A contingency approach to the management:

It is important to reiterate the point made in the previous chapter that neither the
cognitive nor the community approach is inherently preferable to that other. Nor are
they mutually exclusive, rather , they are more or less appropriate in different
situations. The cognitive approach may be appropriate for the sharing of explicit
information, where those involved have enough common understanding to make
the passing of information from person to person relatively straightforward. So, for
example a group of software engineers, who have already developed a common
language for software development may well be able to use e-mail to jointly
develop a new software program. They may have little requirement for any face-toface contact in this process. Similarly documentation strategies in LiftCo were quite
useful at the point where the innovation had become sufficiently well-routinized and
a common set of languages and understandings had developed around the
innovation. This meant that the documentation could be interpreted.
The cognitive approach may also be ore applicable where the objective of
knowledge-sharing is the creation of a tangible entity the sharing of knowledge
about pitch-control strategies was possible because the knowledge effectively
became codified and embodied in the technology itself. This knowledge was then
able to be share across the technology. Similarly, and using an example closer to
many peoples experience , knowledge about how to use Windows software
applications is effectively codified and communicated in the form of technology
itself. This embodies strict rules over what actions are permissible, or advisable, and
we are reminded of these in very explicit ways- for example , with error messages,
keeps, and helpful paperclips and dogs. In other words knowledge on how to use
the technology is effectively codified into the design of the technology . this means
that, once users learn the basic codes for operating in a windows environment ,
they can learn new windows applications, relatively quickly.
The community approach, on the other hand, is appropriate where the sharing of
tacit knowledge is central and those involved do not share a common frame of
reference of context. For example, in a situation where a group of IT specialists is
designing a software program for a group of business analysts, there may be little
common understanding or context between the two groups. Moreover, much of the
knowledge on both sides is likely to be tacit and difficult to articulate. In this
situation, considerable face-to-face contact will be necessary before each side
understands the issues confronting the other and so can develop a solution that is
feasible and useful. This will involve what has been termed perspective taking
such that one group can begin to appreciate the world-review and context that
underpin the knowledge and experience of the other.
The community approach is also more appropriate in situations where the goal of
the joint activity is relatively intangible and context-dependent. This applies
particularly to interdisciplinary projects that focus on both technical and

organizational change, such as the process innovation projects described in the

LiftCo and BandkCo cases. In these situations, knowledge is much more tacit and
difficult to capture in explicit forms. In LiftCo, on the other hand, the project
managers were able to combine the use of technology with a community approach
at crucial moments during the innovation project, and were considerably more
successful in achieving their objectives. In projects with broad or hard-to-specify
objectives, therefore, the community approach to managing knowledge work is
likely to be more applicable where the development of strong interpersonal
network ties is a crucial mechanism
This contingency approach to the management of knowledge work can be
developed further. It is not simply that different activities or project tasks are more
suited to one or another approach the focus was on considering how knowledge
could be effectively managed to support innovation-an example of knowledge
work. In that chapter we argued that different approaches to the management of
knowledge would need to be used depending on the episode of the innovation
process that was central at any particular point in time. In considering this a third
approach to managing knowledge, encapsulated in the networking approach- with
an emphasis on the development of broad , weak social networks was introduced to
supplement the cognitive and community approaches discussed earlier. This
showed that at the point in time where knowledge search and acquisition are a
main priority, a networking approach may be more applicable . the major point is
that these , and possibly other, approaches to the management of knowledge work
need to be applied flexibly, depending both on the purpose being pursued and the
process through which this evolves over time. The importance of context, and of
recognizing the different kinds of knowledge mobilized for different tasks, means
that there is unlikely to be a single approach that is effective. The relevance of any
particular approach will depend on its fit with these requirements, and particularly
on its ability to promote knowledge-sharing amongst the different groups involved.