International Journal of Information Management 62 (2022) 102438

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Information Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijinfomgt

Research Article

Managing information for innovation using knowledge integration

capability: The role of boundary spanning objects
Chandan Acharya a, Divesh Ojha b, Rahul Gokhale c, Pankaj C. Patel d, *
a
Department of Management, School of Business, City University of New York - College of Staten Island, 2800 Victory Blvd, Staten Island, NY 10314, USA
b
Department of Marketing, Logistics, and Operations Management, Ryan College of Business, University of North Texas, 1155 Union Circle #305429, Denton, TX
76203-5017, USA
c
Gokhale Foods, B 601 Prakriti Apartments, Mittal Park, Raghunath Nagar Road, Thane 400601, Maharashtra, India
d
Department of Management and Operations, Bartley Hall Rm 2067, 800 Lancaster Avenue, Villanova, PA 19085, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Knowledge Integration (KI) or the capability to collate and process distinctive stocks of organizational infor­
Knowledge integration capability mation is central to innovation. Although an essential capability, KI is also challenging to accomplish in practice
Knowledge boundary due to relational obstacles. The relational obstacles arise because of knowledge boundaries: (a) syntactic
Innovation
boundary where the challenge is to transfer the knowledge; (b) semantic boundary where the challenge is to
Boundary spanning objects
translate the knowledge; and (c) pragmatic boundary, where the challenge is to transform the knowledge to
realize relational rents. In this paper, we propose that these relational obstacles could be resolved through a
common lexicon, common meaning, and common interests, or common knowledge of knowledge actors that can
serve as potential drivers to realizing relational rents. Analysis of data collected from 139 small firms indicates
that common meaning and common interests positively influence KI. Further, KI positively influences organi­
zational innovation. Moreover, the results demonstrate that novelty plays a crucial role in affecting the strength
of relational resources’ relationships with KI capability. As novelty increases, the importance of common
meaning and common interests on KI capability increases. Our findings contribute to our understanding of the
role of relational obstacles and KI and empirically assess the efficacy of boundary-spanning objects in facilitating
KI capability and innovation.

1. Introduction view is pivotal to searching, developing, and sustaining knowledge

A widely accepted thesis in the network and alliance literature on
innovation suggests that distinct bodies of knowledge may often reside
in different parts of the organizational knowledge network (Grant, 1996;
Zander & Kogut, 1995). This integration of knowledge is the process of
bundling knowledge from diverse sources to jointly solve complex
problems facilitates organizational innovation (Carlile, 2004; Nicolini,
Mengis, & Swan, 2012). The need for collaborative problem solving is
especially salient to small firms facing liabilities of smallness. Small
firms, lacking resources and facing instability along with disadvantages
in developing and sustaining relationships must still innovate. How
smaller firms with limited resources collate human capital and routines,
processes, and structure to overcome KI challenges remains less studied
(McDowell, Peake, Coder, & Harris, 2018). For small firms the relational
channels that can help improve the innovation potential of firms (Dyer &
Singh, 1998).
The relational view stresses that collaboration among knowledge
actors helps actors garner complementary resources embedded in the
relationship and overcome resource constraints related to the cognitive
and human capital of a single firm through KI, fostering innovativeness
(Carlile & Rebentisch, 2003; Dyer & Singh, 1998; Kogut, 2000; Kogut &
Zander, 1992). Collaboration enables innovation by recombining rele­
vant resources to produce novel solutions (Nerkar & Roberts, 2004).
Indeed, researchers have found that cohesion among knowledge workers
has a positive impact on new product development (Chatterji & Fabrizio,
2014; Guler & Nerkar, 2012; Hargadon & Sutton, 1997; Nguyen, Nguyen,
Nguyen, Phan, & Matsui, 2018). In addition to collaboration, mecha­
nisms for knowledge exchange and effective governance facilitating

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: chandan.acharya@csi.cuny.edu (C. Acharya), Divesh.Ojha@unt.edu (D. Ojha), ragokhale76@gmail.com (R. Gokhale), pankaj.patel@villanova.
edu (P.C. Patel).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102438
Received 5 May 2021; Received in revised form 3 October 2021; Accepted 4 October 2021
Available online 14 October 2021
0268-4012/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
C. Acharya et al.
experimentation and learning are equally important for innovation.
The role of KI is vital as new knowledge emerges. In a survey-based
study of companies belonging to the manufacturing industry in Australia
where 77-percent of firms have less than 100 employees, a context
somewhat similar to this study, Singh and Power (2014) finds that the
internal KI to be the primary factor driving the firms’ performance. In
the above examples, the actors overcame the relational issues by
developing knowledge-sharing routines to identify and benefit from the
complementary knowledge resources of partners (Dyer & Singh, 1998).
For small firms, the complex nature of innovation involves unknown
parts attended by individual actors based upon their limited and local
knowledge (Glover, Champion, Daniels, & Boocock, 2016). The limit to
the knowledge possessed by a small firm is essentially a boundary that
hinders the network of a firm’s cross-functional employees’ ability to
collaborate to solve a complex problem. This knowledge boundary can
be expanded to solve more complex problems through collaboration
with other knowledge actors. Such collaboration drives the development
of aggregate knowledge capability where actors’ diverse knowledge
bases help to overcome the resource, cognitive and human capital lim­
itations of individuals (Kogut, 2000; Kogut & Zander, 1992). Three key
relational issues in information transfer affecting KI are a common
lexicon, common meaning, and common interest (Carlile, 2002, 2004).
Common lexicon, common meaning, and common interests are
called the relational “boundary spanning objects” as they help with the
process of combining and processing knowledge from different knowl­
edge actors within a collaborative relationship to solve complex prob­
lems (Carlile, 2002, 2004). According to Carlile (2002, 2004),
boundary-spanning objects that encourage the development of shared
vocabulary, shared context, and shared interests are powerful tools that
provide a platform for partners to collaborate both within and across the
knowledge boundaries (Nicolini et al., 2012). In this spirit, some studies
have explored various antecedents of KI such as how social factors like
trust (Mehta, 2006) and organizational capabilities such as expertize
(Thatcher, McKnight, Baker, Arsal, & Roberts, 2011) facilitate innova­
tion and KI among knowledge actors. A common theme weaving across
these studies suggests the development of boundary-spanning objects
such as those corresponding to the framework proposed by Carlile is
instrumental in achieving integration and address changing customer
preferences through innovation. For instance, in their study on the an­
tecedents of KI, Gardner, Gino, & Staats (2012) propose how experien­
tial team resources such as specialized knowledge affect integration
through the development of shared vocabularies.
A key moderator in the relational view of competitive advantage is
environmental uncertainty. Carlile (2004) suggests that the role of
various boundary-spanning objects – common lexicon, common mean­
ing, and common interest – on affecting KI capability may change with
the level of environmental novelty. This novelty reflects the changes in
customers’ tastes and preferences (Patel, Struckell, Ojha, & Manikas,
2020). Environmental novelty presents various challenges in the ability
of knowledge actors to collaborate. Novelty effects the adequacy of the
boundary-spanning objects in traversing knowledge boundaries as
lexicon that may be outdated affecting shared understanding of the
innovation problems. Also, novel environment may lead to misalign­
ment of interests. Because adequately dealing with novelty is important
to addressing environmental threats and opportunities, we need to un­
derstand its impact on the relationship between boundary spanning
objects and KI capability but such research is missing, especially in the
context of small firms. We address this research gap in this paper.
Based on our discussion we seek to address three research questions
(1) Does the presence of boundary spanning objects (common lexicon,
common meaning, and common interests) support the development of
KI capability? (2) Does the level of novelty influence the importance of
the relationship between boundary-spanning objects and KI capability?
(3) Does the development of the KI capability support organizational
innovation? We test our research questions by examining the relation­
ship between boundary-spanning objects, KI capability, and innovation
2
International Journal of Information Management 62 (2022) 102438
under different levels of novelty. The context of our study is small
business organizations having less than 100 employees. We collect
survey data from entrepreneurs and examine the data using hierarchical
linear regression and structural equation modeling.
This study aims to make several contributions. First, we developed
the scale of boundary spanning objects and novelty. Previously, re­
searchers have theoretically argued the importance of boundary objects
in case studies (Carlile, 2004; Yuanyue, Ye, & Pan, 2011) and field
studies (Levina & Vaast, 2005) this study will provide the necessary
empirical foundation to that body of literature and should support future
empirical studies relating to boundary spanning objects and novelty.
Successful innovation is possible when organizations take problems as
evolutionary and are willing to upgrade their knowledge base to address
emerging issues continuously. The discovery of drugs, for example, takes
about 12–16 years, during which time the new understanding of the
disease may occur. The disease might mutate, as in COVID-19’s Beta,
Gamma, and Delta variants. Knowledge-sharing routines provide new
understanding and effective governance mechanisms encourage exper­
imentation and learning over time (Dougherty & Dunne, 2011; Floricel
& Dougherty, 2007).
Second, since KI is fraught with challenges (Alavi & Tiwana, 2002;
Malhotra & Majchrzak, 2014; Weber & Khademian, 2008), giving rise to
knowledge boundaries, our empirical investigation of the link between
boundary spanning objects, KI capability provides insight into the role of
boundary objects – common lexicon, common meaning, and common
interests – in overcoming knowledge boundaries. By proposing a
framework on KI capability in the context of boundary spanning, we add
to the discussion on the role of knowledge management processes
(Al-Emran, Mezhuyev, Kamaludin, & Shaalan, 2018), and approaches
(Barão, de Vasconcelos, Rocha, & Pereira, 2017). In their systematic
review, Al-Emran et al. (2018) focused on 41 papers to infer that
“knowledge sharing is the most frequent KM process studied, followed
by knowledge acquisition and knowledge application.”
Third, the use of novelty as a moderating variable allows us to test
the impact of boundary-spanning objects on KI capability at different
levels of novelty. The results of this study could also have an impact on
the managerial understanding of the importance of boundary-spanning
objects on KI and innovation. For example, the use of common lexicons
could create a standard format of communication between actors,
reducing inconsistencies in information exchange (Garcia, 2021).
Common meaning could help knowledge actors having distinct and
diverse knowledge domains to still collaborate by developing a shared
understanding of the process of completing a task, roles and re­
sponsibilities, rules, and expectations (Ascarza, Ross, & Hardie, 2021).
Lastly, common interests among members could develop the collective
mindset that focuses on continuous learning, helping to transform or­
ganizations and prosper in the face of a competitive environment
(Smith, 2021).
What follows next is a brief discussion of the KI capability and
boundary spanning objects literature. Next is the presentation of the
relational view and how it maps to our hypothesized research model
followed by a discussion of the various hypotheses. Next is the methods
section followed by data analysis, discussion of the result, conclusion,
limitations, and future research.
2. Theoretical framework
2.1. Knowledge management and knowledge integration
Knowledge management (KM), a concept referring to the creation,
sharing, and storage of knowledge (Abubakar, Elrehail, Alatailat, & Elçi,
2019), focuses on individuals acquiring new knowledge, a team collab­
orating for innovation, and organizations learning for better performance
(Zahra, Neubaum, & Hayton, 2020). Over the years, KM practices have
been shown to improve organizational performance (Abubakar et al.,
2019), organizational innovation (Ode & Ayavoo, 2020), and open
C. Acharya et al.
innovation (Santoro, Vrontis, Thrassou, & Dezi, 2018). However, KM
practices are not without challenges. Individuals could lack absorptive
capacity and language comprehension to acquire new knowledge (Zahra
et al., 2020). Group members could face roadblocks because of the
dispersion of human capital across various functional areas (Zahra et al.,
2020). Organizational members may lack collective willingness to learn
and share knowledge. Yet, researchers examine the importance of diff
erent interventions such as “processes, practices, and artifacts present in
organizational contexts” to understand how organizations could make
the best utilization of their human capital despite challenges of knowl­
edge management (Barley, Treem, & Kuhn, 2018, p. 280).
In our study, we examine how to overcome the challenge presented
by knowledge boundaries. Despite the critical role boundary-spanning
objects play in integration and innovation, there is a paucity of studies
on the antecedents of KI (Edmondson & Nembhard, 2009). Throughout
the paper, we have a focus on the difficulties presented by knowledge
boundaries and the importance of boundary-spanning objects. Knowl­
edge boundaries create a conflict of interests among actors (Nicolini
et al., 2012), miscommunication between managers and technicians
(Ascarza et al., 2021), and inconsistencies in reporting procedures
(Garcia, 2021). Boundary objects help to overcome such difficulties and
develop a growth mindset (Smith, 2021), motivate actors to contribute
jointly (Rhinow, Köppen, & Meinel, 2012), facilitate clear communica­
tion, and enable knowledge exchange (Rhinow et al., 2012). Knowledge
boundary results from the newness of knowledge. But, the dependencies
among actors and differences in their knowledge domain open the
prospect for combining non-redundant knowledge (Carlile, 2002, 2004).
How can small firms focus on the development of the channels and
currencies of knowledge exchange? It is surprising that prior research
while acknowledging the importance of boundary objects has generally
refrained from empirically examining their role in achieving efficient KI
and innovation (Al-Emran et al., 2018; Esterhuizen, Schutte, & Du Toit,
2012), an important consideration for a small firm facing liabilities of
newness and smallness. Limited evidence that boundary objects may be
useful for KI has been provided by Carlile (2004) and Franco (2013),
both of which are case studies, and thus it is not certain whether the
findings from these studies are generalizable. Moreover, Carlile (2004)
asserts that the case study only provides a rather limited and “in prin­
ciple” examination of the framework and calls for additional work on the
role of boundary-spanning objects in achieving integration. Thus, issues
such as how the various antecedents of KI mentioned in prior work affect
KI, as well as what if any role do boundary objects play in integration
and innovation have remained unaddressed and need additional sys­
tematic examination. We hope to contribute to the literature on KI by
developing scales for boundary objects and empirically assessing the
role of boundary objects in achieving KI capability.
Our study centers on these three elements by focusing on the syn­
tactic and semantic boundaries of knowledge exchange. Barão et al.
(2017) call for a greater focus on knowledge management in networks.
We build on this study to explain the how of knowledge semantics and
syntax built through shared language and symbols. We further scale the
team-level performance associated with KI in Basaglia, Caporarello,
Magni, and Pennarola (2010) by focusing on firm-level outcomes and
also on innovation outcomes (Esterhuizen et al., 2012). Our paper also
extends the work by López-Nicolás and Meroño-Cerdán (2011), by
leveraging boundary spanning across organizational networks to derive
strategic knowledge management value.
2.2. Prior work on knowledge integration
Complex problems are multi-faceted and require diverse knowledge
domains to study, understand, and develop effective solutions to address
them. KI often takes place in the context of the practical and political
realities of the network and can be inhibited by several relational traps.
Limited shared knowledge and understanding arise because of the dif­
ferences in individuals’ functional specialization, hindering their efforts to
3
International Journal of Information Management 62 (2022) 102438
collaborate (Homan et al., 2008). Studies interested in knowledge-based
antecedents of integration emphasize that attributes of knowledge
directly affect the patterns and mechanisms of integration (D’Adderio,
2001; Dibiaggio & Nasiriyar, 2009; Tiwana, Bharadwaj, & Sambamurthy,
2003; Woiceshyn & Daellenbach, 2005). Collectively, research using
knowledge-based antecedents of integration, therefore, suggests that for
efficient KI, mechanisms have to be in a place that allows organizations to
channel the stocks of distinct knowledge and utilize them for solving
complex problems. Together, studies on the antecedents of KI point out
that the distribution of knowledge within a group affects the ability to
efficiently integrate information, and that awareness of the knowledge
possessed by others is important to problem-solving. Appendix 1 provides
an overview of the KI literature.
2.3. Managing knowledge across boundaries
In a social capital theory, members are embedded in a group of re­
lationships where the capital refers to the content of the relationship
such as skill, money, support system, etc. (Bourdieu, 1986; Coleman,
1988; Häuberer, 2011). The relationship can be at either micro or macro
levels such as the ones between individuals (Putnam, 2000), organiza­
tional members, community members, between subgroups (Burt, 1992;
Putnam, 2000), or even individuals’ relationship with the organization
(Coleman, 1988). For a relationship to sustain, the group members are
expected to exchange either symbolic or material benefits with one
another (Bourdieu, 1986; p. 249). In essence, there is a sense of obli­
gation among members to reciprocate the benefits others are providing.
A repeated exchange of social capital among members reinforces the
norm of reciprocity. As a result, members will start to develop trust that
others will fulfill their duties and obligations. Therefore, reciprocity and
trust become binding mechanisms in the social setting (Chang & Chung,
2011). One of the exchanges in the relationships is of sharing of
knowledge and skills to achieve common goals (Putnam, 2000, p. 18;
Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998).
Our work is similar to sharing and exchanging knowledge and skills
to developing combinative capability (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). We
explore the importance of boundary-spanning objects as means to
foster knowledge exchange and integration. Nahapiet and Ghoshal
(1998) use shared language/codes and narrative in their cognitive
dimension of social capital. The common lexicon in Carlile (2002,
2004) boundary-spanning objects framework is similar to Nahapiet
and Goshal’s shared language. The other two dimensions are common
meaning and common interests. These boundary objects help over­
come barriers presented by knowledge boundary to integrate knowl­
edge residing in organizational members dispersed in various
sub-groups or functional areas. Our argument related to the impor­
tance of a common lexicon is similar to Nahapiet and Ghoshal’s
argument that shared vocabulary is a “valuable asset within firms” (p.
254).
We acknowledge the importance of human capital and combinative
capability for creating new intellectual capital (Nahapiet and Ghoshal,
1998; p. 251). Therefore, we introduce KI capability in our model.
However, we choose Carlile (2002) boundary-spanning objects because
these objects allow us to understand knowledge exchange when
knowledge boundaries are complex. Complexity in knowledge bound­
aries is elicited by novelty present in knowledge. As a novelty in
knowledge actors increases, the complexity of knowledge boundaries
also increases, making it harder for actors to share and access knowledge
with each other. As discussed in the article, when novelty is minimal, the
common lexicon facilitates knowledge transfer as a boundary object. On
the other extreme, when novelty is maximum, actors are required to
transform their knowledge. For knowledge transformation to occur,
actors should develop common interests. A social capital theory does not
allow us to view the complexities of the knowledge boundaries. Carlile
(2004) proposes that knowledge actors face three progressively complex
boundaries — syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic. The extent of novelty
C. Acharya et al.
determines the complexity of each boundary. To overcome the chal­
lenges presented by the knowledge boundaries, Carlile argues that the
knowledge actors use common knowledge to share and access knowl­
edge. The common knowledge, however, at the different knowledge
boundaries differ. At the syntactic boundary, the common lexicon fa­
cilitates transferring knowledge. Common lexicon, as a boundary object,
is most useful when knowledge exchange is routine and less novel and
when there is a great deal of shared context ( López-Nicolás &
Meroño-Cerdán, 2011). In semantic boundary, common meaning helps
in translating knowledge. It highlights the importance of common lan­
guage but suggests that when the shared context is weak, and novelty is
higher, interpretation and meaning can vary across group members,
making KI inefficient. Therefore, the semantic approach helps in the
translation of inaccurate interpretations to create shared understanding.
Lastly, in pragmatic boundary, which is the most complex boundary,
the development of common interests effectively transforms actors’
knowledge. The pragmatic approach is useful when the prior knowledge
is irrelevant to solving a current issue, and the actors are required to
update their knowledge. There might be resistance among actors to
learn new knowledge and give up irrelevant knowledge because doing
so will put their current knowledge at stake. The pragmatic approach,
via common interests, is intended to develop a collective willingness
among actors to spend time, effort, and resources toward a continuous
learning process.
2.4. Theoretical perspective and hypotheses
2.4.1. Relational-view of a firm, boundary spanning objects, KI capability,
and relational rent (innovation)
Fig. 1 provides the research framework of this study. It illustrates how
the relational view of the firm applies to our research model. The four
specific constructs, within the domain of the relational view of the firm,
that are captured in our research model are (1) relation-specific assets;
(2) complementary resources; (3) effective governance; and (4) knowl­
edge sharing routines (Dyer & Singh, 1998). While a common lexicon
reflects relation-specific assets, Common meaning represents comple­
mentary resources, Common interests reflect effective governance.
conditions, and KI capability reflects the knowledge sharing routines.
The underlying argument is that boundary-spanning objects (common
lexicon, common meaning, and common interests), and KI capability are
the determinants of relational rent – innovation (Borgatti & Cross, 2003).
Fig. 1. Association between relational-view of a firm and boundary spanning objects, KI capability and relational rent.
4
International Journal of Information Management 62 (2022) 102438
Consistent with Borgatti and Cross (2003) and Dyer and Singh (1998),
a common lexicon reflects relation-specific assets, Common meaning
represents complementary resources, Common interests reflect effective
governance conditions, and KI capability reflects the knowledge sharing
routines. Common lexicon, common meaning, and common interests are
the boundary-spanning objects that facilitate KI capability, which in turn
drives relational rent – innovation. Our view suggests that a common
lexicon serves as a means to provide knowledge about each other’s in­
formation. Common meaning provides the means to understand the
value of each other’s information. Finally, common interest serves as a
means to reduce the cost of gaining access to each other’s information on
time. We theorize the mapping for (i) relation-specific human assets and
common lexicon; (ii) complementary resources and common meaning;
and (iii) effective governance and common interests.
Related to relation-specific human assets and common lexicon, Dyer
and Singh (1998) posit that the relation-specific skill develops through
the repeated interactions between partners, allowing them to exchange
quality information with a low degree of communication error. Over
time, the relational actors can co-specialize as they accumulate more
specialized information, language, and know-how (Dyer & Singh, 1998).
Relation-specific human assets are in the form of information and
know-how that relational partners develop through their repeated in­
teractions. Similarly, common lexicons are in the form of imprints,
specifications, rules, and regulations, enable knowledge actors to pro­
cess and transfer information (Carlile, 2004). The lexicons are in codi­
fiable form and the repeated use of these lexicons makes knowledge
actors more effective at processing and transferring information. So
common lexicon represents the human asset specificity that enables
effective management of knowledge routines encompassed in KI capa­
bility as they provide a means to understand what knowledge is con­
tained within the intra-firm knowledge actors.
Related to complementary resources and common meaning, com­
mon meaning among knowledge actors helps them develop shared
understanding, which, in turn, facilitates actors to recognize the com­
plementary knowledge existing in their shared network. Complemen­
tary resources reflect multiple and distinct sources of knowledge that are
key to improving knowledge routines (Dyer & Singh, 1998). An orga­
nization can leverage its complementary resources by using one
resource in conjunction with another resource. The development of
shared understanding reduces the differences in interpretation related to
a new or different knowledge base (Cronin & Weingart, 2007) and
C. Acharya et al. International Journal of Information Management 62 (2022) 102438

allows the effective combination of complementary knowledge for the intellectually paralyzed and unable to both comprehend and contribute
improvement of knowledge routines. Common meaning thus serves as a (Parker, Zenkov, & Dennis, 2019). Second, establishing a common
means to make knowledge actors value the skills, expertize, and lexicon helps in enhancing partner-specific combinative capability in
knowledge possessed by their fellow employees. the relational framework which enhances the rate at which knowledge
Related to effective governance and common interests, effective is shared and integrated within the group (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998).
governance in Dyer and Singh (1998) framework relates to common This investment in knowledge specific to the group can enhance the
interests among knowledge actors. The effectiveness of the governance efficiency and effectiveness of group members when conducting a task.
structure is determined by two factors. First, the cost of transactions It allows individuals to exchange information with each other quickly
among relational actors. Second, the incentive provided to relational and with fewer communication errors (Dyer, 1996; Nahapiet & Gho­
actors to sustain their ongoing relationships. Relational actors minimize shal, 1998). Moreover, such investments in knowledge can help in
their transaction cost to increase their returns from the transaction. The translating tacit capabilities into written comprehensible codes which
knowledge actors reduce their transaction costs by developing common can be taught to others to increase the speed at which ideas can be
interests that serve as self-enforcing safeguards. In the presence of exchanged in a group (Zander & Kogut, 1995).
competing interests among relational actors, the group members’ will­ Boundary objects such as prototypes can improve a designer and
ingness to use the negotiation as a tool to develop commonality in their client interaction and improve the overall team experience (Rhinow
“aspirations and expectations” helps to develop a mutual agreement, et al., 2012). For example, prototypes, one form of the common lexicon,
facilitating sustenance of the future partnership (Franco, 2013; p. 15). manifest vague ideas into a concrete shape during the design process.
Common interests relate to the informal safeguards used to maintain Prototypes help in collective learning, discovering, redesigning, and
effective governance. Just like informal safeguards, which are socially exchanging ideas. Prototypes also enable designers to demonstrate to
complex and idiosyncratic to a particular relationship, common interests clients the design ideas and get their feedback on designs right from the
among parties develop through the negotiation of interests where actors outset and during the design process. Accordingly, we hypothesize:
involved in negotiation are willing to make trade-offs (Brown & Duguid,
Hypothesis 1a. : Common lexicon is positively associated with KI.
2001; Carlile, 2002, 2004). The resulting consensus is developed
through the iterative process of negotiation and is idiosyncratic to the
2.4.3. Common meaning and KI capability
particular exchange relationship. The common interest thus addresses
Common meaning which broadly refers to the shared interpretation
the challenges related to processes and political consequences of task
or shared understanding of the mission, objectives, constraints, oper­
completion ( Carlile, 2004). Due to common interest knowledge workers
ating cultures such as philosophies and management styles, and areas of
are willing to unlearn old knowledge. So common interests allow
disagreements among members of the group is (Mathieu, Heffner,
workers to use their complementary knowledge to improve their
Goodwin, Salas, & Cannon-Bowers, 2000) necessary to achieve efficient
knowledge-sharing routines needed to solve complex problems through
integration especially as the problems and situations under consider­
joint contribution (Dyer & Singh, 1998). Common interest, thereby, acts
ation grow increasingly complex (Carlile, 2004). According to Brin­
as an effective governance mechanism by enabling access to information
kerhoff (2002) who proposes a framework for assessing compatibility
while lowering the cost to access the information.
between groups as well as Dyer and Singh (1998) the degree of success
Relational rents, though seldom discussed, the end goal of boundary-
to generate relational rents from complementary resources depends on
spanning is the expectation of rents, strategic or tactical outcomes that
the degree of compatibility in organizational systems processes and
benefit the cooperating entities. Rent-seeking is a relational context is
cultures (p.667). Several reasons underlie why common meaning can
rooted in Dyer and Singh’s (1988) proposition of superior performance
enhance integration through inducing both learnings as well as incen­
generated within a network (Borgatti & Cross, 2003). Relational rents
tive effects.
provide the traction for cooperating cross-functional teams jointly
First, having a shared interpretation of the problem context can decrease cognitive
developing KI capability (Basaglia et al., 2010). Lacking clear property
overload (Arias, Eden, Fischer, Gorman, & Scharff, 2000). Bounded rationality often puts
rights on the co-developed knowledge, the relational rents are at the core
limits on both acquisition as well as utilization of knowledge, it is much more efficient for
of the motivation to collaborate and co-develop the knowledge-sharing
group members to have a clear understanding of the problem context (Simon, 2000).
routines.
Excessive information required to solve a particular problem having multiple elements
outside of the area of expertize not only imposes a cognitive load, but also is detrimental to
2.4.2. Common lexicon and KI capability
learning (Sweller, Van Merrienboer, & Paas, 1998), as an acquisition of additional knowl­
Common lexicon refers to prints, specifications, rules and regula­
edge by an individual may create cognitive conflict and result in a state of confusion (Keltner
tions, and dictionaries that enable knowledge actors to process and
& Shiota, 2003). Second, having a shared interpretation can often foster knowledge ex­
transfer information (Carlile, 2004). It emphasizes the storage and
change (Yang, Fang, Fang, & Chou, 2014) within the group which enhances learning. These
retrieval of information for refinement and future use through repeated
knowledge sharing activities are particularly critical because they allow group members to
interactions of relational actors. The relational view suggests a common
compare and contrast their understanding of the situation with other relevant stakeholders,
lexicon may be useful in the communication of specialized knowledge.
empower group members to reflect on their peculiar interpretation of the problem, and
For example, in the healthcare setting, Salehi, Abedi, Balakrishnan, and
engage in “perspective-taking” (Krauss & Fussell, 1990), elaborate on their ideas and peculiar
Gholamrezanezhad (2020) proposed that the uniformity in the use of
solutions perhaps through the use of common lexicon and through continued discussions
lexicon used for interpretation and reporting of CT imaging of COVID-
and process of getting as well as giving feedback arrive at interpretations that are shared and
19 patients may improve the communication among healthcare
owned collectively as a group.
workers, which, in turn, could improve the diagnosis and management
In the previous example of the use of prototypes for collaboration and
of COVID-19 patients. Similarly, the use of a common lexicon in the form
joint learning, the feedback received from the client helps to decrease
of workflow steps has also been shown to improve the shared under­
uncertainties regarding what areas to improved (Rhinow et al., 2012). As
standing and the operational efficiency in the radiology department
a result, a design team can confidently move with a shared mental model
(Meenan et al., 2017).
regarding the design process (Doll, 2008; Dow, Heddleston, & Klemmer,
First, a common lexicon reduces information overload. Information
2009). Therefore, the interactions between designers and clients through
overload act as a noise and distraction for knowledge actors increases
prototypes go beyond the mere exchange of ideas. Instead, it enhances
the rate of communication errors (Edmunds & Morris, 2000), and may
the team motivation, facilitating each team member to develop a shared
introduce unnecessary ambiguity which can result in a lack of focus and
understanding of expected results and the roles and responsibilities of
discourage learning. Without a common terminology and understand­
each member. Based on the discussion, we propose:
ing of the jargon used in a particular area, group members can be

