibleto all organizational members: a corporatememory (e.g., best practices, repositoriesof projects, compilations of data about cli-ents and suppliers, etc.) and the facilitationof communication among the organization’smembers (a shared structure and commu-nication infrastructure, meta-informationthat enables members to locate others thatmay have the information they require), andknowledge transfer (Fulmer, 2003). Thesedirect benefits are antecedents to indirect



benefits: knowledge creation and innova-tion in products and processes, improvedcollaboration and the synthesis of tacitknowledge from multiple entities in the or-ganization, the creation and maintenanceof core competencies, and improved com-petitiveness. The indirect benefits requirelearning and knowledge integration acrossfunctional boundaries and may be evenmore valuable than the direct benefits.However, as noted by many of the cases,it is easier to see the impact of KM effortson the direct benefits, and firms are able toassign values to these direct benefits moreeasily than to indirect benefits (Alavi, 1997;Davenport et al., 1998; Hansen, 2002;MacCormack, 2002; Ng, 2002; Soo,Devinney, et al., 2002). The difficulty ofmeasuring indirect benefits may be over-come by measuring their impact. For ex-ample, Soo et al. (2002) suggest measur-ing changes in the innovative outputs thatarise from the KM effort.

A global firm comprises organizationsthat have individuals from many differentethnic and cultural backgrounds. From theKBV, knowledge from this diverse set ofemployees represents a potential intellec-tual asset. Appropriating the benefits fromthis asset, however, requires learning. Thenext section reviews the relationship be-tween culture and learning.

LEARNING: THE ROLE OFCULTURE

Learning is defined as “a relativelypermanent change in the ability to exhibit abehavior; this change occurs as the resultof a successful or unsuccessful experi-ence’’ (Klein & Mowrer, 1989, p. 2). Thisdefinition is consistent with the experien-tial learning model (Kolb, 1984) and with aprevailing view in the IT field that “an en-tity learns, if, through its processing of in-

formation, the range of its potential behav-iors is changed” (Huber, 1991, p. 89).Although these definitions are consistent—each relates to ability or capability to dem-onstrate behavior, for example—they havedifferences: Klein and Kolb emphasize ex-perience as the basis of learning; Huber,as an IS researcher, views the learner asan information (or knowledge) processingentity. Huber also posits that an organiza-tion learns if “…any of its units acquiresknowledge that it recognizes as potentiallyuseful to the organization” (Huber, 1991,p. 89).

Although a discussion of the similari-ties and distinctions between individual andorganizational learning could be interestingand enlightening (e.g., Dixon, 1994), thispaper accepts that individual learning iscritically important to (if not, as Huberposits, equivalent to) organizational learn-ing. Consequently, the following discus-sion focuses on individual learning and looksparticularly at contemporary theories aboutculture-based learning.

The study of learning processes hasprovided a rich field for psychologists forwell over 100 years (Mowrer, 1989). Ear-lier views of learning focused on the stimu-lus-response relationship and later (particu-larly Skinner’s work) associated reinforce-ment (rewards) with behavior. Contem-porary learning theory, in contrast, hasmoved away from global theories andlooked more closely at concept formation,problem solving, language, and other cog-nitive aspects of learning. Even the bio-logical aspects of learning are getting newattention (LoLordo, 1989; Mowrer, 1989;Zull, 2002).

Because learning is related to lan-guage and language use, and language rulesmay be “hardwired” as Chomsky proposedin the 1980s (see Baker, 2001, for recentrenewal of these arguments), one might



conclude that the basic biological founda-tion for learning is genetic and thereforewould not vary from culture to culture. Acommon biological base does not preventthe development and evolution of learningskills and abilities along different paths indistinct ethnic groups and cultures.

Indeed, for over 70 years research-ers have examined the link between cul-ture (and ethnicity) and learning. Hall(1959) summarizes the relationship be-tween learning and culture by saying, “oncepeople have learned to learn in a given way,it is extremely difficult to learn in any otherway […C]ulture reflects the way onelearns.” In 1930, Vygotsky and Luria pro-posed a culture-centered approach to learn-ing, and others developed this approachfurther (Vygotsky et al., 1987; Forman etal., 1993; Kozulin, 1998). In this perspec-tive, culture is a source of differences incognition as cognitive processes areformed through sociocultural activities.Cole and others developed this into a con-textual theory of cognitive functions (Cole,1971), which has as a foundation the ideathat different cultures have different sys-tems of mediated learning experience(MLE). Such systems are important tocognitive development, and differences indevelopment (which can arise from differ-ent MLEs) become evident when a learnermakes a transition from one system to an-other.

