skip to main content
10.1145/2818048.2819976acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescscwConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Public Access

A Contingency View of Transferring and Adapting Best Practices within Online Communities

Published:27 February 2016Publication History

ABSTRACT

Online communities, much like companies in the business world, often need to transfer 'best practices' internally from one unit to another to improve their performance. Organizational scholars disagree about how much a recipient unit should modify a best practice when incorporating it. Some evidence indicates that modifying a practice that has been successful in one environment will introduce problems, undercut its effectiveness and harm the performance of the recipient unit. Other evidence, though, suggests that recipients need to adapt the practice to fit their local environment. The current research introduces a contingency perspective on practice transfer, holding that the value of modifications depends on when they are introduced and who introduces them. Empirical research on the transfer of a quality-improvement practice between projects within Wikipedia shows that modifications are more helpful if they are introduced after the receiving project has had experience with the imported practice. Furthermore, modifications are more effective if they are introduced by members who have experience in a variety of other projects.

References

  1. Terry L Amburgey, Dawn Kelly, and William P Barnett. 1993. Resetting the Clock: The Dynamics of Organizational Change and Failure. Administrative Science Quarterly: 51–73.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Linda Argote and Paul Ingram. 2000. Knowledge Transfer: A Basis for Competitive Advantage in Firms. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 82, 1: 150–169.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Linda Argote. 2012. Organizational learning: Creating, retaining and transferring knowledge. Springer Science & Business Media.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Linda Argote and Ella Miron-Spektor. 2011. Organizational learning: From experience to knowledge. Organization science 22, 5: 1123–1137. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Kenneth J. Arrow. 1974. The limits of organization. W. W. Norton & Company.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Timothy T Baldwin and J Kevin Ford. 1994. Transfer of training: A review and directions for future research. The training and development sourcebook 180.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Joel AC Baum and Paul Ingram. 1998. SurvivalEnhancing Learning in the Manhattan Hotel Industry, 1898–1980. Management Science , 996-1016. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Yochai Benkler. 2002. Coase's Penguin, or, Linux and' The Nature of the Firm.' Yale Law Journal: 369–446.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Tom E Burns and George Macpherson Stalker. 1961. The management of innovation. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign's Academy for Entrepreneurial Leadership Historical Research Reference in Entrepreneurship.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Brian Butler, Elisabeth Joyce, and Jacqueline Pike. 2008. Don't look now, but we've created a bureaucracy: the nature and roles of policies and rules in wikipedia. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, ACM, 1101–1110. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Jeffrey L Cummings and Bing-Sheng Teng. 2003. Transferring R&D knowledge: the key factors affecting knowledge transfer success. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 20, 1-2: 39–68.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Eric D. Darr, Linda Argote, and Dennis Epple. 1995. The acquisition, transfer, and depreciation of knowledge in service organizations: Productivity in franchises. Management Science 41(11), 1750–1762. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Angelo S DeNisi, Michael A Hitt, and Susan E Jackson. 2003. The knowledge-based approach to sustainable competitive advantage. Managing knowledge for sustained competitive advantage: Designing strategies for effective human resource management: 3–33.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Vanessa Urch Druskat and Jane V Wheeler. 2004. How to lead a self-managing team. MIT Sloan Management Review 45, 4: 65.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Stanislav D Dobrev, Tai-Young Kim, and Michael T Hannan. 2001. Dynamics of Niche Width and Resource Partitioning1. American Journal of Sociology 106, 5: 1299–1337.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Glen Dowell and Anand Swaminathan. 2000. Racing and back-pedalling into the future: New product introduction and organizational mortality in the US bicycle industry, 1880-1918. Organization Studies 21, 2: 405–431.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Martha S Feldman and Brian T Pentland. Reconceptualizing Organizational Routines as a Source of Flexibility and Change. Administrative Science Quarterly 48, 1: 94–118.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Craig S Galbraith. 1990. Transferring core manufacturing technologies in high-technology firms. California Management Review 32, 4: 56.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Deborah H Gruenfeld, Paul V. Martorana, and Elliott T. Fan. 2000. What Do Groups Learn from Their Worldliest Members? Direct and Indirect Influence in Dynamic Teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 82, 1: 45–59.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Morten T Hansen. 1999. The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative science quarterly 44, 1: 82–111.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Morten T Hansen. 2002. Knowledge Networks: Explaining Effective Knowledge Sharing in Multiunit Companies. Organization science 13, 3: 232–248. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Robert J. Jensen and Gabriel Szulanski. 2007. Template Use and the Effectiveness of Knowledge Transfer. Management Science 53, April 2015: 1716–1730. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Aimée A Kane, Linda Argote, and John M Levine. Knowledge transfer between groups via personnel rotation: Effects of social identity and knowledge quality. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 96, 1: 56–71.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Shilpa Kannan. HOW MCDONALD'S CONQUERED INDIA, BBC News, Delhi. 19 November 2014. http://www.bbc.com/news/business-30115555Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Linsu Kim and Richard R Nelson. 