5
C. Acharya et al.
Hypothesis 1b. : Common meaning is positively associated with KI.
2.4.4. Common interests, and KI capability
While boundary-spanning objects of common lexicon and common
meaning primarily act to overcome bounded rationality and learning
deficiencies within the group, the establishment of common interest
primarily pertains to providing group members with the intrinsic
motivation and desire or incentive to address and jointly solve complex
problems. Beyond straightforwardly providing the incentive to involve
in accomplishing group objectives, common interests also affect learning
within the group. In the absence of common interests, group members
may have more incentive to protect their private investments and for­
ward solutions that are personally beneficial as opposed to the benefit of
the entire group (Carlile, 2004). The presence of a dominance rela­
tionship also causes members to formulate a solution before considering
all possible alternatives, limiting members’ ability to jointly compre­
hend and analyze problems (Baer, Dirks, & Nickerson, 2013), which
adversely affects their ability to solve complex problems. Problems go
unaddressed because the knowledge that may be necessary to solve is­
sues is not shared within the group or the particular way and form in
which the problem is shaped or solutions are proposed can cause a lack
of trust, a breakdown of team bonding and identity, and divergence of
perspectives. In the case study, Nicolini et al. (2012) found that diver­
gence in interests between academicians and practitioners working to
create a bioreactor, a system capable of producing synthetic tissues
for clinical application, hindered KI. Creating a bioreactor required
collaboration between a cross-disciplinary group of scientists and aca­
demicians from different departments and research centers. By way of
example, one of the contradictions between two parties that arose in this
cross-disciplinary work was divergent interests – while practitioners
emphasized the practical application of the components, academicians
wanted to publish their work. Such divergence in interest could dampen
the motivation of both parties to contribute to the completion of the
project jointly. Based on the discussion, we propose:
Hypothesis 1c. : Common interests are positively associated with KI.
2.4.5. The contingent role of a novelty at knowledge boundaries
As mentioned in the Carlile (2004) article, we choose to use the term
novelty and not the other variables that define environmental circum­
stances. Novelty emphasizes that the actors understand that there is new
knowledge to share. On the other hand, uncertainty highlights the un­
known where knowledge actors are unsure of what to share. However,
the unknown factors could be knowable by examining trends and con­
ducting the correct analysis (Courtney, Kirkland, & Viguerie, 1997; p.
69). For example, before Corona Virus Disease -19 (COVID-19), only
about 25% of people were working from home. COVID-19 forced most
employees to work from home but whether or not they will be as pro­
ductive was uncertain. Over time, we have come to know that remote
working is effective in many respects. The McKinsey report demonstrated
that 80% of people surveyed enjoy working from home and about half of
them say they are more productive (Boland, De Smet, Palter, & Sanghvi,
2020). Similarly, Pew Research shows that most people have the right
technologies, are more motivated, have an adequate workspace, fewer
interruptions when working from home (Parker, Horowitz, & Minkin,
2020). In this process of understanding the nature of telework, what new
we know is that people feel that online video conferencing tools are a
good substitute for in-person contact and that they have more flexibility
in work hours to complete their tasks (Parker et al., 2020).
Novelty increases the complexity of problems. Complex problems are
relatively opaque because underlying reasons for the problems are not
readily apparent. Moreover, because novelty also refers to new envi­
ronmental situations, knowledge workers have to develop new knowl­
edge when faced with a novel situation (Carlile, 2002). The existing
lexicons (common lexicon) such as standardized rules, common designs,
and specifications may not have the capacity to address newer situations.
6
International Journal of Information Management 62 (2022) 102438
The presence of novelty may also make it difficult for actors to exploit
their new and complementary knowledge instantaneously because some
form of new knowledge is tacit. Knowledge actors can exploit their tacit
knowledge through an iterative process of mutual dialog, developing
shared understanding (common meaning) of their new and hidden tacit
knowledge (Nonaka, 1994). For these reasons, we expect that when faced
with novel situations, employees’ common lexicon becomes ineffective
for KI capability. As a result, the importance of a common lexicon on KI
capability diminishes.
Hypothesis 2a. : The strength of association between common lexicon on
KI capability decreases with higher novelty.
As novelty increases, actors operate in a semantic knowledge
boundary where the development of common meaning is required for KI
(Carlile, 2004). The importance of different boundary objects at a
different level of novelty is made clearer by Nonaka (1994) distinction of
information into syntactic and semantic perspectives. According to
Nonaka, the syntactic perspective of information simply means the
volume of information. For example, in the current study, the use of
printed materials, standard specifications, designs, and tools are
boundary objects which relate to a syntactic aspect of information.
Syntactic aspects of information emphasize the volume, rather than
content, of these objects used for communication. On the other hand,
semantic aspects of information emphasize the meaning of information
(Shannon & Weaver, 1949). As novelty increases, individuals create new
knowledge to address novel situations. The newly developed knowledge
which is tacit gets accepted for wider use when knowledge actors
interact with each other, a process referred to as “socialization” (Non­
aka, 1994; p. 19). Socialization is a self-organization activity that
continuously creates the common meaning of new knowledge. When
organizational members interact and work together, they develop
shared experiences, which also allow them to develop common knowl­
edge bases (Nonaka, 1994). Therefore, during the presence of novelty,
the development of common meaning through socialization enables
members to integrate each other’s tacit knowledge. Based on the dis­
cussion, we hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 2b. : The strength of association between common meaning
and KI capability increases with higher novelty.
Giving up the knowledge that is at stake is most pertinent when
novelty is at the highest level – in a pragmatic knowledge boundary
(Carlile, 2004). As a result of the development of common interests as
self-enforcing safeguards, employees do not have to develop new
agreements and self-monitoring mechanisms. The development of
common interests also protects members against opportunism just like
trust and cooperation between relational parties protect them from
opportunism (Hill, 1990). In this situation, rather than developing
explicit rules and regulations for employees to follow, the emphasis is on
developing shared values and beliefs, and rewarding and reinforcing
appropriate values and beliefs (Perrone, Zaheer, & McEvily, 2003). On
the other hand, when the situation is of lower novelty, the level of
complexity and uncertainty of knowledge is low. Therefore, actors can
use their existing knowledge to address that situation. Under stable and
less complex transactional conditions, the cost of developing and
maintaining a social agreement, in the form of common interests, far
outweighs the benefits (Dyer & Singh, 1998; Ouchi, 1979, 1980).
Therefore, in fewer novel situations a bureaucratic form of governance
proves to be a much more efficient option for achieving coordination for
KI. Based on the discussion, the next hypothesis follows.
Hypothesis 2c. : The strength of association between common interests
and KI capability increases with higher novelty.
2.4.6. KI capability and Innovation
Both learnings, as well as incentive effects, may explain why KI cap
ability, which represents a productive collaboration among employees,
C. Acharya et al.
fosters innovation. First, collaboration can increase the chances of asso­
ciations between ideas that create innovations (Faems, Van Looy, &
Debackere, 2005; González-Benito, Muñoz-Gallego, & García-Zamora,
2016). Increased associations may help in identifying gaps and problems
in a particular idea as well as provide a platform for serendipitous in­
teractions that offer solutions to move ideas forward. Second, innovation
is often the result of an intensive two-way interaction process where initial
ideas are fleshed out with those having potential moved ahead for dis­
cussion and others rejected to save valuable resources. Collaborative effort
where others adopt and buy-in ideas and provide moral support increases
the legitimacy and perceived value of knowledge exchange as well as re­
inforces its utility can result in overcoming relational traps and the
chances of innovation (Starbuck, 2014; Subramaniam & Youndt, 2005).
These arguments are in line with Subramaniam and Youndt (2005) find­
ings which suggest that interaction, partnership, information exchange
among knowledge workers positively influenced innovation. Thus:
Hypothesis 3. KI capability is positively associated with organizational
innovations.
3. Methodology
Boundary spanning objects and novelty are newly developed mea­
sures, whereas KI capability (Gardner et al., 2012) and Innovation (Li &
Atuahene-Gima, 2002) are used from the existing literature. The first
step of the scale development process involved specifying the theoretical
domain and developing operational definitions of constructs used in this
study. In the front-end portion of the scale development, the reliability
and validity of tentative measurements were developed by obtaining
feedback on scales from a panel of informed judges (Menor & Roth,
2007). The items were refined to improve clarity. Double-barreled
questions were presented as two separate questions. In addition to
conducting the pre-test, we also conducted the pilot study (n = 135),
using the panel data from Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk). The re­
sults from the pilot study further provided evidence of discriminant
validity, convergent validity, and composite reliability for the con­
structs. The front end and back end process of scale development, items
reliability and construct validity, and sampling methods for the pilot
study are presented in supplemental materials in Appendix 2.
3.1. Sample and data collection
To test the hypotheses, we collected data from mostly owners of
businesses located in the North Texas region of the USA with the number of
employees less than 100. The reasons for selecting small organizations as
opposed to larger organizations warrents a brief discussion. Included in the
formal structure are standardization, documentation, and departmental­
ization (Child, 1973). In large organizations, individuals within particular
departments develop distinct knowledge domains. On the contrary, small
organizations have a low degree of formalization and specialization.
Therefore, these organizations are less complex and have less structural
differentiation (Bamberger, 1983; Tolbert & Hall, 2015). Implicit in the KI
capability literature is the presence of specialized knowledge that needs to
be combined. But, in smaller organizations, members could wear different
hats under different circumstances, resulting in blurred boundaries and
roles. Therefore, an intentional effort to develop boundary-spanning ob­
jects could be lacking in smaller organizations.
Alternatively, from a resource-based view perspective, the resource
constraint on smaller firms forces them to forge more collaborative
effort than the larger organizations in pursuit of innovation (Nieto &
Santamaría, 2010; Zahra & George, 2002). Compared to larger organi­
zations, smaller organizational members are more motivated and
committed to innovation. The argument that a person wearing different
hats because of resource constraints makes the same organizational
members more cooperative, an essential feature required for knowledge
integration (Sahut & Peris-Ortiz, 2014).
7
International Journal of Information Management 62 (2022) 102438
Last, competing hypotheses regarding the impact of a firm’s size
warrant more exploration. Our study uses smaller organizations as an
organizational context. The rigidity of size argument presents that larger
firms are less agile and adaptive than smaller firms, hindering their
ability to innovate (Hannan & Freeman, 1984; Kelly & Amburgey,
1991). On the other hand, the fluidity of size hypothesis contends that
because larger organizations have more resources and structure in place,
they can develop routine mechanisms required to take advantage of
business opportunities than smaller firms (Haveman, 1993).
Respondents were contacted for a face-to-face interview and they
were requested to fill out the survey questionnaire at the time of the
interview. The survey was administered to 164 firms. Eleven responses
with missing values were deleted. Respondents were pre-screened to
determine whether they had enough knowledge and involvement in the
strategic decision-making process of their firm. Based on the screening
question, one of the respondents was not involved in the strategic
decision-making process of the firm. Therefore, this response was
deleted. Moreover, we only used the data from respondents who worked
in companies of less than 100 employees, indicating that the re­
spondents worked in small firms. Other researchers have also used
1–100 employees as a benchmark for small firms (e.g., Heshmati, 2001;
De Jong & Vermeulen, 2006). The final sample size was 139. The de­
mographics of respondents and firms of the final sample size are pre­
sented in Table 1. Most of the respondents were from the Automotive,
Health care/ Medical Devices, and Food/Beverage sectors. A total of 73
respondents indicated that they belonged to the “other” category. These
respondents belonged to the “other” under industry category work in
service (n = 10), real estate (n = 9), beauty and cosmetology (n = 6),
construction (n = 4), financial (n = 4), health and fitness (n = 4), retail
(n = 4), fashion (n = 3), and legal (n = 1) sectors.
Our data were collected in two waves. We tested the response bias by
examining the difference between early respondents and late re­
spondents (Armstrong & Overton, 1977). The mean comparison t-test
revealed that there was no significant difference between the two groups
based on the independent variables – common lexicon, common
meaning, and common interest – indicating that non-response bias is not
an issue for this study.
Table 1
Demographics of respondents and firm.
Job title Owner (n = 126) CEO (n = 1)
General manager (n = 4)
Senior Managing Director (n = 1) Project Managers
(n = 2)
Branch Managers (n = 2) Staff (n = 3)
Average years of firm 10.04 years
experience with current
Average overall experience 16.68 years
Industry type Automotive (n = 12); Aviation/Aerospace (n = 1)
Educational Services (n = 4); Entertainment
(n = 5);
Health care/ Medical Devices (n = 8); Food/
Beverages (n = 21); Transportation (n = 5)
Metal fabrication (n = 2); Technology (n = 4)
Pharmaceuticals/ Chemicals (n = 1); Others
(n = 73)
Manufacturing versus service Average revenue generated from sales of products
= 24.41
Average revenue generated from sales of service
= 81.33
Average firm’s age 11.85 years
Research expenditure and On an average, 5.79% of sales revenue is
development (R&D) contributed towards firm’s R&D activities.
Firms size in terms of number Less than 50 employees (n = 134)
of employees Between 50 and 99 employees (n = 5)
C. Acharya et al.
3.2. Measures
3.2.1. Innovation
Innovation refers to the rate at which a firm develops new products
or services. Innovation is a unidimensional construct with reflective
indicators (Li & Atuahene-Gima, 2002). To measure innovation, re­
spondents were asked about their firm’s level of innovation relative to
their firm’s major competitors over the past three years. On the 7-points
Likert scale, the respondents indicated the level of their agreement/di­
sagreement regarding their firm’s emphasis on new product develop­
ment, the introduction of varieties of new products in a market, and
commitment to developing and marketing new products. The composite
reliability of innovation was 0.90 and the Average Variance Extracted
(AVE) was 0.65. We acknowledge that the self-reported measure has its
limitations, however, in line with a variety of meta-analyses in the
innovation literature the self-reported measure of innovation is used
(Hammond, Neff, Farr, Schwall, & Zhao, 2011; Ng & Feldman, 2013).
Appendix 4 provides survey scales and items for the main study.
3.2.2. Common lexicon, common meaning, and common interest
The three boundary-spanning objects are common lexicon, common
meaning, and common interests (Carlile, 2004). This is a new scale. All
the items measuring boundary spanning objects ranged from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) on a 5-points Likert scale. Common
lexicon refers to the common means of communication that employees
use such as repositories, standardized forms and methods, objects or
models, and maps of boundaries to share and access knowledge at a
syntactic boundary. Common Lexicon was measured using four items
that required respondents to provide their level of agreement/disa­
greement regarding the use of designs, standardized specifications, and
tools such as sketches/prints to share and access their knowledge. The
composite reliability for the common lexicon was 0.80 and AVE was
0.50.
Common meaning refers to the development of common under­
standing among employees that provide them adequate means of
sharing and assessing knowledge at a semantic boundary. We measured
Common Meaning using six items. Respondents were asked to provide
the level of their agreement/disagreement with the common under­
standing of expected time, rules, roles and responsibilities, outcomes,
and processes related to completing a task. The composite reliability for
common meaning was 0.89 and AVE was 0.57.
Common interests refer to the willingness of employees to give up
irrelevant knowledge and learn new knowledge that provides them
adequate means for sharing and accessing knowledge at a pragmatic
boundary. Common Interests was measured using six items. The re­
spondents were asked to provide their level of agreement/disagreement
regarding their willingness to learn new knowledge, invest additional
time and resources to learn new knowledge, forgo their self-interests to
develop consensus, and use only the relevant knowledge to solve a
particular problem. The composite reliability of common interests was
0.89 and AVE was 0.56.
3.2.3. KI capability
KI capability refers to a reliable pattern of employees communication
that generates joint contributions to the understanding and solving of a
complex problem. KI capability was conceptualized as a second-order
construct, consisting of three interrelated sub-dimensions, which are
reliable communication, joint contributions, and solving the complex
problem (Gardner et al., 2012). We used the scale developed by Gardner
et al. (2012) to measure KI capability. The scale was ten items scale,
measuring different types of communication on a seven-point scale. The
composite reliability of KI capability was 0.80 and AVE was 0.54.
3.2.4. Novelty
Novelty refers to a situation in the external environment such as
changing consumer taste and preferences that require a new knowledge
8
International Journal of Information Management 62 (2022) 102438
from organizational actors to address that situation. Novelty was
measured using three items on a five-point scale. Novelty is also a new
scale. Carlile (2004) presents that in a new product development context
“the most obvious source of novelty is new customer needs that generate
new requirement of various actors in their specialized domains.”
Therefore, to capture the novelty, the emphasis on our items are (1) the
changes in customers’ tastes and preferences, which is measured using
one item and (2) the new knowledge that actors generate to address new
customers’ need, which is measured using two items. The composite
reliability and AVE for novelty were 0.65 and 0.41 respectively. The
mean novelty score was 3.56. For relative importance analysis, we
categorized novelty into three groups. The composite novelty score that
was less than or equals to 2.00 was categorized as a low level of novelty
(n = 10); composite novelty score that was between 2.00 and 4.00 was
categorized as a medium level of novelty (n = 75); the composite score
for novelty that was more than or equals to 4.00 was categorized as a
high level of novelty (n = 54).
The AVE values of all constructs, but novelty – a moderating vari­
able, were above 0.50 indicating convergent validity (Fornell & Larcker,
1981). The square root of the AVE for each construct was greater than its
correlation with the other factors in the model (Fornell & Larcker, 1981;
see Table 2 for descriptive statistics, reliability, and validity of the
constructs), indicating discriminant validity. Moreover, we also evalu­
ated the heterotrait-to-monotrait (HTMT) ratio to check the presence of
discriminant validity. The stricter threshold for HTMT value should be
less than 0.85 (Benitez, Henseler, Castillo, & Schuberth, 2020). The
results indicate that the HTMT values are well below 0.85, ranging be­
tween 0.197 and 0.718. Moreover, the upper confidence value is well
below 1, indicating that HTMT values are significantly different from 1.
The chi-square difference between the constrained measurement model
and unconstrained measurement model (freely estimated model; Δχ2
[Δdf] = 681.02 [15], p ≤ .001) provided evidence for discriminant
validity.
Next, the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted, using
the measurement model where all the latent variables used in the study
were freely correlated. The results demonstrated that all the items had
statistically significant loadings on their respective factor (Table 3). The
table presents the confirmatory factor loading of all the constructs. Also,
it is evident from the result that the value of all but one item loading was
above 0.60, indicating convergent validity. The factor loading for one of
the items of novelty is 0.35.
3.3. Factorial validity
We also tested the factor structure for the boundary spanning objects
and KI capability. The results demonstrate that, for boundary spanning
objects, RMSEA of the first-order factor model, which was the hypoth­
esized factor structure, was better than the second-order factor model
(Table 4(a)). Similarly, for KI capability, the fit indices (RMSEA and
SRMR) indicate that the second- order factor model is the best fit model
(Table 4(b)) supporting the hypothesized factor structure.
3.4. Control variables
Three control variables were used in the study–R&D expenditure,
firm age, and industry type. R&D expenditure is measured by taking the
percentage of a firm’s annual sales contributed to research and devel­
opment. R&D expenditure results in organizational growth and en­
hances a firm’s performance (Shefer & Frenkel, 2005). Firm age may
also determine a firm’s ability to innovate (Sørensen & Stuart, 2000). As
a firm gains more experience through learning by doing, the marginal
cost of production decreases (Balasubramanian & Lee, 2008). Firm age is
measured using one item, which asked respondents regarding the
number of years, a business has been in operation. Lastly, we include the
industry type as a control variable because industry type also determines
the rate of innovation. Companies belonging to the high-tech industry
C. Acharya et al. International Journal of Information Management 62 (2022) 102438