Some have argued “cross-cultural dif-ferences tend to disappear under the influ-ence of systematic exposure to formalschooling” (Kozulin, 1998, p. 110, citingCole, 1990). However, recent research con-firms Hall’s general statement and providesempirical evidence for Cole’s theory thatindividual cognitive abilities can developdifferently in different cultures. Even withinthe U.S., studies have indicated that somegroups exhibit distinct behavioral styles

through which they express their abilitiesto learn. Individuals who have experiencedculturally distinct environments while grow-ing up tend to use the skills gained in theseenvironments even after they are adults(Hilliard, 1992). In studies of young adultswho have completed schooling in one cul-ture and move to another culture, the re-sults indicate that the nature of the initialformal schooling makes a difference. Thisdifference is not simply a difference inknowledge base, but rather is associatedwith the basic skills by which one learnsnew concepts. The young adults exhibitedspecific difficulties associated with codingschema, concepts, and graphic and sym-bolic devices used in communication of ideas(e.g., tables, ordering, plans and maps).The difficulties extend to cognitive activi-ties such as the ability to identify or defineproblems (that is, the ability to apply theirknowledge to a set of data and infer theimplicit question or issue), the ability to workwith multiple sources of information, etc.In short, the young adults are missing cog-nitive antecedents that would enable themto excel in their new environment (Kozulin,1998). Kozulin concludes, “…cross-cul-tural differences in cognition are most prob-ably related to learning practices charac-teristic of different cultures and subcul-tures…” and “Two major determinants ofcognitive prerequisites are conceptual lit-eracy and facility with other symbolic psy-chological tools, and a mediated learningexperience responsible for the integrationof these tools into the cognitive system ofthe student” (Kozulin, 1998, p. 129). Hiswork showed that intervention could helplearners develop the basic skills that wouldenable them to learn effectively in the newenvironment.

Research on western-style educationhas included considerable recent interestin problem-based learning (PBL) as a dis-



tinct pedagogy. The potential benefit ofPBL is that it provides a better match offormal learning experience with environ-mental demands after the completion offormal schooling. While some researchreports mixed results, there is considerableenthusiasm for this approach in the sciencesand medicine (Culatta, 1994; Boud &Feletti, 1998; Jones et al., 2001). The useof PBL to develop competencies—abilitiesthat enable persons to continue to learn—is suggested by Tien, et al. (2003), whocompare the competencies identified asgoals by the educational systems in Aus-tralia, the UK, the U.S., Canada, and Tai-wan. Significantly for this review, the com-petencies in different countries are similarbut not identical in wording. For example,Australia and the UK emphasize instrumen-tal competencies more so than the U.S.,Canada, and Taiwan. Taiwan lists “self-understanding and potential development”as one of its ten competencies, a skill notarticulated by any of the other countries’educational systems (Tien, 2003). Tien’sstudy illustrates that even with manyshared goals, the educational objectives ofeven industrialized countries have differ-ences; the differences across a wider rangeof countries might be even greater.

Kozulin’s studies suggest that culturalbackgrounds can perform a critical role inthe development of problem definition andproblem solving abilities. Moreover, inter-vention to develop missing skills may berequired for a learner to make a success-ful transition from one learning system toanother. Since many KMSs are intendedto support group problem solving and learn-ing across functional boundaries, a PBLapproach may be a useful way to bridgecultural differences, as suggested by Tien(2003). However, there are practical diffi-culties in designing PBL interventions fornon-western and non-English speaking stu-

dents (Walker, 1996; Allen & Rooney,1998).

KMS IMPLEMENTATIONS ANDCULTURE

This study examined published reportsof KMSs in the literature and focused par-ticularly on the role of culture in KMS andKM project success. For individual cases,this section draws heavily on teaching cases(business school cases of individual imple-mentations) and other summaries of actualimplementations (e.g., Davenport et al.,1998). Table 1 summarizes the findings,including this author’s summary of whatappear to be critical success factors in eachcase. Table 2 provides additional examplesof the implementations summarized byDavenport et al. (1998).

The results of the studies summarizedin Tables 1 and 2 are striking in three ways.First is the emphasis by so many of theimplementations on standardization, bothtechnical standards and the format of thecontent. Second is the frequent mentionthat an organizational culture of knowledgesharing is a correlate of success. Third isthe prevalent, though not universal, use ofincentives to change behavior and encour-age system use. National culture and eth-nic background of the users are rarelymentioned.

Only one case directly discusses theimportance of national culture. In theBuckman Laboratories case, national cul-ture and non-English speakers werehandled explicitly (Fulmer, 2003). K’Netix,as it evolved, encouraged contributions tothe knowledge base in whatever languagethe contributor felt most comfortable. Akey component of the system was a groupof translators hired by the firm. The trans-lators translated into English the contribu-tions selected by the forum monitors, mak-



Source Context/Users Technologyand Methods

CSFs(author’s summary)

Support formultiplecultures?

(Massey, 2002) Nortel New ProductDevelopment (NPD)teams

ElectronicPerformanceSupportSystem

FinancingStandardized processCodified format

No

(MacCormack,2002)

Siemens ShareNet—multiple (sales,developers, managers)

KnowledgeRepository

User Networkfor query-response

Structured inputsQuery-Response

componentMarketing of system use;

incentives

No

(Fulmer, 1999;Fulmer, 2000;Fulmer, 2003)

Buckman Labs K'Netix Monitored butunmoderatedForums

Email

PrinciplesCode of EthicsAdaptabilityDedicated staff

Sensitive to cultureTried multiple

languages;settled on Englishonly

(Ng, 2002) PwC KnowledgeCurve;99% of 150,000 world-wide consultants

Intranet; LotusNotesdatabases

KM content process(editing/vetting)

Users’ view as integratedsystem

Access from any location

No

(Leonard,2002)

NASA/JPL: LLIS, APPLand KSI (face-to-faceprogram); ProjectLibraries; Know Whodirectory; TechnicalQuestions DB; legacyreviews; personalknowledge organizers(oral histories)

