Downloads & Free Reading Options - Results

In this article we investigate the circumstances under which it makes sense for members at various stages of the product development value chain to develop shared understanding, or, alternatively, to operate as mutually ignorant specialists. After reviewing extant literature pertaining to this question, we propose a set of hypotheses, and develop a program of computational experimentation to test them. Our findings both replicate extant theoretical views concerning the substitutability of specialist and trans-specialist knowledge types, and also suggest that the two knowledge types can exist as complements. Compared to previous analytic models designed to shed light on this question, our findings offer a much finer-grained analysis along multiple dimensions of performance, including cost, schedule, product quality and component quality. For instance, our findings indicate that trans-specialist knowledge becomes increasingly beneficial as competitive strategy becomes more sensitive to product quality, as product designs become less modular, and as decision-making becomes less centralized. With this study we offer three main contributions. First, we critique extant theory relating to the substitutability of specialist and interspecialist knowledge. Second, we offer new conceptual thinking and hypothesis testing concerning the relative costs and benefits of employing the two knowledge types under different organization circumstances. Third, we apply an agent based computational simulation approach in our analysis, and discuss the power of this method in testing theory related to organizational knowing and learning.