Table 2
Descriptive statistics and correlations.
Variables Ma SDb AVEc CRd 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Common Lexicon 4.13 .76 0.50 0.80 0.71

2. Common Meaning 4.44 .64 0.57 0.89 .41** 0.76
3. Common Interests 4.21 .70 0.56 0.89 .44** .50** 0.75
4. KI capability 6.06 .80 0.54 0.78 .38** .60** .60** 0.74
5. Innovation 4.98 1.28 0.65 0.90 .21* .18* .29** .22* 0.81
6. Novelty 3.56 .92 0.41 0.65 .09 .19* .11 .08 .32** 0.64
*
Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
**
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
a
Mean.
b
Standard deviation.
c
Average variance explained.
d
Composite reliability.

different, we can conclude that common method bias does not affect the
Table 3
study. The marker variable used in the study should be completely un­
Factor loading and standardized regression weights.
related to the other variables. In the current study, the respondents were
Variables Items Factor Construct Structure of the asked to rate the statement of the marker variable on a 7-point Likert
loading type constructs
scale. The item used for the marker variable is, “I am happy about the
Common CL1 .64** Reflective First order person I have become.”
Lexicon
We also took ex-ante remedies to prevent the presence of CMB in our
(CL)
CL2 .77** study. First, we separated the measurement of constructs by placing the
CL3 .61** measurement of predictors and criterion variables far apart in ques­
CL4 .81** tionnaires. Second, we have also used different types of scales for pre­
Common CM1 .78** Reflective First order dictors and criterion variables (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff,
Meaning
2003). For measuring independent variables, which are common
(CM)
CM2 .79** lexicon, common meaning, common interests, we have used the 5-point
CM3 .68** Likert scale. For measuring moderator and dependent variables, which
CM4 .74** are KI capability and innovation, we have used a 7-point scale. More­
CM5 .79**
over, we have also promised respondents that their answers will be kept
CM6 .76**
Common CI2 .66** Reflective First order
anonymous, assure respondents that the answers to the questions are not
Interests socially desirable, that is there is no right or wrong answer to the
(CI) questions. Lastly, as suggested by Tourangeau, Rips, and Rasinski
CI3 .75** (2000), we have defined the constructs under study, avoided using
CI4 .80**
vague concepts, kept the questions simple, specific, and concise, elimi­
CI5 .69**
CI6 .78** nated double-barreled questions, and avoided the use of complicated
CI7 .82** language.
KI capability Reliable .68** Reflective Second order
Communication construct with
4. Results
Joint .70** three reflective
Contributions dimensions
Solving Complex .82** We use structural equation modeling (SEM), using AMOS 23, to
Problems evaluate the research model and examine direct relationship hypothe­
**
Innovation Innovation2 .77 Reflective First order ses. The direct relationship hypotheses predicted the relationship be­
Innovation3 .75**
tween (1) boundary spanning objects (common lexicon, common
Innovation4 .87**
Innovation5 .82** meaning, and common interests) and KI capability, and (2) KI capability
Innovation6 .82** and innovation. The multi-group hypotheses were tested using the
Novelty Novelty1 .35** Reflective First order software IBM SPSS 22. The relationship between boundary spanning
Novelty3 .65** objects and KI capability at different levels of novelty (Hypotheses 2a,
Novelty4 .83**
2b, and 2c) were tested using (1) multi-group analysis using hierarchical
Note. linear regression, and (2) the relative weight of each boundary spanning
*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). object determining KI capability at the different levels of novelty.
**
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Because of the limited sample size, the use of SEM was not possible to
test the relationship at the low (n = 10), medium (n = 75), and high
face frequent technological changes, resulting in a relatively shorter level (n = 54) of novelty. Therefore, hierarchical linear regression using
product life cycle and frequent innovations (Saeed, Yousafzai, Paladino, multi-group analysis was used to test the relationship at the medium and
& De Luca, 2015). high level of novelty.
Before we provide the results of our hypothesized research model, we
conduct a robustness check to assess the linearity of relationships and
3.5. Common method bias
multicollinearity of constructs. We conducted the curve estimation of all
the relationships in our model and the results demonstrated that all the
To control for common methods bias (CMB), we have taken several
relationships were sufficiently linear to be tested using covariance-based
steps. First, we used the marker variable technique suggested by Lindell
SEM. To test if the relationship had a multicollinearity issue we calcu­
and Whitney (2001). This technique compares the difference between fit
lated variance inflated factor (VIF) and the condition index. As VIF
indices of hypothesized research models with a marker variable and the
values for all the relationship was below 10 (highest was 1.46), and the
one without a marker variable. If such a difference is not statistically

9
C. Acharya et al.
Table 4a
Comparison of higher order model and first order model for boundary spanning objects.
Model CFIa RMSEAb SRMRc
Second Order Model 0.071 0.067
0.94
First Order Model 0.069 0.067
0.94
a
Comparative fit index.
b
Root Mean Square Error of Approximation.
c
Standardized Root Mean Square Residual.
d
Chi-square.
e
Degree of Freedom.
Table 4b
Comparison of Higher order model and first order model for KI capability.
Model CFI RMSEA SRMR χ2
Second Order Model 0.97 0.062 0.042 49.194
First Order Model 0.97 0.067 0.057 49.769
condition index for all the relationship was below 20 (highest was
19.84), multicollinearity is less of a concern (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, &
Black, 1998).
Following two-step approach suggested by Anderson and Gerbing
(1988), we identified the fit indices of measurement model, and the
structured model. The fit indices demonstrate that both the measure­
ment model (χ2 [df] = 496.9492[328], p = .000; CFI = 0.92; RMSEA =
0.06; SRMR = 0.07) and the proposed structured model (χ2 [df] =
358.22[244], p = .000; CFI = 0.94; RMSEA = 0.06; SRMR = 0.07) were
quite good, providing support for nomological structure of the research
model (Kline, 2004). The presence of common methods bias was also
evaluated in the current study. The fit indices of the hypothesized
structural model with the marker variable (χ2 [df] = 403.02 [265],
p = .000; CFI = 0.93; RMSEA = 0.06; SRMR = 0.08) were not signifi­
cantly different from the fit indices of the hypothesized model without
the marker variable (Δχ2 [Δdf] =44.87[21], p = .00; ΔCFI=0.01;
ΔRMSEA=0.00; ΔSRMR=0.01). Therefore, we conclude that the com­
mon method bias was not a major concern in this study.
The fit indices of the model with the controls – industry type,
research and development expenditure, and firm age – χ2 [df] = 425.41
[304], p = .000; CFI = 0.93; RMSEA = 0.05; SRMR = 0.07, was not
significantly different from the model without the controls (Δχ2 [Δdf]
=67.19[60], p = .00; ΔCFI = 0.01; ΔRMSEA = 0.00; ΔSRMR = 0.000).
The results demonstrated that R&D expenditure (standardized regres­
sion coefficient β = 0.29, SE = 0.08, p = .000) were significantly
correlated with innovation, whereas path coefficients of the other two
control variables, which are industry type (β = - 0.08, SE = 0.08,
p = .182) and firm age (β = - 0.11, SE = 0.09, p = .318) were statisti­
cally insignificant.
We performed the power calculation for the needed sample size for
this study using the procedure provided by Kim (2005). Based on the df
= 304 for the structural model, α = 0.05, and power = 0.90 the required
sample size for the test of close fit based comes out to be 106.50 or 107.
Our sample size of 139 is larger than the recommended sample size.
Hypothesis 1a stated that there was a positive relationship between
common lexicon and KI capability, was not supported (β = 0.06, SE =
0.10, p = .543; Fig. 2). Hypothesis 1b stated that there is a positive
relationship between common meaning and KI capability, was sup­
ported (β = 0.42, SE = 0.09, p = .000). Similarly, Hypothesis 1c, which
stated the positive relationship between common interests and KI
capability was supported (β = 0.45, SE = 0.09, p = .000). Hypothesis 3
predicted that KI capability positively influences innovation. Consistent
to our hypothesis, we found support for our hypothesis (β = 0.31, SE =
0.09, p = .000). In this study, we cannot ascertain that the standard
International Journal of Information Management 62 (2022) 102438
χ2d DFe Δχ2 ΔDF p-value χ2/DF
170.62 1.69
101
170.62 0 1 0.000 1.67
102
DF Δ χ2 ΔDF p-value χ2/DF
32 1.54
33 0.58 1 .000 1.51
design, tools, specifications are essential for KI. But, the other boundary
objects, such as the development of a common understanding of roles,
rules, expected results, and outcomes, are critical for KI. Moreover, the
collective willingness to upgrade one’s knowledge and forgo obsolete
knowledge also facilitates reliable communication, joint contribution,
and solving a complex problem, essential communication techniques for
organizational innovation. In addition, the bootstrapping technique was
used to test the indirect effect of (1) Common Lexicon → KI capability →
Innovation, (2) Common Meaning → KI capability → Innovation, and 3)
Common Interests → KI capability → Innovation. The indirect path of
Common Lexicon → KI capability → Innovation (β = 0.02, SE = 0.03,
p = .548) was not statistically significant. On the other hand, the indi­
rect path of Common Meaning → KI capability → Innovation (β = 0.13,
SE = 0.05, p = .006) and Common Interests → KI capability → Innova­
tion (β = 0.14, SE = 0.05, p = .004) were statistically significant. The
significant indirect effect indicates that the boundary-spanning objects
first enable KI, which will then foster organizational innovation.
4.1. Test of multi-group hypotheses
The test of multi-group hypotheses was conducted using two
methods: (1) hierarchical linear regression, and (2) the relative weight
of each boundary spanning object determining KI capability at the
different levels of novelty. The relationship between common lexicon
and KI capability was not statistically significant at medium (β = 0.09,
SE = 0.11, p = .396; n = 75) or high level (β = 0.05, SE = 0.10,
p = .610; n = 54) of novelty. Therefore, Hypothesis 2a could not be
statistically evaluated. The importance of common meaning on KI
capability at the high level of novelty (β = 0.52, SE = 0.17, p = .001)
was greater than the strength of the relationship at the medium level of
novelty (β = 0.46, SE = 0.15, p = .000), providing support for Hy­
pothesis 2b. Moreover, the importance of common interests on KI
capability on the high level of novelty was (β = 0.34, SE = 0.12,
p = .006), which was greater than that on the medium level of novelty
(β = 0.20, SE = 0.13, p = .094). Therefore, Hypothesis 2c was also
supported.
Additional analysis was conducted to test the relationship at medium
and high levels of novelty. The relative importance of the individual
boundary spanning objects determining KI capability at the medium and
high level of novelty was examined (see Fig. 3). The relative importance
of boundary-spanning objects at a low level of novelty could not be
identified because of the small sample size. The results indicated that the
relative importance of the common lexicon in determining KI capability
was low at a medium level of novelty (w = 13.1%), which further
10
C. Acharya et al. International Journal of Information Management 62 (2022) 102438

Fig. 2. Direct and indirect effects model.

decreased (w = 10.9%) when novelty was at high. The relative impor­

Table 5
tance of common meaning at a medium level of novelty was 60.1%,
Multiple group analysis.
which decreased to 56.0% when novelty was at a high level. Finally, the
relative importance of common interests increased seven percentage Path Medium High novelty Δβ (High - Trend
novelty medium)
points from 26.8% at a medium level of novelty to 33.2% at a high level
of novelty. The results concur with Hypothesis 2c, which states that as CL → KIC 0.144 0.077 -0.067 Decease
the novelty increases the importance of higher-level boundary spanning (p = .235) (p = .522)
CM → 0.433 0.525 0.092 Increase
objects become more important. KIC (p = .002) (p = .001)
We also performed the multigroup analysis using PLS (see Table 5). CI → KIC 0.194 0.341 0.147 Increase
Table 5 demonstrates the comparisons of path coefficients between (p = .196) (p = .009)
boundary-spanning objects and KI capability at a medium and high level
of novelty. The results indicate that only the relationship between
lexicon and KI capability decreases as the novelty increases (Δβ =
common meaning and KI capability is statistically significant at the
− 0.067) as we expected.
medium level of novelty. As novelty increases from medium to high
novelty, both common meaning and common interests are positively
5. Discussion
associated with KI capability. The change in beta (Δβ) indicates that the
strength of association between common meaning and KI capability
Based upon a sample comprised of owners and CEOs in a diverse
increases as novelty increases (Δβ = 0.092). Similarly, the strength of
range of industries, our results provide broad overarching support to the
association between common interest and KI Capability also increases as
proposed theoretical model. In this study we developed two new scales
novelty increases (Δβ = 0.147). The results support our hypotheses
relating to KI phenomena (a) boundary spanning objects- common
regarding the importance of boundary-spanning objects on KI capability
lexicon, common meaning, and common interest; and (b) novelty. Our
at the varying level of novelty. Although the relationship between
results show that boundary spanning objects is a construct with three
common lexicon and KI capability is not significant at either medium or
first-order dimensions namely common meaning, common lexicon, and
high level of novelty, the strength of association between common

Fig. 3. Contribution (%) of boundary spanning objects on KI capability.

11
C. Acharya et al.
common interest. Further, we find that boundary-spanning objects play
an important role in developing KI capability and that KI is crucial to
innovation. Our analysis suggests that while the common lexicon does
not influence KI, the development of common interests, as well as
common meaning, are significant determinants of KI. A further novelty
is a significant moderator of the relationship between boundary objects
and KI. Consistent with the arguments of Carlile (2004), our results
suggest that the strength of relationships between boundary objects and
KI is different at different levels of novelty. Carlile’s arguments suggest
that while establishing a shared vocabulary is sufficient in situations of
low novelty, establishing shared understanding as well as interests be­
comes critical as situations become increasingly novel (Ojha, Patel, &
Sridharan, 2020). In line with these arguments, we find that both
common meanings, as well as common interests, play a more significant
role in influencing KI at higher compared to medium levels of novelty. In
situations of medium novelty, we observe that common meaning tends
to influence KI more relative to common interests while in highly novel
situations, common interests tend to influence KI more relative to a
common meaning.
The unexpected insignificant relationship between the common
lexicon and KI runs contrary to our hypothesis. We hypothesized that a
common lexicon or development of shared vocabularies will influence
KI but do not find support for this conjecture. One rationale for this
unexpected finding may be explained by the mean of the composite
score of the variable novelty, which was 3.60 on the five-point Likert
scale. The mean score indicated that the respondents were working in an
organization that was already facing a medium to a high degree of
novelty. In such situations, efficient integration demands more than a
simple understanding of the concepts (Carlile, 2004). A second rationale
that might explain this contrary finding is rooted in the “power differ­
ence” hypothesis. For example, in situations where a patient who is not
knowledgeable about medicine interacts with doctors who are experts in
this area, the situation is more likely to be characterized by a one-way
transfer of knowledge from doctors to the patients. In establishing a
medical vocabulary and “learning the ropes”, a novice patient is unlikely
to question the doctor’s premises and conclusions regarding the problem
situation. More likely, in this scenario, knowledge flows from the doc­
tors to their patients and the process that unfolds is one of knowledge
transfer rather than the integration of perspectives of the doctors and
their patients. Because the mean level of novelty was on the higher side
in our sample, subjects likely faced complex situations where those with
knowledge yielded expert power and dominated the problem-solving
process. Future research needs to explore and theorize whether and
how experts and other sources of power may shape the nature of group
communication and thus the role that common lexicons play in influ­
encing KI.
5.1. Theoretical implications
The first contribution of this study arises out of the use of the rela­
tional view approach to examine the importance of boundary-spanning
objects as relational resources for developing knowledge integration
capability. The relational resources foster the integration of dispersed,
possibly complementary knowledge, of organizational. The underlying
logic of the relational view is that an organization’s resources, in
isolation, are not sufficient to generate relational rent. Both partnering
firms need to have the relational capability to maintain their ongoing
relationship to exchange resources for mutual benefit. Similarly, the
results of our study indicated that simply possessing the new knowledge
is not enough for partners to develop KI capability. The organizational
actors should have common knowledge – common lexicons, meaning,
and interests – to integrate their knowledge and sustain their ongoing
relationship.
Second, the study contributes to innovation literature by identifying
types of knowledge required to address challenges related to innovation.
The finding from this study concurs with Carlile (2002, 2004) argument
12
International Journal of Information Management 62 (2022) 102438
that each boundary spanning objects have a differing impact on KI
capability and innovation depending upon the extent of novelty. In the
past, researchers have found the positive effect of cross-regional KI
(Singh, 2008), a team’s KI (Gardner et al., 2012; Gebert, Boerner, &
Kearney, 2010), alliance’s KI (Tiwana, 2008), KI capability on B2B
context (Revilla & Knoppen, 2015; Salunke, Weerawardena, &
McColl-Kennedy, 2019; Wang, Chen, & Fang, 2018) on innovation. This
study adds to the innovation literature by presenting the importance of
knowledge actors’ KI capability for innovation.
Third, the results obtained from the current study contribute to the
representational gap theory (Cronin & Weingart, 2007). Representa­
tional gap relates to the lack of shared understanding regarding the
goals, assumptions of problems, elements of a problem to be solved, and
rules to follow to solve a problem. Cronin and Weingart (2007) main­
tained that the inconsistencies in the definition of a problem by orga­
nizational members limit their ability to process information and
integrate their knowledge. Although this study does not examine the
consequences of representational gaps, it examines whether or not
shared understanding is important to bridging the representational gap.
One of the underlying questions that Cronin and Weingart call for future
researchers to address is what impact does employees’ motivation has
on their willingness to develop shared understanding and bridge their
representational gaps. The results of the current study indicate that the
ability of employees to innovate through collaboration and by devel­
oping shared understanding is one of the motivational factors that
relational partners have to bridge their representational gap.
Fourth, the results of the study also contribute to the resource
management theory. Resource management theory is an extension of
resource-based view theory. The critics of the resource-based view argue
that VRIO resources are not enough for an organization to gain a
competitive advantage. The critics maintain that what an organization
does with those resources is equally essential (Hansen, Perry, & Reese,
2004). Sirmon, Hitt, and Ireland (2007) present the framework of
resource management. In their framework, Sirmon et al. (2007) present
that managers are key actors who manage resources by structuring
(acquiring, accumulating, and divesting) the portfolio of resources,
bundling (or integrating) those resources to develop capability, and
leveraging capabilities to create value (Sirmon, Hitt, Ireland, & Gilbert,
2011). The study’s findings indicate that relational resources foster
knowledge combination in the form of KI capability.
While previous work has emphasized the importance of KI of various
knowledge sources (e.g., Berry, 2014; Tiwana, 2008; Zhou & Li, 2012)
for innovations, as well as identified many key factors such as trust,
expertise, or extent to which organizations possess the capability to
codify and store knowledge, empirical examination of boundary objects
as sources of integration and innovation remains absent (Edmondson &
Nembhard, 2009). In building upon the limited number of case studies,
we, therefore, contribute by both developing scales to measure the
boundary objects of the common lexicon, meaning, and interests and
then examining their role in enhancing integration. By empirically
examining the role that boundary objects play in enhancing KI, we also
address calls for further research into the antecedents that help KI and
innovation (for instance, Espinosa, Slaughter, Kraut, & Herbsleb, 2007;
Huckman, Staats, & Upton, 2009; Reagans, Argote, & Brooks, 2005) and
exploring the mechanisms of shared language and shared interpretation
(Cramton, 2001; Lewis, Lange, & Gillis, 2005; Monteverde, 1995)
through which these variables may affect KI remain underexplored.
We also find that KI capability fully mediates the relationship be­
tween (1) common meaning and innovation and (2) common interest
and innovation. The results demonstrate that boundary objects namely
common meaning and common interests can only enhance innovation if
a firm can use these boundary objects to improve its KI capability. While
researchers have argued that boundary objects help in sharing and
accessing knowledge (Carlile, 2004), providing a common platform for
actors to collaborate (Hsiao, Tsai, & Lee, 2012; Laine, Korhonen, Suo­
mala, & Rantamaa, 2016) and coordinate (Koskinen & Mäkinen, 2009)
C. Acharya et al.
across functional boundaries for the joint output our results add to this
body of knowledge by providing evidence that for boundary spanning
objects to be effective in influencing innovation, improvement in KI
capability is a necessary condition especially in novel environments.
5.2. Managerial implications
Although we did not find a statistically significant relationship be­
tween common lexicon and KI capability, one cannot overlook the
importance of common lexicon. KPMG, one of the top four accounting
firms, supports a private equity firm’s quest for developing standard
reporting procedures to share data between fund managers and in­
vestors, the lack of which causes challenges for both parties. While in­
vestors spend time consolidating data received from fund managers in
different formats, the fund managers, on the other hand, struggle to
meet investors’ demand for sending reports in multiple formats. More­
over, inconsistencies in standard reporting procedures result in dis­
crepancies in data presentations, interpretations, and unnecessary use of
terminologies (Garcia, 2021). Therefore, in the accounting sector, a
common lexicon in the form of standard reporting procedures is war­
ranted. In other areas, the common lexicon can take different forms:
academic advisors could create forms for record-keeping and tracking
students’ academic progress. Data analysts could create a life-cycle of
projects, documenting business problems, gathering data, analyzing
data, and presenting data. The use of standardized templates ensures
timely, concise, and clear communication because actors don’t have to
learn to interpret new formats and process unnecessary data.
Similarly, we also suggest that managers realize the importance of
common meaning for effective communication. Researchers find that
marketing managers trying to leverage the power of Artificial Intelli­
gence (AI) to help retain their customers often failed to do so because of
common errors. One of those obvious errors was the lack of shared un­
derstanding between data scientists and marketing managers. The lack of
common understanding between them occurred due to senior managers
not revealing that they lack knowledge of AI. As a result, these managers
can either not grasp the full potential of AI or have unrealistic expecta­
tions from data scientists. On the other hand, data scientists undertake
projects with similar requirements. Complicating the situation is their
inability to explain to their nontechnical managers what they can or
cannot do (Ascarza et al., 2021). We suggest that organizational actors
develop a common understanding of expected results/outcomes, project
completion time, processes, roles and responsibilities, and interpretation
of rules. Boundary spanners may also assist in creating a shared experi­
ence between actors belonging to diverse professional backgrounds. One
such example of a boundary spanner is Business Analyst (BA). BAs bridge
the knowledge gap between technical and non-technical professionals.
They communicate the needs and requirements of business leaders to IT
professionals, keeping in mind the technological and financial feasibility
of projects.
Lastly, we illustrate a case related to common interests fostering
innovation. Ryan Smith, one of the founders of Qualtrics, explains how
reinventing an already successful business helped Qualtrics, a small firm,
leap from a single product serving a small niche of business professors to
Qualtrics XM, a multiproduct firm. The new business model of XM helps
organizations gain customers’ insights, conduct market research, and
manage customers experience. In the article, The Founder of Qualtrics on
Reinventing an Already Successful Business (Smith, 2021), Mr. Smith em­
phasizes unlearning, relearning, and risk-taking. He mentions that to
build something better, one has to develop a new skill set, tear down the
previous rules and regulations, give up the old way of doing things, and
endeared projects even if those projects cost them years to develop. These
ideas are similar to our discussion of common interests, which encom­
passes both learning new knowledge and forgoing the ones that are no
longer relevant to solving current problems.
Common interests also stress a need to develop consensus among
organizational members. Mr. Smith calls for a similar consensus for
13
International Journal of Information Management 62 (2022) 102438
rebuilding and relearning for innovation. He states that for Qualtrics’s
transformation, "earning buy-in from [their] internal team" was essential
(Smith, 2021, p. 38). Managers could use Qualtrics’s experience of
sensing novelty in the business environment by exploring their market,
products, and people. The key is to ask the question, how can we improve
to serve our customers better? As one can see, developing common in­
terests helps to reinvigorate organizational skills. Moreover, common
interests could also be viewed as a collective mindset where actors are
willing to adapt and relearn, recognizing that novelty is inevitable.
The experience of Beta Motors, one of the world’s largest automobile
manufacturers with product development too also provides a pertinent
example of the use of boundary-spanning objects to facilitate innovation.
Beta Motors developed an engineering tool to help overcome the
knowledge boundaries and facilitate collaboration among actors in a
vehicle design process (Carlile, 2004). Specifically, four different groups
were involved in the vehicle design – vehicle styling, power train, climate
control, and safety. The tool helped establish the common language used
to specify vehicle features (such as size, shape, functionality of vehicles).
The tool also facilitated the development of shared understanding when
faced with novelty. The members of four different groups had different
requirements and preferences. The engineering tool helped actors see the
consequences of vehicle design through simulation when various groups’
needs were addressed. In doing so, the group members developed a
shared understanding of what would happen if and when newer re­
quirements were accommodated. The group members would then (re)
negotiate and transform their knowledge on the design of the vehicle to
reach an agreement. The engineering tool helped to clarify the differ­
ences and dependencies among actors belonging to various functional
areas. The use of tools and the development of shared understanding
helped actors understand their differences and their dependencies. For
example, the tool, using simulation techniques, showed how incorpo­
rating a more powerful engine, a requirement by the power train group
resulted in the change in the shape of the hood and increased the vehi­
cle’s weight, something that would be a concern for the styling group.
Nevertheless, the outcome was only possible through collaboration
among actors of different groups. The understanding of dependencies
helped actors to negotiate terms and conditions. As a result, the groups
were able to reach an agreement regarding the final design of the vehicle.
5.3. Limitations and future research directions
The current study has several limitations. First, the study suffers from
the lack of substantial data in attaining enough power to conduct the
analyses at the different levels of novelty. The sample size of the low
level of novelty was 10. To overcome the challenges to data collection, it
is recommended that researchers collect the data using stratified random
sampling, where the pool of companies operating in industries that face
a low degree of novelty would be created and the sample would be
drawn randomly from that pool. The study would also benefit if the
information about employees’ existing knowledge domains is obtained.
Such information would help us to understand the presence of com­
plementary knowledge of employees. In essence, we would know
whether the boundary objects are equally effective when there is a
presence of differences in employees’ knowledge domains. Another
limitation of this study is our focus on small firms. Given the size of large
firms coordinating employees for knowledge integration may be more
difficult because of added complexity. Future studies should sample
large firms to address this limitation. Also, comparing the differences in
large and small firms in their knowledge integration capability would be
a fruitful endeavor.
Despite the limitations, our findings also offer important directions for
future research. Our study focuses on the sample of small firms, a context
seldom focused on in innovation literature on relational views. Small
firms not only face internal disadvantages but also face hurdles in
developing collaborations. Nevertheless, this remains an underexplored
area of research. Future research could further delve into the process by
C. Acharya et al. International Journal of Information Management 62 (2022) 102438

which firms seek partners with complementary resources, the hurdles
they face in developing complementary innovation resources in the light
of their limited power and knowledge are important considerations for
future research. Though in the current research we provide the anteced­
ents of knowledge exchange, the very process of how relational view
comes to fruition is important to developing a richer understanding of
how small firms leverage the relational view to improve their innovation
outcomes.
Second, compared to larger firms, smaller firms face greater recombi­
nant uncertainty as they have a lower critical mass of knowledge. Though
the lexical approach taken in the current study is valuable, the ‘pieces of
knowledge’ compared to larger firms are limited lowering the possible
knowledge recombination that is feasible. Larger firms with their diverse
product portfolio have the requisite variety to experiment with knowledge
recombination. The theoretical perspectives of bricolage and improvisa­
tion from entrepreneurship literature are important to understanding how
small firms leverage relational views to realize innovation outcomes.
Third, the relational rents may also accrue to small firms in the form
of improved long-term relations, through networks in the task envi­
ronment, and potential spillovers in the non- innovation contexts, where
the ability to develop innovations may act as a signaling mechanism to
non-innovation stakeholders and also improve potential strength of the
relationship in non- innovation areas. Undertaking risky innovation
projects could signal greater efficacy of resources of a small firm and
may also improve long-term survival odds.
Fourth, future studies could also focus on the cross-border aspects of
the relational view of the firm. The proposed antecedents though studied
in the context of a single country, future studies can focus on the role of
cultural, psychological, and geographic distances in studying variations
in the efficacy of relational view. In cross-border relational exchanges
added further challenges of distance, time differences, and culture are
additional elements to consider in understanding the contingencies in
innovation outcomes from the relational view of the firm.
Fifth, future research should also try to address additional key
moderators encompassing the relational view which we could not
address in this paper as that was beyond the scope of a single paper.
Examples of such moderators include dependence and difference in
knowledge exchange (Carlile, 2004). Moreover, the role of other rela­
tional moderators like trust and relationship closeness could also be
explored.
Sixth, the lack of objective data is a limitation of this study. Future
research should also look into replicating this research with data from
public firms. This will enable the collecting of archival measures of
innovation and financial performance and allow for assessing the impact
of boundary-spanning objects on firm innovation and financial perfor­
mance. Such study could be a a mixed design study that integrates
survey data collection with secondary data collected from sources like
Compustat.
6. Conclusions
We studied the impact of boundary-spanning objects on innovation,
the relationship mediated by KI capability. Using the relational view, we
argue how boundary-spanning objects help generate relational re­
sources. Specifically, the common lexicon generates relation-specific
assets for information exchange, common meaning allows members to
understand the value of each other’s knowledge, and common interests
align partners’ interests to sustain their ongoing relationship. Our results
indicate that boundary-spanning objects foster knowledge actors’ KI
capability, which, in turn, improves organizational innovation. We also
find that the role of each boundary-spanning object differs based on the
level of novelty in a firm’s environment. While the common meaning is
more effective at developing KI capability when novelty is at a medium
level, common interests also becomes important as novelty increases to
the highest level.

Appendix 1. Review of Knowledge Integration Literature

Citations Independent Variables Moderators Dependent Variables Methods

Berry (2014) • Manufacturing
• Technology diversity
• Forward self-citation
Gardner et al. (2012) • Relational resources
• Experiential resources
• Structural resources
Zhou and Li (2012) Knowledge Characteristics
• Knowledge sharing
• Knowledge acquisitions
Cheung, Myers, and KI (one of the dimensions of
Mentzer (2011) relational learning)
Majchrzak et al. Transcending approach of KI
(2012)
Gebert et al. (2010) • KI
• Knowledge generation
Boh, Ren, Kiesler, and Effective staffing decision
Bussjaeger (2007)
Carlile (2004) Traversing approach of KI
• Common lexicon
• Common meaning
• Common interest
Carlile (2002) Structure of Knowledge in Practice:
Localized; Embedded; Invested
Formal Interventions
• Multicountry knowledge
generation
• Multicountry collaborative
innovation
• Environmental uncertainty
• Knowledge breadth and
knowledge breadth
• Relationship performance
• Closed-action strategy
• Open-action strategy
• Geographically dispersed
organization
• Novelty (from low to high)
• Knowledge structure of four
communities of practices
• Context – new product
development
• Archival data (firm- and patent- level
estimations)
• KI capability (mediator) • Cross-sectional study
• Team performance • Team level data collection
(dependent variable)
• Radical innovation • Study 1: Survey data - 177 high-tech Chi­
nese firms
• Study 2: Longitudinal study -managers
from 68 firms
• Cross-border customer- • Archival data from 126 cross-border dyads.
supplier relationship
• Moderation – cultural
distance
• KI • Observation study
• Leaders • Proposed framework
• KI • Interviews and archival data of project
staffing decisions for 493 projects over five
years.
• KI • Case study
• Development of knowledge boundaries
framework.
• New product • Ethnographic study
development
• KI behavior • Experimental setting
(continued on next page)

14
C. Acharya et al. International Journal of Information Management 62 (2022) 102438

(continued )
Citations Independent Variables Moderators Dependent Variables Methods

Okhuysen and • Questioning others

Eisenhardt (2002) • Managing time
• Sharing information

Appendix 2. Scale Development Details for the Pilot Study

Following Malhotra and Grover’s (1998) suggestion of conducting pre-testing and pilot testing for newly developed measures, we ensured that the
measurement instruments are reliable, valid, and structured. As suggested by Menor and Roth (2007), in the front-end portion of the scale devel­
opment, the reliability and validity of tentative measurements were established by obtaining responses regarding scales from a panel of informed
judges (Menor & Roth, 2007). In the back-end portion of scale development, psychometric properties of multi-item scales were assessed.

Front end process of scale development-pretesting

The first step of the scale development process involved specifying the theoretical domain and developing operational definitions of constructs
used in this study. Accordingly, the operational definition of boundary-spanning objects was developed based on Carlile (2002, 2004). Since boundary
spanning objects did not have an existing scale, new items were generated to measure three dimensions of boundary spanning objects based on the
operational definition of the common lexicon, common meaning, and common interests.
Q-sort method was used to purify and pre-test items for reliability and validity. To conduct item sorting, we provided a panel of six independent
judges with (1) the operational definitions of constructs used in this study, and (2) the randomized listing of items measuring three dimensions of
boundary spanning objects. The judges were provided with the Qualtrics link, which directed them to a web page. The page contained two columns.
The first column consisted of 13 items. The second column consisted of three dimensions of boundary-spanning objects, which are common lexicons,
common meaning, and common interests.
The judges were asked to familiarize themselves with the definitions of the boundary spanning objects and place each item from the first column
under one of the categories in the second column. One respondent put one of the statements from common meaning to another group. Similarly,
another respondent placed one item from common lexicons to another category. The items were therefore revised to accurately measure the construct
they are measuring. Four respondents categorized one of the items from common interests to common meaning (we jointly agree on processes related
to completing a task). For this reason, the item was reworded and placed under the category, common meaning. The new item was worded as, "We
have a shared understanding of processes required to complete a task." Moreover, to ensure that there is an adequate number of items to measure
common interests, two additional items were added to this category, common interests. These items are “we develop consensus to use relevant
knowledge to solve a particular problem,” and “all the members agree that the knowledge developed in one area is useful in another.”
After consulting a panel of six independent judges for Q-sorting and after purifying and rewording items, an expert in the field was requested to
provide feedback on the final items for boundary-spanning objects. Based on the suggestion from the expert, the items were further refined to improve
clarity. And, the double-barrelled questions were presented as two separate questions. This overall process helped us to improve the face-validity of
boundary-spanning objects (Nahm, Rao, Solis-Galvan, & Ragu-Nathan, 2002).
The 5-point Likert-type scale was used for boundary-spanning objects to gather responses from the respondents. Although the Likert-type scale will
generate closed-ended questions and reduces the flexibility for answers, they are less affected by random influences. The common lexicon is measured
using six items. These items included statements that required respondents to provide their level of agreement/disagreement regarding the use of
repositories, standardized forms and methods, objects or models, and maps of boundaries to share and access knowledge at a syntactic boundary. The
common meaning is measured using six items. Respondents were asked to provide the level of their agreement/disagreement on the common un­
derstanding of expected results, time, rules, roles and responsibilities, outcomes, and processes related to completing a task. Finally, the common
interest is measured using five items. The respondents were asked to provide their level of agreement/disagreement regarding employees’ willingness
to learn new knowledge and discard irrelevant knowledge to solve a particular problem.

Backend end process of scale development - the pilot study

To further improve the reliability and validity of the construct we conducted a pilot study using survey data. The sample frame for the pilot study
was the Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk). The respondents were located in the U.S. A total of 196 respondents completed the survey, out of which 61
responses were deleted because some of them had missing data.
This pilot study used the key informant approach to collect data (Li & Atuahene-Gima, 2002). To ensure that the respondents are key informants of
a firm, screening questions are used in the survey questionnaire. Two questions are used to identify the key informants, which are 1) the amount of
respondents’ involvement in the strategic decision making, and 2) the level of respondents’ knowledge related to the strategic decision-making
process. Only those respondents who are involved in the strategic decision-making of a firm and those who have some knowledge regarding such
decision-making processes are included in the study. Respondents who did not qualify based on screening questions were also deleted.
The final sample size was 135, a net response rate of about 69-percent. The primary job titles of target respondents include the owner (n = 11),
chief executive officer (n = 1), general manager (n = 6), managing director (n = 5), senior R&D manager (n = 2), project manager (n = 27), branch
manager (n = 21), supervisors (n = 39), and Staff (n = 23). Those who indicated as staffs said they worked as human resource, web manager, store
manager, teacher, scientist, engineer, and assistant. The respondents represented various industries such as Educational Services (n = 20), Healthcare
(n = 19), Technology (n = 15), Food/beverages (n = 11), Electronics (n = 7), Aviation (n = 6), Automotive (n = 5), Entertainment, Transportation,
and Metal fabrication (n = 4), Pharmaceuticals (n = 2), and Other (n = 38). Respondents in the other category represented service (n = 12), financial
(n = 5), agriculture (n = 3), construction (n = 3), retail (n = 3), manufacturing (n = 3), and real estate (n = 2). Respondents worked in companies
representing various size in terms of number of employees: less than 50 employees (n = 37), 50–99 employees (n = 16), 100–249 employees (n = 25),
250–499 employees (n = 17), 500–999 employees (n = 15), 1000 or more employees (n = 25).