2000. Technology, learning, and innovation: Experiences of newly industrializing economies. Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Robert E Kraut, Paul Resnick, Sara Kiesler, et al. 2012. Building successful online communities: Evidencebased social design. Mit Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Travis Kriplean, Ivan Beschastnikh, and David W McDonald. 2008. Articulations of wikiwork: uncovering valued work in wikipedia through barnstars. Proceedings of the 2008 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work, ACM, 47–56. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Bruce Kogut and Udo Zander. 1993. Knowledge of the Firm and the Evolutionary Theory of the Multinational Corporation. Journal of International Business Studies 24, 4: 625–645.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Edward E Lawler, Susan Albers Mohrman, and George Benson. 2001. Organizing for high performance: Employee involvement, TQM, reengineering, and knowledge management in the Fortune 1000: The CEO report. Jossey-Bass.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Sunkee Lee, Florian Rittiner, and Gabriel Szulanski. 2015. The Past, Present, and Future of Organizational Learning Research A Conversation With Professor Linda Argote. Journal of Management InquiryGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Steven A Lippman and Richard P Rumelt. 1982. Uncertain imitability: An analysis of interfirm differences in efficiency under competition. The Bell Journal of Economics: 418–438.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Barbara Levitt and James G. March. 1988. Organizational learning. Annual review of sociology 14, 1988: 319–340.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Kimberly Ling, Gerard Beenen, Pamela Ludford, et al. 2005. Using social psychology to motivate contributions to online communities. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 10 (4).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Will Mitchell and Kulwant Singh. 1993. Death of the lethargic: Effects of expansion into new technical subfields on performance in a firm's base business. Organization Science 4, 2: 152–180. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Jakob Nielsen. 1993. Iterative user-interface design. Computer 26, 11: 32–41. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Wanda J Orlikowski. 1992. Learning from notes: Organizational issues in groupware implementation. Proceedings of the 1992 ACM conference on Computersupported cooperative work, ACM, 362–369. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Wanda J Orlikowski. 1996. Improvising organizational transformation over time: A situated change perspective. Information systems research 7, 1: 63–92. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Craig L Pearce and Jay A Conger. 2002. Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership. Sage Publications.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Ben Shneiderman. 1992. Designing the user interface: strategies for effective human-computer interaction. Addison-Wesley Reading, MA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Jitendra V Singh, Robert J House, and David J Tucker. 1986. Organizational change and organizational mortality. Administrative Science Quarterly: 587–611.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Gabriel Szulanski. 2000. The Process of Knowledge Transfer: A Diachronic Analysis of Stickiness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 82, 1: 9–27.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. Gabriel Szulanski and ROBERT J. JENSEN. 2006. Presumptive adaptation and the effectiveness of knowledge transfer. Strategic Management Journal 957, February: 12.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Gabriel Szulanski. Exploring Internal Stickiness: Impediments to the Transfer of Best Practice Within the Firm. 17: 27–43.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Leigh Thompson, Dedre Gentner, and Jeffrey Loewenstein. Avoiding Missed Opportunities in Managerial Life: Analogical Training More Powerful Than Individual Case Training. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 82, 1: 60–75.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Marcie J Tyre and Wanda J Orlikowski. Windows of Opportunity: Temporal Patterns of Technological Adaptation in Organizations. 5, 1: 98–118.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Morten Warncke-Wang, Vladislav R Ayukaev, Brent Hecht, and Loren G Terveen. 2015. The Success and Failure of Quality Improvement Projects in Peer Production Communities. Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, ACM, 743–756. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BarnstarsGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Sidney G. Winter and Gabriel Szulanski. 2001. Replication as Strategy. Organization Science 12, 6: 730–743. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. Sidney G. Winter, Gabriel Szulanski, Dimo Ringov, and Robert J. Jensen. 2012. Reproducing knowledge: inaccurate replication and failure in franchise organizations. April 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Jisun Yu and Srilata Zaheer. 2010. Building a process model of local adaptation of practices: A study of Six Sigma implementation in Korean and US firms. Journal of International Business Studies. 41, 3: 475–499.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  51. Haiyi Zhu, Robert E. Kraut, and Aniket Kittur. 2012. Organizing without formal organization: group identification, goal setting and social modeling in directing online production. In Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 935-944). ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. Haiyi Zhu, Robert E. Kraut, and Aniket Kittur. 2012. Effectiveness of shared leadership in online communities. In Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 407-416). ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  1. A Contingency View of Transferring and Adapting Best Practices within Online Communities

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        CSCW '16: Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing
        February 2016
        1866 pages
        ISBN:9781450335928
        DOI:10.1145/2818048

        Copyright © 2016 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 27 February 2016

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        CSCW '16 Paper Acceptance Rate142of571submissions,25%Overall Acceptance Rate2,235of8,521submissions,26%

        Upcoming Conference

        CSCW '24

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader