Procesos de entrenamiento: Las caderas, los muslos y los pies

Figure 3.4. How Epistemic Objects Coordinate the Knowledge Heterogeneity and Discontinuity.

Our results manage to answer how epistemic objects affect knowledge acquisition, knowledge integration and knowledge sharing so as to coordinate the heterogeneity and discontinuity in knowledge that is mobilized during an IT innovation alliance depicted in Figure 3.4, and thus make three contributions. First, epistemic objects arouse ‘interest in them’ as well as keep them “alive as targets of research” (Rhein- berger, 2005, p. 406), and most literature has emphasized this motivation that comes from the compulsion to know (Covington, 1992). Drawing on their work, we further highlight a high degree of both affective and cognitive trust triggered from the emo- tional investment toward and the intimate attachment for the same epistemic arte- facts (Knorr-Cetina, 1997) among a temporary knowledge community. Specifically, a community of practice can be created around an epistemic object when the actors engage in a knowing work jointly and what holds them together is a shared interest, a common goal and a need to know what each other knows (Mandl et al., 1996). In this way, affective trust may be developed among the community members, which contains a strong confidence that their “interests will be fully protected”, resulting in

the creation of a collective better than the sum of its individual parts (Lewicki & Bunker, 1996, p. 122). Meanwhile, this knowledge community is also a temporary group, recognized as “a set of diversely skilled people working together on a com- plex task over a limited period of time” (Goodman & Goodman, 1976, p. 494). Thus, swift trust, or cognitive trust may emerge in such a group, dependent on the appear- ance of everything in a proper order and the attitude of respect for the capacities of the other partners to carry out their share of the tasks at hand (Holste & Fields, 2005). Hence we extend the intrinsic desire triggered by the unfulfilled epistemic objects to a high level of affective and cognitive trust, which contribute a new insight into how epistemic objects develop a knowledge community around themselves and produce a novel source of motivation among the members that increases not only their willingness but also their confidence in each other‘s competence to contribute to collaborative knowledge and innovation work, extending beyond the studies fo- cusing on formal incentives such as monetary rewards or normative control (Robert- son & Swan, 2003).

Secondly, our focus on the capacity of epistemic objects to elicit knowledge contrib- utes a novel understanding of identification in collaborative knowledge orchestration and innovation work. We find that by engaging in a knowing process and establish- ing various relationships with the epistemic object, the members can achieve a sense of identity associated with their own domains of expertise in their community so that they are more engaged in their specialization. Drawing on the work of Brown and Lewis (2011) who brought to the fore a source of identification for the community members themselves in order to make them concentrate more on their specialized knowledge, we additionally highlight the capacity of epistemic objects to allow the members to have a complete picture of each other’s area of knowledge so as to help them detect the precise knowledge required quickly. Via the mechanism of knowledge elicitation, the participants have the opportunity to gain an identification with the knowledge of their community, so that they have a full understanding of what they already have, what they still need, who knows what and how they can ac- quire the needed knowledge from the right person, which lead them to a distinctive recombination of heterogeneous pieces of knowledge for innovation. In this way, we

among the community, and how this knowledge of who knows what enhances their collective sense-making so as to facilitate the transformation from dispersed infor- mation input to high-quality knowledge output thereby coordinating the knowledge heterogeneity for innovation (Lewis, 2003; Wegner, 1986).