15
C. Acharya et al. International Journal of Information Management 62 (2022) 102438

The data analyses demonstrated that the average variance extracted (AVE) values of all the constructs were above 0.50, providing support for
convergent validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). The square root of the AVE for each construct was higher than its correlation with the other factors in
the model (Fornell & Larcker, 1981), indicating discriminant validity. Moreover, Anderson and Gerbing (1988) pairwise comparison of variables was
used to test for discriminant validity. The chi-square difference between the constrained measurement model and the unconstrained measurement
model (freely estimated model) was satisfactory (Δχ2 [Δdf] = 72.395[8], p ≤ .001), which also provided support for discriminant validity. The
composite reliability of common lexicon, common meaning, common interests were respectively 0.808, 0.882, and 0.854.
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to test construct validity. Three sub- dimensionalities of boundary objects were specified before the
analysis was conducted. Principal Axis Factoring was used with Oblimin rotation and Kaiser Normalization. The results demonstrate only two items of
common lexicon and three items of common interests had a loading of more than 0.50. All items related to common meaning had more than 0.50
factor loadings. Therefore, the items that had less than 0.50 loadings were either modified or dropped (See Table A1 and A2 of Appendix 3). Other
items were either accepted as is or with a slight modification. Moreover, CFA with Principle component analysis was also conducted for three Novelty
items, the factor loading for all items was more than 0.70. Items were, “Our firm frequently encounters changes in customers’ tastes and preferences,”
“Our customers frequently demand technological advances in products/services,” and “We regularly update our existing knowledge domain to meet
the changes in customers’ requirements.” However, Cronbach alpha for the Novelty was only 0.60. Therefore, items for novelty are further revised in
the final data collection using Carlile (2004) definition of novelty.

Appendix 3. Supporting Tables

see Tables A1 and A2.

Table A1
Factor analysis of boundary spanning objects in pilot study
.
Factors 1 2 3

Common Lexicon 1 -.02 .45 .02

Common Lexicon 2 .31 .73 .17
Common Lexicon 3 .54 .74 .21
Common Lexicon 4 .54 .05 .34
Common Lexicon 5 .62 .23 .43
Common Meaning 1 .75 .19 .40
Common Meaning 2 .75 .24 .42
Common Meaning 3 .75 -.01 .55
Common Meaning 4 .77 .06 .53
Common Meaning 5 .77 .17 .43
Common Meaning 6 .76 .09 .54
Common Interest 1 .33 -.06 .41
Common Interest 2 .45 .12 .76
Common Interest 3 .49 .07 .82
Common Interest 4 .53 .18 .63
Common Interest 5 .53 -.05 .43

Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring.

Rotation Method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization.

Table A2
Factor loadings and Cronbach’s alpha of boundary spanning objects items in pilot study.
Cronbach’s Alpha if Item Deleted Factor Loading Accept/ Dropped/ Modified
Variables

Common Lexicon
We use shared tools such as sketches or prints .69 .45 Modified
We use common designs for completing a task .49 .73 Modified
We have standard specifications for completing a task .41 .74 Modified
We communicate in a language that we all understand .63 .05 Dropped
We have standardized organizational rules .57 .23 Dropped
Cronbach’s Alpha 0.62
Common Meaning
We have a common understanding of expected results from completing a task .88 .75 Accepted
We have a common understanding of the time required to complete a task .87 .75 Accepted
Our interpretation of organizational rules is similar .88 .75 Accepted
We have a common understanding of the roles and responsibilities of organizational members. .87 .77 Accepted
We have a common understanding of the outcomes of completing a task .87 .77 Accepted
We have a shared understanding of the processes required to complete a task .87 .76 Accepted
Cronbach’s Alpha .89
Common Interests
All members agree to ignore knowledge irrelevant to completing a 0.75 .41 Modified
particular task.
We jointly agree to learn new knowledge required to solve a problem. 0.65 .76 Modified
We jointly agree to invest time and resources to learn new knowledge. 0.64 .82 Modified
(continued on next page)

16
C. Acharya et al. International Journal of Information Management 62 (2022) 102438

Table A2 (continued )
Cronbach’s Alpha if Item Deleted Factor Loading Accept/ Dropped/ Modified
Variables

We develop a consensus to use relevant knowledge to solve a particular 0.67 .63 Accepted
problem
All members agree that knowledge developed in one area is useful in another. 0.73 .43 Modified
Cronbach’s Alpha 0.74

Appendix 4. Survey Scales and Items in Main Study

Constructs and Items

Common Lexicon (Carlile, 2004)

We use common designs for communicating information related to completing a task

Use of standard specifications enables us to share information for completing a task
We use common tools such as sketches/prints for sharing information related to completing a task
We use similar tools for communicating information for completing a task
Common Meaning (Carlile, 2004)

We have a common understanding of expected results from completing a task

We have a common understanding of time required to complete a task
Our interpretation of organizational rules is similar
We have a common understanding of roles and responsibilities of organizational members
We have a common understanding about outcomes of completing a task
We have a shared understanding of processes required to complete a task
Common Interests (Carlile, 2004)

All members agree to use only the knowledge relevant to completing a particular task (DELETED)
We are willing to forego our self-interests to develop consensus for solving problems
We jointly agree to learn new knowledge required for solving problems
We jointly agree to invest additional time to learn new knowledge for solving problems
We develop consensus to use relevant knowledge to solve a particular problem
All members agree that knowledge developed in one area can be useful in another for solving problems
We jointly agree to invest resources to learn new knowledge for solving problems
KI capability (Gardner et al., 2012) is measured in a 7-points Likert scale. The communication is…
Delayed Neutral Timely
Digressive Neutral Concise
Too many/too few Neutral Right amount Inconsiderate Neutral Supportive
Deceptive Neutral Truthful Confrontational Neutral Non confrontational
Hamperingteamwork Neutral Fostering teamworkIrrelevant Neutral Relevant
Biased Neutral Objective
Confused Neutral Clear
Innovation (Li & Atuahene-Gima, 2002). Requires respondents to rate the statements regarding their FIRM’s level of
innovation relative to its major competitors over the last 3 years the extent to which it has … (1 = weaker than
competition; 4 = similar to competition; 7 = stronger than competition).
Relative to our major competitors, our firm has…

Placed significant emphasis on new product/service development through allocation of substantial financial resources
Developed a large variety of new product/service
Made dramatic changes in existing products/service
Increased the rate of new product/service introductions to the market
Increased overall commitment to develop new product/service
Increased overall commitment to market new products/service
Novelty (Carlile, 2004)

The changes in customers’ tastes and preferences frequently make our knowledge obsolete
B) We often do not have immediate solutions to technological advances in products/services demanded by our customers.
(DELETED)
We often have to expand our knowledge base to meet the changing customers’ need.
We regularly update our existing knowledge domain to meet the changes in customers’ requirements

References Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A
review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3),
411–423.
Abubakar, A. M., Elrehail, H., Alatailat, M. A., & Elçi, A. (2019). Knowledge
Arias, E., Eden, H., Fischer, G., Gorman, A., & Scharff, E. (2000). Transcending the
management, decision-making style and organizational performance. Journal of
individual human mind—creating shared understanding through collaborative
Innovation & Knowledge, 4(2), 104–114.
design. ACM Transactions on Computer Human Interaction (TOCHI), 7(1), 84–113.
Al-Emran, M., Mezhuyev, V., Kamaludin, A., & Shaalan, K. (2018). The impact of
Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. (1977). Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys.
knowledge management processes on information systems: A systematic review.
Journal of Marketing Research, 14(3), 396–402.
International Journal of Information Management, 43, 173–187.
Ascarza, E., Ross, M., & Hardie, B. G. S. (2021). Why you aren’t getting more from your
Alavi, M., & Tiwana, A. (2002). Knowledge integration in virtual teams: The potential
AI. Harvard Business Review, 99(4), 48–54.
role of KMS. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53
(12), 1029–1037.