Customizableportal;DocuShare,leadershipdevelopment;Internet; DBs

ResourcesCulture and commitment

(varied from low to high)

No(Focus is on US

organization)

(Rukstad,2001)

DaimlerChryslerKnowledge ManagementStrategy

CAD/CAMProduct DBEBOKsTechClubs

SupportLink to performanceTop management

consensus on requiredcapabilities

No

Context/Users Technology and Methods NotesHP (9 projects) Electronic Sales Partner

Lotus Notes DBHighly enthusiastic managers (“most

successful implementation ofsoftware I have seen in 20 years”)

Sequent Computer Sales oriented documentrespository

Highly enthusiastic managers

BPX VideoconferencingDocument scanning/sharingEducation, support

Anecdotal success stories

Microsoft Breakout of K competenciesLink K competencies to staffing

and HRNational

SemiconductorIntranetLotus Notes

Engineers preferred Intranet; sales andmarketing preferred Notes

TelTech ResourceNetwork

Referral of experts (technologynot specified)

Customer feedbackRecords of K resources used in

proposals and projectscompared with “wins”

Basis for business model

Sematech Formal K transfer practicesa. K transfer

organizationb. K transfer sessionsc. Client “assignees”

Face-to-face most effective for Ktransfer

Consulting firm Structured K base Contributions to K base a significantfactor in compensation (not entirelysuccessful)

Automobile co. Specific K application guidelinesDecision audits to assess use of

KnowledgeSuccess not established

Table 1: Characteristics and Critical Success Factors (CSFs) of Sample KMSs

Table 2: Examples from “Successful Knowledge Management Projects” (Adapted fromDavenport et al.,1998)



ing these contributions more accessible toemployees whose native language was notEnglish. As the system evolved, separateregional forums began, including a Spanishlanguage case database on best practices.In 1997 there were 1,787 cases in Englishand 685 in Spanish (Fulmer, 2003). At thelast report, however, the firm had standard-ized on English as the common languagefor contributions, rather than having sepa-rate language forums (Fulmer, 2000). Con-sequently, the only case that gave attentionto national culture appears to have “re-gressed to the mean” and decided on astandardized approach to knowledge shar-ing.

This review of KM contrasts with theattention paid to culture in studies of otherinformation systems, (e.g., Walsham, 2002)and in other studies of international man-agement, (e.g., Erez & Earley, 1993). Thetendency to ignore cultural background inKM efforts suggests that KMS designersmay be implicitly adopting the “culture-free” hypothesis as a basis for design. Theculture-free hypothesis expresses thethought that there is universality to organi-zational design and structures—that orga-nizations are micro social entities that canexist without reference to their immediatesocietal environment. This is in contrast tothe culture-bound view that organizationsmatch their structures to fit their societalenvironment (Maurice, 1976). For a widerange of production firms, the culture-freehypothesis is supported by a meta-analysis(Miller, 1987). There is some evidencesupporting the culture-free hypothesis inbanks (Birnbaum, 1985), but research thatexamines this hypothesis in other profes-sional service work is missing. Perhapsthe lack of attention to (national) culture inKM efforts is understandable, particularlygiven the experience and decision ofBuckman Laboratories, but there is no re-

search that supports “culture-free” as anormative approach to knowledge work (orother professional service work).

KMSS AS BOUNDARYSPANNING SYSTEMS

Boundary spanning has been recog-nized as a necessary component in pro-cesses that require coordination and trans-lations among diverse groups (Star &Greisemer, 1989) and different functionalgroups or “thought worlds” (Dougherty,1992). Product development is an exampleof a process requiring such coordination.KM and learning are often discussed in thecontext of new product development(NPD) processes; (Chapman & Hyland,in press; Verganti, 1998; Ramesh andTiwana, 1999; Alavi, 2001).

Carlile’s (2002) study of boundaryspanning objects in an NPD process sug-gests a useful framework for examining thefunctions of KMSs. Carlile looked at thefour primary functions involved in the cre-ation of a new product (sales/marketing,design engineering, manufacturing engineer-ing, and production) and examined how thenew product development team dealt withthe specialized knowledge of each area.Each of the four functional areas had dif-ferent and specialized (in Carlile’s terms,“localized and embedded”) knowledge,structured in a way that made sense to thegroup. This knowledge specialization pre-sented a barrier to the effective operationof the NPD team—the team found it diffi-cult to exchange and synthesize knowledgeas necessary for the successful develop-ment of a new product. Carlile observedthat the team overcame this barrier by us-ing boundary spanning objects that oper-ated at three different levels: syntactic,semantic, and pragmatic.

At the syntactic level, repositories



enabled communication of facts andagreed-upon tasks and actions. At the se-mantic level, standardized forms and meth-ods enabled not only communication offacts, but also provided a way for the dif-ferent groups to clarify differences in mean-ing. The objects at this semantic level(standard forms and methods) enabled theteam to translate the knowledge embed-ded in one group so that other groups con-tributing to the product development couldunderstand it. At the pragmatic level, ob-jectives, maps, and models enabled eachgroup to transform embedded knowledgeinto knowledge that the team (and othersnot in the group) could understand.

Earlier, Brown and Duguid (1998)pointed out different roles of boundaryspanning activity, noting particularly theneed for translators between communities.In commenting on Carlile’s model, Brown(2002) suggests that Carlile’s three levelscorrespond to three different levels ofknowledge ambiguity among communitiesof practice. At each level, different typesof boundary objects are necessary for com-munication, knowledge transfer, and learn-ing.

At the syntactic level, the differencesacross the boundaries are explicit, clear, andstable. A shared syntax is a necessary (butnot necessarily sufficient) condition forknowledge sharing under these conditions.Taxonomies and classification (e.g., shareddatabases) provide this syntax and enablethe sharing and transfer of knowledgeamong groups that have a clear under-standing of their differences and understandthat these differences are relatively stable.

At the semantic level, the differ-ences are neither clear nor necessarilystable (Brown, 2002), and the solution is toprovide a means of translating meaningsacross boundaries. At this level, Carlile(2002) observed the use of standardized

forms and methods as boundary objects.At the pragmatic level, Brown (2002)

notes that the knowledge of one group isnot neutral to another’s. The communitiesmay have different values and/or powerrelationships, and this level of differencerequires boundary objects that provide ad-ditional capability beyond the first two lev-els. At this level, the groups must trans-form their knowledge and create new(shared) knowledge rather than simply ex-changing or transferring knowledge. Reso-lution of the group differences requiresobjects such as models and maps, objectsthat enable the sharing of methods of think-ing and the surfacing of assumptions andvalues. Only when both groups understandthese differences can the two communi-ties be co-creators of knowledge that didnot exist before the differences were dis-cussed. It is at this level that one mightobserve the kind of knowledge integrationand synergy anticipated by the KBV of thefirm.

Considering KM efforts and KMSsas processes to span the boundaries ofgroups that have different knowledge andexperience, one can map the examplesfrom Tables 1 and 2 onto Carlile’s frame-work. At the syntactic level, shared data-bases (e.g., repositories of best practices,evident in all the cases) provide a way forgroups to transfer knowledge. At the se-mantic level, standard forms and practices(highlighted in Nortel, Siemens, PwC,EYKnowledgeWeb, KPMG’s KWeb andAndersen’s Knowledge Xchange) providethe means of representation of differentknowledge in familiar formats and a meansof learning from groups that have a differ-ent knowledge base.

At the pragmatic level, where differ-ences in value would be apparent, Tables 1and 2 provide fewer examples. The use ofprinciples (Buckman Laboratories) as a



boundary-spanning object between uppermanagement (the owner) and employeescould be considered a pragmatic level ob-ject, helping transform the owner’s valuesinto practice. An interesting distinction isthat the principles are not developed in col-laboration with the employees but ratherpresented to them as a standard—a codi-fied set of behavioral principles that enablethem to understand the goals and objec-tives of the firm. Similarly, one may con-sider the incentives and efforts to changecorporate culture as boundary spanningactivities at the pragmatic level.1 Theseactivities may also be viewed as proceduresand routines that serve to translate valuesfrom the executive level to managers andother employees—procedures that mightalso be viewed as semantic. In otherwords, these processes span a hierarchi-cal boundary, not an ethnic or national cul-tural boundary.

Table 3 summarizes Carlile’s levels,Brown’s (2002) view of the community dif-

ferences for which spanning is required,and the corresponding boundary spanningtechniques used by KMSs. Note that allof the KM efforts report use of syntacticboundary objects (repositories).

Table 4 presents the examples inTable 1 in terms of the different boundaryobjects in Carlile’s model. Most objectsand processes span communities of prac-tice (e.g., different functional groups) at thesyntactic or semantic level, and the major-ity are operating at the syntactic level—that is, most of the KMSs are set up tofacilitate the exchange of knowledge at thelevel where the knowledge differences are,in Brown’s (2002) words, “clear andstable.” (The leadership development pro-cess at NASA/JPL, assuming it includesdialogue among individuals with differentvalues, is an example of a process operat-ing at the pragmatic level, but the literatureprovides little detail.) All behavioral changeprocesses and exercise of power (incen-tives, top management support, etc.) are

Level(Carlile,2002)

CommunityDifferences(Brown, 2002)

Boundary ObjectFunction orSolution—adaptedfrom (Brown,2002)

KMS BoundaryObjects

Example KMS

Pragmatic Knowledge isnot neutral;values andpower maydiffer acrossboundaries

TransformationExercise of power

ObjectivesMapsModelsIncentives

Forums

Buckman Labs

SiemensAndersenE&YKPMGOthers (Davenport,

Long et al. 1998)Buckman LabsNASA/JPL

Semantic Unclear Translation Principles

Standard methodsand procedures

Standard, codifiedforms

BuckmanLabs K’Netix

NortelE&YAndersenPwC

Syntactic Clear, stable CommunicationShared knowledge

and data base

Repositories All

Table 3: Levels and Functions of Boundary Spanning Processes with KMS Examples



classified as “pragmatic” processes thatspan the boundary between executives andother employees—a hierarchical boundaryspanning process. Only the forums ofBuckman Labs explicitly recognize the roleof national culture and provide the oppor-tunity for knowledge to be shared acrossethnic boundaries and national back-grounds. The latest report suggested thatthese forums now are using a single lan-guage (English) for sharing knowledge.

CONCLUSIONS ANDDISCUSSION

The intellectual foundation for KM isthe KBV of the firm. For global enter-

prises, the tacit and experiential knowledgeof staff from different cultures is a poten-tial knowledge asset, one that a KM effortmight seek to exploit. However, reviewsof KMSs and KM efforts revealed littleattention directed toward the cultural orethnic backgrounds of staff. National andethnic culture are not important consider-ations in most KM efforts. There is, how-ever, a universal emphasis on creating andmaintaining an organizational culture thatsupports knowledge exchange and the useof the KMS. Indeed, the success of theseKM efforts seems linked to establishing andrewarding a shared organizational culture.The research identified only one system—Buckman Labs—that explicitly recognized

Level in Carlile’sFramework

KMS, KM effort Boundary Objects or Processes

Synt

actic

Sem

antic

Prag

mat

ic

Nortel New Product Development(NPD) teams

FinancingStandardized processCodified format

XXX

XX

Siemens ShareNet—multiple(sales, developers, managers)

Structured inputsQuery-ResponseIncentives

X XX

XBuckman Labs K'Netix Forums

Code of EthicsPrinciples

X XXX

X*

XPwC KnowledgeCurve; 99% of

150,000 world-wide consultantsUsers’ view as integrated systemKM content process (editing/vetting)

XX X

NASA/JPL: LLIS, APPL and KSI(face-to-face program); ProjectLibraries; Know Who directory;Technical Questions DB; legacyreviews; personal knowledgeorganizers (oral histories)

ResourcesPortalDocuShareDBsLeadership Development

XXXX

X X

DaimlerChrysler KnowledgeManagement Strategy

CAD/CAMProduct DBEBOKsTechClubs

XXXX X

E&Y: EYKnowledgeWeb Lotus NotesPerformance reviews

X XX

Andersen Consulting: KnowledgeXchange

Pre-filtered respositoriesK Managers with specialized rolesAnnual reviews

X XXX X

KPMG: Kweb Intranet X

Table 4. KMSs as Boundary Spanning Systems

* Only this boundary spanning object/process specifically recognizes cultural distinctions; otherpragmatic level objects span top executive and employee communities and may relate more topower than to sharing of knowledge



the potential value in different national cul-tures. The latest report on this system in-dicates that the decision has been made toemphasize English and thus provide a com-mon language base for all employees, sothe sole example of a KM that had nationalculture as a significant dimension has dis-carded this factor in its latest incarnation.

When examined using the lens ofCarlile’s pragmatic view of boundary ob-jects, current KMSs and knowledge man-agement efforts have emphasized the syn-tactic (knowledge transfer) and semantic(knowledge translation) levels of boundaryspanning. Boundary spanning at the prag-matic (knowledge transformation and learn-ing) level has focused on internal culturaland behavioral change (related to adminis-trative power) rather than capturing andexploiting knowledge from diverse nationalor ethnic cultures.

Present-day KM efforts are richer invision and technique than earlier KM imple-mentations that had a primary emphasis oncomputer-based repositories of readilyavailable data and knowledge—they includeprocesses and forums in which people ex-change knowledge face to face, for ex-ample. However, even current KM effortshave not explicitly recognized the potentialvalue of objects and processes that oper-ate at the pragmatic level to span culturalboundaries. It may be that boundary span-ning at this level is required to realize thefull potential of knowledge integration andco-creation of new knowledge from cul-turally diverse groups.

Based on this review, it appears thatcurrent KM efforts have developed con-sistent with the “culture-free” hypothesis.That is, by not taking into account multiplenational cultures or ethnic backgrounds,these KM efforts tacitly adopt the positionthat a single organizational culture is ap-propriate without regard for the societal

environment.This finding raises several issues.

The “culture-free” hypothesis is not con-sistent with other studies that examine cul-ture in IT applications such as group sup-port systems (Watson, 1994) and softwareproduction (Walsham, 2002). This raisesthe question of whether KM is goingthrough a temporary phase and will evolveto a more culturally sensitive form of man-agement, or if KM, as organizational pro-cesses and structures seem to be doing forproduction organizations, will appear thesame regardless of cultural environment orthe cultural composition of the organiza-tion. The stated goal of KM efforts is toachieve knowledge integration and benefitfrom the collective knowledge of the orga-nization through learning. Because learn-ing is so dependent on cultural experience,it remains an open question if the currentculture-free approach is better. Can a cul-ture-free approach enable a KM effort toeffectively surface, or otherwise benefitfrom, the tacit knowledge of its staff fromdifferent cultures, the component of the“collective knowledge assets” that comeswith the staff? More fundamentally, if KMis intended to exploit the entirety of theorganization’s intellectual assets, why docurrent systems appear to have ignored thisethnic and cultural component of theorganization’s collective knowledge? Iforganizations truly value all components ofthe collective knowledge, then KM effortsshould pay more explicit attention to theuse of objects and processes at the prag-matic level to span cultural boundaries.

By reviewing contemporary learningtheory and showing the relationship of cul-ture to learning in the context of knowl-edge management and knowledge manage-ment systems, this paper contributes to theKM discussion by directing attention to thecultural aspects of KM. The paper also



highlights what may be a limitation of cur-rent KM efforts by viewing them as bound-ary-spanning systems that often operate attwo of the levels in Carlile’s model—thesyntactic and the semantic—but not alwaysat the pragmatic level.

The research in this paper has beenlimited to secondary reports of KM effortstaken from the management and informa-tion systems literature. Consequently, it hasall the limitations that come with depend-ing on the reports of others. Constraints oftime and space, and the author’s judgmenton dealing with these constraints mean thatthe research may have missed significantreports from other fields. The paper alsois limited by the scope of the reviewed lit-erature. It represents a review of the re-cent KM literature and, while it examinedthe strategic links of KM to the KBV ofthe firm, the paper did not critically exam-ine the fundamental assumptions in knowl-edge ontology and epistemology. The pa-per did not review, for example, ERP sys-tems and other strategic systems that im-pose structure on entire organizations. Acomparison of such systems with KM ef-forts might lead to different conclusions anddifferent insights. Moreover, the paper didnot examine the philosophical, linguistic, andsemiotic foundations for the “syntactic, se-mantic, and pragmatic” levels in Carlile’sboundary spanning model. Such an inves-tigation might provide a richer set of expla-nations and models with which to improveour understanding of the complex practiceof sharing and developing knowledge inorganizations.

IMPLICATIONS FOR KMRESEARCH AND PRACTICE

The findings raise several questionsabout the current designs of KMSs and the

evolution of KM. Missing in current dis-cussions of KMSs is a discussion of thepotential knowledge assets represented byculturally diverse staff in global organiza-tions. Despite the KM goals of tappinginto all parts of the collective knowledge inthe firm, this cultural aspect of theorganization’s knowledge appears, frompublished reports, to be neglected. With-out research on its value, one cannot saythat this culturally based set of assets hassufficient value to deserve more formalrecognition in KM efforts.

KM efforts appear to be adopting,without debate or research support for itsefficacy, a culture-free design. Researchis needed to determine if this culture-freeapproach is most appropriate for KM, or ifother, more culturally sensitive approachesto KM would enable an organization to re-alize even greater benefits than it can real-ize using current practices. As research-ers, we may want to look toward the criti-cal review of our models of KM (e.g.,(Schultze, 2002), and to consider the sug-gestion that we re-frame our systems assupporting emergent knowledge (Markuset al., 2002), in order to think “outside thebox” of the prevailing view of KM as ap-plications of IT to improve the informationvalue chain. If a culture-free approach isjudged to be appropriate, then research isneeded to understand if an intermediate stepis necessary to enable individuals from non-western (non-North American) cultures toadapt to these approaches.

From a practical viewpoint, the re-search suggests that current KM effortsmay need to give added attention to thelearning dimension of their portfolio of ac-tivities. Contemporary learning theoryshows a strong relationship between learn-ing and cultural experience—individualslearn based on how they have learned inthe past, and early ethnic and cultural ex-



periences provide a base of models andabilities that enhance and constrain anindividual’s capabilities in new situations.The implication of these theories for KMpractice is two-fold. First, staff from dif-ferent ethnic and cultural backgrounds willnot necessarily share a basic set of modelswhen they begin with their new firm, andthese staff may benefit from efforts tobridge the gap in meta-learning skills andmodels. The frequent reports of KM ef-forts to reward use of a KMS (conform toa corporate norm) may reflect one ap-proach to bridging this gap, but typicallythese have been reported simply as effortsfor corporate cultural change. Second, if afirm is to benefit from the tacit knowledgethese staff members bring with them, it mayneed to incorporate processes and tech-niques that are not evident in current ex-amples of KM efforts.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This paper is significantly differentfrom an earlier version, and the authorthanks Roberto Evaristo and three anony-mous reviewers for thoughtful and insight-ful comments that led to this revision.

ENDNOTE1 The author thanks an anonymous reviewerfor pointing out that incentives and otherbehavioral change processes could be clas-sified in this way.

REFERENCES

Alavi, M. (1997). KPMG PeatMarwick U.S.: One Giant Brain. Cam-bridge, MA, HBS: Report No. 9-397-108;21pp.

Alavi, M., and Dorothy E. Leidner(2001). “Review: Knowledge ManagementAnd Knowledge Management Systems:

Conceptual Foundations And Research Is-sues,” MIS Quarterly, 25(1): 107-136.

Allen, R. and P. Rooney (1998). “De-signing A Problem-Based Learning Envi-ronment For ESL Students In BusinessCommunication.” Business Communica-tion Quarterly 61(2): 48.

Barney, J. and M. Wright, et al.(2001). “The Resource-Based View OfThe Firm: Ten Years After 1991.” Jour-nal of Management 27(6): 625-641.

Birnbaum, P. H., and G.Y.Y. Wong(1985). “Organizational Structure of Mul-tinational Banks in Hong Kong from aCulture-Free Perspective.” AdministrativeScience Quarterly 30(2), 262-277.

Boud, D. and G. Feletti (1998). TheChallenge Of Problem-Based Learning.London, Kogan Page.

Brown, J. S. (2002). An Epistemo-logical Perspective on Organizations andInnovations. Organizational Knowledgeand Learning Conference 2002, Athens.

Brown, J. S., and P. Duguid (1998).Organizing Knowledge. California Man-agement Review 40(1): 90-111.

Brown, J. S. and P. Duguid (2001).“Knowledge and Organization: A Social-Practice Perspective.” Organization Sci-ence 12(2): 198-213.

Carlile, P. R. (2002). “A PragmaticView Of Knowledge And Boundaries:Boundary Objects In New Product Devel-opment.” Organization Science 13(4):442-255.

Chapman, R. and P. Hyland “Com-plexity And Learning Behaviors In Prod-uct Innovation.” Technovation; In Press.

Chard, A. M. (1997). KnowledgeManagement at Ernst & Young. Stanford,Graduate School of Business, LelandStanford Junior University: 28.

Cole, M. (1971). The Cultural Con-text Of Learning And Thinking: An Ex-ploration In Experimental Anthropology.New York, Basic Books.

Culatta, E. (1994). “New Modes for



Making Scientists.” Science 266(5186):875+877+883-884+888.

Davenport, T. H., D. W. D. Long, etal. (1998). “Successful knowledge manage-ment projects.” Sloan Management Re-view 39(2): 43.

Davenport, T. H. and L. Prusak(1998). Working Knowledge : How Or-ganizations Manage What They Know.Boston, Mass, Harvard Business SchoolPress.

Dixon, N. M. (1994). The Organi-zational Learning Cycle: How We CanLearn Collectively. New York, McGraw-Hill.

Dougherty, D. (1992). “InterpretiveBarriers to Successful Product Innovationin Large Firms.” Organization Science3(2): 179-202.

Drucker, P. F. (1988). “The Comingof the New Organization.” Harvard Busi-ness Review 66(1): 45.

Erez, M. and P. C. Earley (1993).Culture, self-identity, and work. NewYork, Oxford University Press.

Forman, E. A., N. Minick, et al.(1993). Contexts for learning : sociocul-tural dynamics in children’s develop-ment. New York, Oxford University Press.

Fulmer, W. E. (1999). BuckmanLaboratories (B). Cambridge, MA,Harvard Business School: Report No. 9-800-033; 2pp.

Fulmer, W. E. (2000). Buckman Labs(A) Teaching Note. Cambridge, HarvardBusiness School: Report No. 5-800-360.

Fulmer, W. E. (2003). BuckmanLaboratories (A). Cambridge, MA,Harvard Business School: Report No. 9-800-160;15pp.

Grant, R. M. (1996a). “Prospering indynamically-competitive environments:Organizational capability as knowledge in-tegration.” Organization Science 7(4):375.

Grant, R. M. (1996b). “Toward aknowledge-based theory of the firm.” Stra-

tegic Management Journal 17(Winter): 109-122.

Hall, E. T. (1959). The Silent Lan-guage. New York, Doubleday & Co.

Hansen, M. T., Thomas H. Daven-port (2002). Knowledge Management atAndersen Consulting. Cambridge, MA,HBS: 14.

Hilliard, A. G., III (1992). “Behav-ioral Style, Culture, and Teaching andLearning.” Journal of Negro EducationAfricentrism and Multiculturalism: Con-flict or Consonance, 61(3), : 370-377.

Huber, G. (1991). “OrganizationalLearning: The Contributing Processes andLiteratures.” Organization Science 2(1):88-115.

Jones, R., R. Higgs, et al. (2001).“Changing face of medical curricula.”The Lancet 357(9257): 699-703.

Klein, S. B. and R. R. Mowrer(1989). Contemporary Learning Theo-ries: Instrumental Conditioning TheoryAnd The Impact Of Biological Con-straints On Learning. Hillsdale, N.J.,Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kogut, B., and Zander, U. (1996).“What firms do? Coordination, identity, andlearning.” Organization Science 7(5):502-518.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). ExperientialLearning: Experience as The Source ofLearning and Development. EnglewoodCliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Kozulin, A. (1998). PsychologicalTools : A Sociocultural Approach ToEducation. Cambridge, Mass. ; London,Harvard University Press.

Leonard, D., and David Kiron (2002).Managing Knowledge and Learning atNASA and the Jet Propulsion Labora-tory (JPL). Cambridge, MA, HarvardBusiness School: 30.

LoLordo, V. M., and AnastasiaDroungas (1989). Selective Associationsand Adaptive Specializations: Taste Aver-sions and Phobias; in Contemporary



Learning Theories: Instrumental Con-ditioning Theory and the Impact of Bio-logical Constraints on Learning. S. B.Klein, and Robert R. Mowrer (eds).Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associ-ates: 145-180.

MacCormack, A. (2002). SiemensShareNet: Building a Knowledge Net-work. Cambridge, MA, Harvard: report no.9-800-160; 27pp.

Madhok, A. (2002). “ReassessingThe Fundamentals And Beyond: RonaldCoase, The Transaction Cost And Re-source-Based Theories Of The Firm AndThe Institutional Structure Of Production.”Strategic Management Journal 23(6):535.

March, A. (1997). A Note on Knowl-edge Management. Cambridge, MA,HBS: Report No. 9-398-031; 20pp.

Markus, M. L., A. Majchrzak, et al.(2002). “A Design Theory For SystemsThat Support Emergent Knowledge Pro-cesses.” MIS Quarterly 26(3): 179.

