Permanent and temporary work practices: knowledge integration and the meaning of boundary activities

• Published in: Knowledge management research & practice Vol. 6; no. 4; pp. 260 - 273
• Main Authors: Maaninen-Olsson, Eva, Wismén, May, Carlsson, Sven A
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: London Taylor & Francis 01.12.2008; Palgrave Macmillan UK; Macmillan; Taylor & Francis Ltd
• Subjects: Applied sciences; Artificial intelligence; Boundaries; Business and economics; Business and Management; Business studies; Computer science; control theory; systems; Corporate culture; Economics and Business; Ekonomi; Ekonomi och näringsliv; Exact sciences and technology; Företagsekonomi; Industrial Economics and Organisations; industriell ekonomi och organisation; Information Systems, Social aspects; Information systems. Data bases; knowledge integration; Knowledge Management; Knowledge sharing; Management; Media and Communications; Medie- och kommunikationsvetenskap; Memory; Memory organisation. Data processing; Operations Research/Decision Theory; Organizational structure; permanent organization; SAMHÄLLSVETENSKAP; SOCIAL SCIENCES; Software; Studies; Systemvetenskap, informationssystem och informatik med samhällsvetenskaplig inriktning; temporary organization; Working conditions; knowledge integration; permanent organization; boundaries; temporary organization; Knowledge engineering; Information integration; Organizational models
• ISSN: 1477-8238; 1477-8246; 1477-8246
• DOI: 10.1057/kmrp.2008.27

Knowledge integration is a critical topic in current knowledge management research and practice. Research on this topic focuses primarily on how knowledge is integrated within a work setting. A less researched area is knowledge integration between different work groups. The purpose is hence to describe and analyze how knowledge is integrated between different work groups. We present two intensive case studies - one permanent and one temporary (project) work settings - which were studied using a practice-based perspective. A main result of the study is that knowledge integration in the two cases was more complicated than the literature suggests. Both differences and similarities were found between the two cases. Differences were seen in the use of boundary spanning activities and boundary objects, whereas similarities were found in the organizational structures and mechanisms, that is, purposes, rules, and infrastructures, which facilitated the integration of knowledge and/or functioned as obstacles and impediments.