17
C. Acharya et al.
Baer, M., Dirks, K. T., & Nickerson, J. A. (2013). Microfoundations of strategic problem
formulation. Strategic Management Journal, 34(2), 197–214.
Balasubramanian, N., & Lee, J. (2008). Firm age and innovation. Industrial and Corporate
Change, 17(5), 1019–1047.
Bamberger, I. (1983). Value systems, strategies and the performance of small and
medium-sized firms. European Small Business Journal, 1(4), 25–39.
Barão, A., de Vasconcelos, J. B., Rocha, Á., & Pereira, R. (2017). A knowledge
management approach to capture organizational learning networks. International
Journal of Information Management, 37(6), 735–740.
Barley, W. C., Treem, J. W., & Kuhn, T. (2018). Valuing multiple trajectories of
knowledge: A critical review and agenda for knowledge management research.
Academy of Management Annals, 12(1), 278–317.
Basaglia, S., Caporarello, L., Magni, M., & Pennarola, F. (2010). IT knowledge integration
capability and team performance: the role of team climate. International Journal of
Information Management, 30(6), 542–551.
Benitez, J., Henseler, J., Castillo, A., & Schuberth, F. (2020). How to perform and report
an impactful analysis using partial least squares: Guidelines for confirmatory and
explanatory IS research. Information & Management, 57(2), Article 103168.
Berry, H. (2014). Global integration and innovation: Multicountry knowledge generation
within MNCs. Strategic Management Journal, 35(6), 869–890.
Boh, W. F., Ren, Y., Kiesler, S., & Bussjaeger, R. (2007). Expertise and collaboration in the
geographically dispersed organization. Organization Science, 18(4), 595–612.
Boland, B., De Smet, A., Palter, R., & Sanghvi, A. (2020). Reimagining the office and work
life after COVID-19. Retrieved from 〈https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functi
ons/organization/our-insights/reimagining-the-office-and-work-life-after-covid-19〉.
(Accessed on 22 July 2021).
Borgatti, S. P., & Cross, R. (2003). A relational view of information seeking and learning
in social networks. Management Science, 49(4), 432–445.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory
and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). New York: Greenwood
Press.
Brinkerhoff, J. M. (2002). Assessing and improving partnership relationships and
outcomes: A proposed framework. Evaluation and Program Planning, 25(3), 215–231.
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2001). Knowledge and organization: A social-practice
perspective. Organization Science, 12(2), 198–213.
Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge,
Massachusetts, and London: Harvard University Press.
Carlile, P. R. (2002). A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects
in new product development. Organization Science, 13(4), 442–455.
Carlile, P. R. (2004). Transferring, translating, and transforming: An integrative
framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organization Science, 15(5),
555–568.
Carlile, P. R., & Rebentisch, E. S. (2003). Into the black box: The knowledge
transformation cycle. Management Science, 49(9), 1180–1195.
Chang & Chung. (2011). Social capital and individual motivations on knowledge sharing:
Participant involvement as a moderator.
Chatterji, A. K., & Fabrizio, K. R. (2014). Using users: When does external knowledge
enhance corporate product innovation? Strategic Management Journal, 35(10),
1427–1445.
Cheung, M. S., Myers, M. B., & Mentzer, J. T. (2011). The value of relational learning in
global buyer-supplier exchanges: a dyadic perspective and test of the pie-sharing
premise. Strategic Management Journal, 32(10), 1061–1082.
Child, J. (1973). Predicting and understanding organization structure. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 18(2), 168–185.
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of
Sociology, 94, S95–S120.
Courtney, H., Kirkland, J., & Viguerie, P. (1997). Strategy under uncertainty. Harvard
Business Review, 75(6), 67–79.
Cramton, C. D. (2001). The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences for
dispersed collaboration. Organization Science, 12(3), 346–371.
Cronin, M. A., & Weingart, L. R. (2007). Representational gaps, information processing,
and conflict in functionally diverse teams. Academy of Management Review, 32(3),
761–773.
D’Adderio, L. (2001). Crafting the virtual prototype: how firms integrate knowledge and
capabilities across organisational boundaries. Research Policy, 30(9), 1409–1424.
De Jong, J. P., & Vermeulen, P. A. (2006). Determinants of product innovation in small
firms: A comparison across industries. International Small Business Journal, 24(6),
587–609.
Dibiaggio, L., & Nasiriyar, M. (2009). Knowledge integration and vertical specialization
in the semi- conductor industry. European Management Review, 6(4), 265–276.
Doll, B. (2008). Prototyping zur Unterstützung sozialer Interaktionsprozesse bei
Gründerteams. Management. 1- 383. Technische Universität München.
Dougherty, D., & Dunne, D. D. (2011). Organizing ecologies of complex innovation.
Organization Science, 22(5), 1214–1223.
Dow, S. P., Heddleston, K., Klemmer, S.R. (2009). The efficacy of prototyping under time
constraints. In Proceedings of the seventh ACM conference on Creativity and cognition CC
09 (p.165). ACM Press.
Dyer, J. H. (1996). Specialized supplier networks as a source of competitive advantage:
Evidence from the auto industry. Strategic Management Journal, 17(4), 271–291.
Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of
interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(4),
660–679.
Edmondson, A. C., & Nembhard, I. M. (2009). Product development and learning in
project teams: the challenges are the benefits. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 26(2), 123–138.
18
International Journal of Information Management 62 (2022) 102438
Edmunds, A., & Morris, A. (2000). The problem of information overload in business
organisations: A review of the literature. International Journal of Information
Management, 20(1), 17–28.
Espinosa, J. A., Slaughter, S. A., Kraut, R. E., & Herbsleb, J. D. (2007). Team knowledge
and coordination in geographically distributed software development. Journal of
Management Information Systems, 24(1), 135–169.
Esterhuizen, D., Schutte, C. S., & Du Toit, A. S. (2012). Knowledge creation processes as
critical enablers for innovation. International Journal of Information Management, 32
(4), 354–364.
Faems, D., Van Looy, B., & Debackere, K. (2005). Interorganizational collaboration and
innovation: Toward a portfolio approach. Journal of Product Innovation Management,
22(3), 238–250.
Floricel, S., & Dougherty, D. (2007). Where do games of innovation come from?
Explaining the persistence of dynamic innovation patterns. International Journal of
Innovation Management, 11(01), 65–91.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with
unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1),
39–50.
Franco, L. A. (2013). Rethinking soft OR interventions: Models as boundary objects.
European Journal of Operational Research, 231(3), 720–733.
Garcia, L. (2021, June 16). KPMG joins push for private-equity fund reporting standards.
The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from 〈https://www.wsj.com/articles/kpmg-joins
-push-for-private-equity-fund-reporting-standards-11623837601〉.
Gardner, H., Gino, F., & Staats, B. (2012). Dynamically integrating knowledge in teams:
Transforming resources into performance. Academy of Management Journal, 55(4),
998–1022.
Gebert, D., Boerner, S., & Kearney, E. (2010). Fostering team innovation: why is it
important to combine opposing action strategies? Organization Science, 21(3),
593–608.
Glover, J., Champion, D., Daniels, K., & Boocock, G. (2016). Using capital theory to
explore problem solving and innovation in small firms. Journal of Small Business and
Enterprise Development, 23(1), 25–43.
González-Benito, Ó., Muñoz-Gallego, P. A., & García-Zamora, E. (2016). Role of
collaboration in innovation success: differences for large and small businesses.
Journal of Business Economics and Management, 17(4), 645–662.
Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management
Journal, 17(S2), 109–122.
Guler, I., & Nerkar, A. (2012). The impact of global and local cohesion on innovation in
the pharmaceutical industry. Strategic Management Journal, 33(5), 535–549.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data
analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hammond, M. M., Neff, N. L., Farr, J. L., Schwall, A. R., & Zhao, X. (2011). Predictors of
individual- level innovation at work: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Aesthetics
Creativity and the Arts, 5(1), 90–105.
Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1984). Structural inertia and organizational change.
American Sociological Review, 149–164.
Hansen, M. H., Perry, L. T., & Reese, C. S. (2004). A Bayesian operationalization of the
resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 25(13), 1279–1295.
Hargadon, A., & Sutton, R. I. (1997). Technology brokering and innovation in a product
development firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(4), 716–749.
Häuberer, J. (2011). Social capital theory. Springer Fachmedien.
Haveman, H. A. (1993). Organizational size and change: Diversification in the savings
and loan industry after deregulation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 20–50.
Heshmati, A. (2001). On the growth of micro and small firms: evidence from Sweden.
Small Business Economics, 17(3), 213–228.
Hill, C. W. (1990). Cooperation, opportunism, and the invisible hand: Implications for
transaction cost theory. Academy of Management Review, 15(3), 500–513.
Homan, A. C., Hollenbeck, J. R., Humphrey, S. E., Van Knippenberg, D., Ilgen, D. R., &
Van Kleef, G. A. (2008). Facing differences with an open mind: Openness to
experience, salience of intragroup differences, and performance of diverse work
groups. Academy of Management Journal, 51(6), 1204–1222.
Hsiao, R. L., Tsai, D. H., & Lee, C. F. (2012). Collaborative knowing: the adaptive nature
of cross- boundary spanning. Journal of Management Studies, 49(3), 463–491.
Huckman, R. S., Staats, B. R., & Upton, D. M. (2009). Team familiarity, role experience,
and performance: Evidence from Indian software services. Management Science, 55
(1), 85–100. Journal. 25(8-9), 779-799.
Kelly, D., & Amburgey, T. L. (1991). Organizational inertia and momentum: A dynamic
model of strategic change. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 591–612.
Keltner, D., & Shiota, M. N. (2003). New displays and new emotions: A commentary on
Rozin and Cohen (2003). Emotion, 3(1), 86–91.
Kim, K. H. (2005). The relation among fit indexes, power, and sample size in structural
equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 12(3), 368–390.
Kline, R.B. (2004). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling, (2nd ed.). New
York: Guildford.
Kogut, B. (2000). The network as knowledge: Generative rules and the emergence of
structure. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), 405–425.
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities and the
replication of technology. Organization Science, 3(3), 383–397.
Koskinen, K. U., & Mäkinen, S. (2009). Role of boundary objects in negotiations of
project contracts. International Journal of Project Management, 27(1), 31–38.
Krauss, R. M., Fussell, S. R. (1990). Mutual knowledge and communicative effectiveness.
Intellectual teamwork: Social and technological foundations of cooperative work.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erl- baum (pp.111–146).
Laine, T., Korhonen, T., Suomala, P., & Rantamaa, A. (2016). Boundary subjects and
boundary objects in accounting fact construction and communication. Qualitative
Research in Accounting and Management, 13(3), 303–329.
C. Acharya et al.
Levina, N., & Vaast, E. (2005). The emergence of boundary spanning competence in
practice: Implications for implementation and use of information systems. MIS
Quarterly, 29(2), 335–363.
Lewis, K., Lange, D., & Gillis, L. (2005). Transactive memory systems, learning, and
learning transfer. Organization Science, 16(6), 581–598.
Li, H., & Atuahene-Gima, K. (2002). The adoption of agency business activity, product
innovation and performance in Chinese technology ventures. Strategic Management
Journal, 23(6), 469–490.
Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for common method variance in
cross-sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 114–121.
López-Nicolás, C., & Meroño-Cerdán, Á. L. (2011). Strategic knowledge management,
innovation and performance. International Journal of Information Management, 31(6),
502–509.
Majchrzak, A., More, P. H., & Faraj, S. (2012). Transcending knowledge differences in
cross-functional teams. Organization Science, 23(4), 951–970.
Malhotra, A., & Majchrzak, A. (2014). Managing crowds in innovation challenges.
California Management Review, 56(4), 103–123.
Malhotra, M. K., & Grover, V. (1998). An assessment of survey research in POM: from
constructs to theory. Journal of operations management. Journal of Operations
Management, 16(4), 407–425.
Mathieu, J. E., Heffner, T. S., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2000).
The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 85(2), 273–283.
McDowell, W. C., Peake, W. O., Coder, L., & Harris, M. L. (2018). Building small firm
performance through intellectual capital development: Exploring innovation as the
“black box”. Journal of Business Research, 88, 321–327.
Meenan, C., Erickson, B., Knight, N., Fossett, J., Olsen, E., Mohod, P., & Langer, S. G.
(2017). Workflow lexicons in healthcare: validation of the SWIM lexicon. Journal of
Digital Imaging, 30(3), 255–266.
Mehta, N.(2006). Knowledge integration in software teams: an analysis of team, project, and
IT- related issues (Doctoral dissertation).
Menor, L. J., & Roth, A. V. (2007). New service development competence in retail
banking: Construct development and measurement validation. Journal of Operations
Management, 25(4), 825–846.
Monteverde, K. (1995). Technical dialog as an incentive for vertical integration in the
semiconductor industry. Management Science, 41(10), 1624–1638.
Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the
organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242–266.
Nahm, A. Y., Rao, S. S., Solis-Galvan, L. E., & Ragu-Nathan, T. S. (2002). The Q-sort
method: assessing reliability and construct validity of questionnaire items at a pre-
testing stage. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods, 1(1), 114–125.
Nerkar, A., & Roberts, P. W. (2004). Technological and product-market experience and
the success of new product introductions in the pharmaceutical industry. Strategic
Management.
Ng, T. W., & Feldman, D. C. (2013). A meta-analysis of the relationships of age and
tenure with innovation-related behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 86(4), 585–616.
Nguyen, H. A., Nguyen, H., Nguyen, H. T., Phan, A. C., & Matsui, Y. (2018). Empirical
study on the role of collaboration in new product development in manufacturing
companies. International Journal for Quality Research, 12(2), 363–384.
Nicolini, D., Mengis, J., & Swan, J. (2012). Understanding the role of objects in cross-
disciplinary collaboration. Organization Science, 23(3), 612–629.
Nieto, M. J., & Santamaría, L. (2010). Technological collaboration: Bridging the
innovation gap between small and large firms. Journal of Small Business Management,
48(1), 44–69.
Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization
Science, 5(1), 14–37.
Ode, E., & Ayavoo, R. (2020). The mediating role of knowledge application in the
relationship between knowledge management practices and firm innovation. Journal
of Innovation & Knowledge, 5(3), 210–218.
Ojha, D., Patel, P. C., & Sridharan, S. V. (2020). Dynamic strategic planning and firm
competitive performance: A conceptualization and an empirical test. International
Journal of Production Economics, 222, Article 107509.
Okhuysen, G. A., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2002). Integrating knowledge in groups: How
formal interventions enable flexibility. Organization Science, 13(4), 370–386.
Ouchi, W. G. (1979). A conceptual framework for the design of organizational control
mechanisms. Management Science, 25(9), 833–848.
Ouchi, W. G. (1980). Markets, bureaucracies, and clans. Administrative Science Quarterly,
25(1), 129–141.
Parker, A. K., Zenkov, K., & Dennis, D. V. (2019). Exploring the lexicon or lack thereof in
clinical teacher preparation. Action in Teacher Education, 41(3), 249–264.
Parker, K., Horowitz, J., & Minkin, R. (2020). How the coronavirus outbreak has–and
hasn’t–changed the way Americans work. Pew Research Center.
Patel, P. C., Struckell, E. M., Ojha, D., & Manikas, A. S. (2020). Retail store churn and
performance–The moderating role of sales amplitude and unpredictability.
International Journal of Production Economics, 222, Article 107510.
Perrone, V., Zaheer, A., & McEvily, B. (2003). Free to be trusted? Organizational
constraints on trust in boundary spanners. Organization Science, 14(4), 422–439.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method
biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New
York: Simon Schuster.
Reagans, R., Argote, L., & Brooks, D. (2005). Individual experience and experience
working together: Predicting learning rates from knowing who knows what and
knowing how to work to- gether. Management Science, 51(6), 869–881.
19
International Journal of Information Management 62 (2022) 102438
Revilla, E., & Knoppen, D. (2015). Building knowledge integration in buyer-supplier
relationships: The critical role of strategic supply management and trust.
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 35(10), 1408–1436.
Rhinow, H., Köppen, E., & Meinel, C. (2012, July). Prototypes as boundary objects in
innovation processes. In Proceedings of the 2012 international conference on design
research society. Bangkok, Thailand.
Saeed, S., Yousafzai, S., Paladino, A., & De Luca, L. M. (2015). Inside-out and outside-in
orientations: A meta-analysis of orientation’s effects on innovation and firm
performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 47, 121–133.
Sahut, J. M., & Peris-Ortiz, M. (2014). Small business, innovation, and entrepreneurship.
Small Business Economics, 42(4), 663–668.
Salehi, S., Abedi, A., Balakrishnan, S., & Gholamrezanezhad, A. (2020). Coronavirus
disease 2019 (COVID-19) imaging reporting and data system (COVID-RADS) and
common lexicon: a proposal based on the imaging data of 37 studies. European
Radiology, 30(9), 4930–4942.
Salunke, S., Weerawardena, J., & McColl-Kennedy, J. R. (2019). The central role of
knowledge integration capability in service innovation-based competitive strategy.
Industrial Marketing Management, 76, 144–156.
Santoro, G., Vrontis, D., Thrassou, A., & Dezi, L. (2018). The internet of things: Building a
knowledge management system for open innovation and knowledge management
capacity. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 136, 347–354.
Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of information, 97. Urbana:
University of Illinois Press.
Shefer, D., & Frenkel, A. (2005). R&D, firm size and innovation: an empirical analysis.
Technovation, 25(1), 25–32.
Simon, H. A. (2000). Bounded rationality in social science: Today and tomorrow. Mind &
Society, 1(1), 25–39.
Singh, J. (2008). Distributed R&D, cross-regional knowledge integration and quality of
innovative output. Research Policy, 37(1), 77–96.
Singh, P. J., & Power, D. (2014). Innovative knowledge sharing, supply chain integration
and firm performance of Australian manufacturing firms. International Journal of
Production Research, 52(21), 6416–6433.
Sirmon, D. G., Hitt, M. A., & Ireland, R. D. (2007). Managing firm resources in dynamic
environments to create value: Looking inside the black box. Academy of Management
Review, 32(1), 273–292.
Sirmon, D. G., Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., & Gilbert, B. A. (2011). Resource orchestration
to create competitive advantage: Breadth, depth, and life cycle effects. Journal of
Management, 37(5), 1390–1412.
Smith, R. (2021). The founder of qualtrics on reinventing an already successful business.
Harvard Business Review, 99(4), 35–39.
Sørensen, J. B., & Stuart, T. E. (2000). Aging, obsolescence, and organizational
innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(1), 81–112.
Starbuck, W. H. (2014). Five stories that illustrate three generalizations about radical
innovations. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(8), 1278–1283.
Subramaniam, M., & Youndt, M. A. (2005). The influence of intellectual capital on the
types of innovative capabilities. Academy of Management Journal, 48(3), 450–463.
Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J. J., & Paas, F. G. (1998). Cognitive architecture and
instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251–296.
Thatcher, J. B., McKnight, D. H., Baker, E. W., Arsal, R. E., & Roberts, N. H. (2011). The
role of trust in postadoption IT exploration: An empirical examination of knowledge
management systems. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 58(1), 56–70.
Tiwana, A. (2008). Do bridging ties complement strong ties? An empirical examination
of alliance ambidexterity. Strategic Management Journal, 29(3), 251–272.
Tiwana, A., Bharadwaj, A., & Sambamurthy, V. (2003). The antecedents of information
systems development capability in firms: A knowledge integration perspective. ICIS
2003 Proceedings. (pp. 246–258).
Tolbert, P. S., & Hall, R. H. (2015). Organizations: Structures, processes and outcomes.
Routledge.
Tourangeau, R., Rips, L. J., & Rasinski, K. (2000). The psychology of survey response.
Cambridge University Press.
Wang, M. C., Chen, P. C., & Fang, S. C. (2018). A critical view of knowledge networks and
innovation performance: The mediation role of firms’ knowledge integration
capability. Journal of Business Research, 88, 222–233.
Weber, E. P., & Khademian, A. M. (2008). Wicked problems, knowledge challenges, and
collaborative capacity builders in network settings. Public Administration Review, 68
(2), 334–349.
Woiceshyn, J., & Daellenbach, U. (2005). Integrative capability and technology
adoption: Evidence from oil firms. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(2), 307–342.
Yang, S. M., Fang, S. C., Fang, S. R., & Chou, C. H. (2014). Knowledge exchange and
knowledge protection in interorganizational learning: The ambidexterity
perspective. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(2), 346–358.
Yuanyue, F., Ye, H., & Pan, S. L. (2011). Delivering knowledge across boundaries: A case
study of Bankco’s offshoring projects. Pacific Asia Journal of the Association for
Information Systems, 3(3), 57–79.
Zahra, S. A., & George, G. (2002). The net-enabled business innovation cycle and the
evolution of dynamic capabilities. Information Systems Research, 13(2), 147–150.
Zahra, S. A., Neubaum, D. O., & Hayton, J. (2020). What do we know about knowledge
integration: Fusing micro-and macro-organizational perspectives. Academy of
Management Annals, 14(1), 160–194.
Zander, U., & Kogut, B. (1995). Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation of
organizational capabilities: An empirical test. Organization Science, 6(1), 76–92.
Zhou, K. Z., & Li, C. B. (2012). How knowledge affects radical innovation: Knowledge
base, market knowledge acquisition, and internal knowledge sharing. Strategic
Management Journal, 33(9), 1090–1102.