Massey, A. P., Mitzi M. Montoya-Weiss, and Tony M. O’Driscoll (2002).“Knowledge Management in Pursuit ofPerformance: Insights from Nortel Net-works.” Management Information Sys-tems Quarterly 26(3): 269-289.

Mata, F. J., William L. Fuerst, and JayB. Barney (1995). “Information Technol-ogy And Sustained Competitive Advantage:A Resource-Based Analysis.” MIS Quar-terly 19(4): 487.

Maurice, M. (1976). “Introduction -Theoretical And Ideological Aspects OfThe Universalistic Approach To The StudyOf Organizations.” International Studiesof Management & Organization 6(3): 3.

Miller, G. A. (1987). “Meta-Analysisand the Culture-Free Hypothesis.” Orga-nization Studies 8(4): 309-326.

Mowrer, R. R., and Stephen B. Klein(1989). A Contrast Between Traditionaland Contemporary Learning Theory.Contemporary Learning Theories. S. B.

Klein, and Robert R. Mowrer. Hillsdale, NJ,Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ng, P., and Ali Farhoomand (2002).The PricewaterhouseCoopers Know-ledgeCurve and the Spinoff of PwCConsulting. Hong Kong, The Centre forAsian Business Cases, University of HongKong: HKU221; reprinted by HBS as 02/147C; 15pp.

Nonaka, I., and Hirotaka Takeuchi(1995). The Knowledge-Creating Com-pany. New York and Oxford, Oxford Uni-versity Press.

Penrose, E. T. (1959). The TheoryOf The Growth Of The Firm. Oxford*Eng.*, Blackwell.

Ramesh, B. and A. Tiwana (1999).“Supporting Collaborative Process Knowl-edge Management in New Product Devel-opment Teams.” Decision Support Sys-tems 27(1-2): 213-235.

Rayport, J. F., and Sviokla, J.J. (1995).“Exploiting the virtual value chain.”Harvard Business Review 73(6): 75-85.

Rebentisch, E. S. and M. Ferretti(1995). “A Knowledge Asset-Based ViewOf Technology Transfer In InternationalJoint Ventures.” Journal of Engineeringand Technology Management 12(1-2): 1-25.

Rukstad, M. G., and P.Coughlan(2001). DaimlerChrysler KnowledgeManagement Strategy. Cambridge, MA,HBS: Report No. 9-702-412; 18.

Schultze, U., and D. E. Leidner(2002). “Studying Knowledge Manage-ment in Information Systems Research:Discourses and Theoretical Assumptions.”Management Information Systems Quar-terly 26(3).

Soo, C., T. Devinney, et al. (2002).“Knowledge Management: Philosophy, pro-cesses and pitfalls.” California Manage-ment Review 44(4): 129.

Spender, J.-C. (1996). “MakingKnowledge The Basis Of A DynamicTheory Of The Firm.” Strategic Manage-



ment Journal 17: 45.Star, S. L. and J. R. Greisemer (1989).

“Insitutional Ecology, ‘Translations’ andBoundary Objects: Amateurs and Profes-sionals in Berkeley’s Museum of VertebrateZoology, 1907-39.” Social Studies in Sci-ence 19: 387-420.

Stata, R. (1989). “OrganizationalLearning: the key to management innova-tion.” Sloan Management Review 30(3):63-74.

Tien, C.-J., Jui-Hung Ven, and Shoh-Liang Chou (2003). “Using the problem-based learning to enhance student’s keycompetencies.” Journal of AmericanAcademy of Business, Cambridge 2(2):454.

Verganti, R. (1998). “Leveraging onSystemic Learning to Manage the EarlyPhases of Product Innovation Projects.”Journal of Product Innovation Manage-ment 15(5): 471-472.

Vygotsky, L. S., R. W. Rieber, et al.

(1987). The Collected Works of L.S.Vygotsky. New York, Plenum Press.

Walker, A., Edwin Bridges, and Ben-jamin Chan (1996). “Wisdom gained, wis-dom given: instituting PBL in a Chineseculture.” Journal of Educational Admin-istration 34(5): 12.

Walsh, J. P. and G. R. Ungson (1991).“Organizational Memory.” Academy ofManagement Review 16(1): 57-91.

Walsham, G. (2002). “Cross-culturalsoftware production and use: astructurational analysis.” MIS Quarterly26(4): 359-380.

Watson, R. T., Teck Hua Ho, and K.S. Raman (1994). “Culture: a Fourth Di-mension of Group Support Systems.” Com-munications of the ACM 37(10): 44-55.

Zull, J. E. (2002). The Art of Chang-ing the Brain: Enriching Teaching by Ex-ploring the Biology of Learning. Ster-ling, VA, Stylus Publishing, LLC.

Robert M. Mason is Professor of Management Information Systems and SprintProfessor of Business Administration at Florida State University. His undergraduateand masters degrees are in electrical engineering (MIT) and his PhD is in indus-trial and systems engineering (Georgia Tech). He has spent time in industry andmanaged his own consulting firm before returning full time to academia. He is aformer president of the International Association for the Management of Technol-ogy (IAMOT) and serves as an associate editor for Technovation. His researchinterests include technology management, especially knowledge management andlearning, and the cultural issues associated with information technology.

Culture-Free or Culture-Bound? A Boundary Spanning...

Documents

Transcript of Culture-Free or Culture-Bound? A Boundary Spanning...