From core rigidities to dynamic capabilities: the role of external knowledge. A multiple case study

This study focuses on the processes of change that firms undertake to overcome conditions of organizational rigidity and develop new dynamic capabilities, thanks to the contribution of external knowledge. When external contingencies highlight firms’ core rigidities, external actors can intervene in change projects, providing new competences to firms’ managers. Knowledge transfer and organizational learning processes can lead to the development of new dynamic capabilities. Existing literature does not completely explain how these processes develop and how external knowledge providers, as management consultants, influence them. Dynamic capabilities literature has become very rich in the last years; however, the models that explain how dynamic capabilities evolve are not particularly investigated. Adopting a qualitative approach, this research proposes four relevant case studies in which external actors introduce new knowledge within organizations, activating processes of change. Each case study consists of a management consulting project. Data are collected through in-depth interviews with consultants and managers. A large amount of documents supports evidences from interviews. A narrative approach is adopted to account for change processes and a synthetic approach is proposed to compare case studies along relevant dimensions. This study presents a model of capabilities evolution, supported by empirical evidence, to explain how external knowledge intervenes in capabilities evolution processes: first, external actors solve gaps between environmental demands and firms’ capabilities, changing organizational structures and routines; second, a knowledge transfer between consultants and managers leads to the creation of new ordinary capabilities; third, managers can develop new dynamic capabilities through a deliberate learning process that internalizes new tacit knowledge from consultants. After the end of the consulting project, two elements can influence the deliberate learning process: new external contingencies and changes in the perceptions about external actors.

When the Practice of Theorizing Meets the Theorizing of Practice. Social Knowledge Making in Organization Science Academia and Managerial Communities

The aim of the present work is to contribute to a better understanding of the relation between organization theory and management practice. It is organized as a collection of two papers, a theoretical and conceptual contribution and an ethnographic study. The first paper is concerned with systematizing different literatures inside and outside the field of organization studies that deal with the theory-practice relation. After identifying a series of positions to the theory-practice debate and unfolding some of their implicit assumptions and limitations, a new position called entwinement is developed in order to overcome status quo through reconciliation and integration. Accordingly, the paper proposes to reconceptualize theory and practice as a circular iterative process of action and cognition, science and common-sense enacted in the real world both by organization scholars and practitioners according to purposes at hand. The second paper is the ethnographic study of an encounter between two groups of expert academics and practitioners occasioned by a one-year executive business master in an international business school. The research articulates a process view of the knowledge exchange between management academics and practitioners in particular and between individuals belonging to different communities of practice, in general, and emphasizes its dynamic, relational and transformative mechanisms. Findings show that when they are given the chance to interact, academics and practitioners set up local provisional relations that enable them to act as change intermediaries vis-a-vis each other’s worlds, without tying themselves irremediably to each other and to the scenarios they conjointly projected during the master’s experience. Finally, the study shows that provisional relations were accompanied by a recursive shift in knowledge modes. While interacting, academics passed from theory to practical theorizing, practitioners passed from an involved practical mode to a reflexive and quasi-theoretical one, and then, as exchanges proceeded, the other way around.

Interpreting Judgements using Knowledge Representation Methods and Computational Models of Argument

The goal of the present research is to define a Semantic Web framework for precedent modelling, by using knowledge extracted from text, metadata, and rules, while maintaining a strong text-to-knowledge morphism between legal text and legal concepts, in order to fill the gap between legal document and its semantics. The framework is composed of four different models that make use of standard languages from the Semantic Web stack of technologies: a document metadata structure, modelling the main parts of a judgement, and creating a bridge between a text and its semantic annotations of legal concepts; a legal core ontology, modelling abstract legal concepts and institutions contained in a rule of law; a legal domain ontology, modelling the main legal concepts in a specific domain concerned by case-law; an argumentation system, modelling the structure of argumentation. The input to the framework includes metadata associated with judicial concepts, and an ontology library representing the structure of case-law. The research relies on the previous efforts of the community in the field of legal knowledge representation and rule interchange for applications in the legal domain, in order to apply the theory to a set of real legal documents, stressing the OWL axioms definitions as much as possible in order to enable them to provide a semantically powerful representation of the legal document and a solid ground for an argumentation system using a defeasible subset of predicate logics. It appears that some new features of OWL2 unlock useful reasoning features for legal knowledge, especially if combined with defeasible rules and argumentation schemes. The main task is thus to formalize legal concepts and argumentation patterns contained in a judgement, with the following requirement: to check, validate and reuse the discourse of a judge - and the argumentation he produces - as expressed by the judicial text.