Third, our emphasis on the independent role of the epistemic object in inviting a knowing process, establishing various knowledge relationships with the participants, eliciting heterogeneous knowledge and empowering the knowledge on its behalf, contributes a unique insight into the role of materiality and human in collaborative knowledge management and innovation work. Prior literature has perceived material artefacts as technical objects or managerial instruments in the hands of managers who speak on their behalf, and highlighted that these artefacts are generally utilized to sustain and support the daily work of those managers (Orlikowski, 2007); the lit- erature also emphasized the active role of managers as the agent of control through supervision or normative means (Vázquez, 2006). Drawing on the literature, we highlight the role of an object of knowledge (Knorr-Cetina, 1997) as a trigger and an elicitor by initiating a knowing process and creating a temporary knowledge com- munity around itself, where the materiality of the object struggles with conflicting strands of knowledge, thereby fuelling and directing the knowing process on its be- half (Rennstam, 2012). Hence, we contribute an alternative to human control with instrumental objects on knowledge elicitation and provide a novel understanding of how epistemic objects and other types of formal managerial control can beneficially coexist to coordinate the heterogeneous and disconnected knowledge mobilized dur- ing an innovation.

Our study has three theoretical implications. First, we highlight the combination of both affective and cognitive trust as a novel source of motivation for knowledge dif- fusion that provides a theoretical implication on the coordination of the knowledge discontinuity within the innovation network. Specifically, we highlight the role of strong trust in fostering the information transmission which helps mobilize and ag- gregate disconnected pieces of knowledge, adding to the work of Granovetter (1973) and Vazquez and Moreno (2003) who believed the strength of weak ties in accelerat- ing information diffusion within the network. Second, our focus on knowledge elici- tation complements the work of Brown and Lewis (2011) and Wegner (1986) by

demonstrating how epistemic objects trigger the development of transactive memory among the participants, and how this knowledge of who knows what enhances the collective sense-making in order to positively coordinate the knowledge heterogenei- ty for innovation. Thus, we provide a theoretical implication on task decomposition and heterogeneous knowledge distribution. As IT innovations’ core tasks are increas- ingly modularized and their required knowledge is widely distributed, research on traditional modes of organizing for innovation may be not enough (Boudreau & Lakhani, 2009), and it is vital for scholars to connect the theory of epistemic objects with open innovation, exploring how to utilize epistemic objects smartly to coordi- nate the heterogeneous and disconnected knowledge for spurring more innovations. Thirdly, our emphasis on the independent role of epistemic objects as a trust trigger, an inviter in knowing process and a knowledge elicitor provides a theoretical impli- cation on the increasing power of material artefacts, the decreasing power of formal managerial control, and their potential co-existence to promote collaborative knowledge orchestration and innovation activities.

Besides theoretical implications, we also have several practical implications. Firstly, our finding regarding epistemic objects as a source of both affective and cognitive trust provides an additional motivation for collaborative knowledge management and innovation practices, and presents a practical implication on the alleviation of the knowledge discontinuity. Thus, we suggest that it is significant for those project managers who nurture IT innovation alliances to utilize epistemic objects intelligent- ly to produce a sense of belonging and cognition-based trust among the members in order to make them committed enough to diffuse and leverage disparate ideas for innovation over limited time. Second, our focus on the role of epistemic objects in fostering knowledge elicitation has an implication on the transfer of tacit, embedded knowledge in the context of IT innovation. As implicit knowledge is hard to be trans- ferred via structured processes and can be easily lost (Pfeffer & Sutton, 1999), a complete transactive memory system drawing on the epistemic objects allows the community to get acquainted with each other. Hence, when initiating knowledge work, it is critical for managers to take advantage of epistemic objects to achieve the identification with the knowledge of the formed community in order to foster the dif-

the coordination of the knowledge heterogeneity and discontinuity in strategic alli- ance. With increasing modularity via task decomposition (Fjeldstad et al., 2012), it is vitally important for organizations to participate in alliance networks where widely distributed partners with the help of epistemic objects leverage the integration of heterogeneous, disparate knowledge for exploiting IT innovation. Third, our empha- sis on the independent role of epistemic objects as a trust trigger and a knowledge elicitor reflects a certain practical implication on the role of materiality and human in collaborative knowledge and innovation work, and suggests organizations to recon- sider the manager role and the power of artefacts, thereby toning down the manage- rial control and making epistemic objects and other types of formal managerial con- trol beneficially coexist to coordinate the heterogeneous and disconnected knowledge.