Digitization across Organizational Borders:
The Role of Digital Technologies and
Enterprise Social Media in Interorganizational
Collaborations
A qualitative study on the role of digital technologies and Enterprise Social Media in interorganizational collaborations
Master Thesis MSc Business Administration Name: Lars van Veen
Student number: s2769107
L.van.veen.3@student.rug.nl
Thesis supervisor: dr. W.G. Biemans Co-assesor: M. Hanisch
Abstract
Table of content
Abstract ... 1
Introduction ... 4
Theoretical background ... 6
2.1 Interorganizational collaboration for innovations ... 6
2.2 Digital technologies in interorganizational collaborations... 7
2.3 Enterprise Social Media (ESM) in interorganizational collaborations ... 8
Methodology ... 9
3.1 Qualitative study and interviews ... 10
3.2 Data collection ... 10
3.3 Data analysis ... 13
Results ... 13
4.1 Use of digital technologies in collaborations ... 13
4.1.1 current use of digital technologies in collaborations ... 13
4.1.2 Positive outcomes of using digital technologies in collaborations... 14
4.1.3 Challenges of using digital technologies in collaborations ... 15
4.2 Use of ESM in interorganizational collaborations ... 17
4.2.1 opportunities and positive outcomes of use of ESM in collaborations. ... 17
4.2.2 Challenges in implementing ESM-tools in interorganizational collaborations ... 18
4.2.3. Solving challenges in implementing ESM ... 20
4.3 Future ... 21
4.3.1 Future of digital technologies in interorganizational collaboration ... 21
4.3.2 Future of ESM in interorganizational collaboration ... 22
Discussion ... 22
5.1 Key findings ... 22
5.1.1 Benefits of implementing digital technologies and ESM-tools in interorganizational collaborations ... 23
5.1.2 Challenges in implementing digital technologies and ESM in interorganizational collaborations ... 24
5.1.3 Reciprocity of knowledge sharing ... 25
5.1.4 Differences in goal of collaboration in ESM-tool implementation... 26
5.2 Theoretical implications ... 27
5.3 Managerial implications ... 27
5.4 Limitations and suggestions for future research ... 28
Conclusion ... 29
References ... 30
Appendix ... 36
Introduction
The emergence of interorganizational collaborations gains more and more attention in current theory and in business operations (Faems & Van Looy, 2005; Hardy, Philips & Lawrence, 2003). These interorganizational collaborations are created because forces in the external environment of organizations have compelled organizations to promote and continuously search for innovations. In realizing these innovations, some organizations are seeking crucial information or products in collaboration with other organizations. Finding this information or products in an interorganizational collaboration may result in a competitive advantage for one of the organizations, or even for both parties involved in terms of innovativeness (Phillips, Lawrence & Hardy 2003; Vangen & Huxham, 2003).
The nature of interorganizational innovations is drastically influenced by the emergence of digital technologies. Digital technologies can be used to build and enforce communities and collaborations with other organizations. Such technologies support entities within the collaboration to share ideas and give or obtain feedback on the ideas (Standing, Mingers & Standing, 2018). A good example of such a digital technology is Enterprise Social Media (ESM). ESM is a social media tool, equipped for organizational use, where co-workers are able to communicate and share knowledge with each other (Leonardi, Huysman & Steinfield, 2013). Special attention is given to these ESM-tools, because use of these tools have promising implications for interorganizational collaborations. Yet, usage of these tools is minimal in interorganizational collaborations. Therefore, more research is required on the possibilities of ESM in interorganizational collaborations.
The positive outcomes and challenges of using digital technologies and ESM-tools for organizational reasons have been researched, and many managers implemented a form of digital tooling (such as an ESM-tool) within their organization as their most important medium of communication and knowledge sharing (Weber & Shi, 2017). Digital technologies (such as online meetings) and ESM-tools have high potential value for interorganizational collaborations as well, however, practical use and management of such digital technologies and ESM-tools in interorganizational collaborations is neglected in research. Theoretically, the implementation of digital technologies and ESM-tools are able to bring the same advantages as using these tools internally. The most important advantages lie in efficiency, communication, knowledge sharing and learning (Huan & Zhanwen, 2018; Ramona, Rodriquez-Rodriquez, Gomez-Gasquet & Mula, 2016).
Based on the highlighted importance, the research question is of this research is:
What are the (possible) benefits and challenges of digital technologies and ESM-tools in interorganizational collaborations?
In theory, ESM is seen as a part of digital technologies (Leonardi, Huysman & Steinfeld, 2013). However, in this research, these concepts will be referred to independently, because both concepts have other implications for interorganizational collaborations. Furthermore, another reason for splitting both concepts is because the use of digital technologies was present in all collaborations in the sample of this research, whether the use of ESM-tools is lacking. In this research, digital technologies consist basically of online meetings and digital apps, equipped for the interorganizational collaboration. ESM-tools consists of specific digital tools, for knowledge management in the interorganizational collaborations. In the theoretical framework, a more elaborative description of both digital technologies and ESM-tools will be outlined.
Another important development in current business operations is the worldwide virus Covid-19. The working-from-home environment in business is forcing companies and managers to react quickly on this environment, in order to keep their business up and running. Lower amount of physical contacts is a big problem in operations, especially in the case of interorganizational collaboration, where high trust among collaborators is vital in order to be a successful collaboration (Gray, 1985). Due to Covid-19, many businesses and collaborations shifted to online environments. This brought along that digital transformation in business came in a rapid fashion (Almeida, Santos & Monteiro, 2020), because the effects of the virus obligated businesses and collaborations to adapt to (new) digital environments (Ramsetty & Adams, 2020). Because of the Covid-19, interorganizational collaborations are more and more using digital technologies (such as online meetings) (Ting, Carin, Dzau & Wong, 2020).
In analyzing the research question, a qualitative study, consisting of interviews with multiple interorganizational collaborations and consultants of those collaborations, is organized. As said, the last decade, many scholars have researched the implications of digital technologies and ESM-tools in organizations. These insights will be used as a starting point for analyzing the possibilities and challenges in digital technology and ESM use in interorganizational collaborations. Moreover, differences between various collaborations (in type and goal of collaboration) will be taken into account in the results and discussion section. Different goals of the collaboration will eventually result in other implications and behavior in the organization regarding the implementation of digital technologies and ESM-tools. Also, interesting insights regarding relationship management and knowledge management will be discussed critically, based on theoretical insights and insights flowing from the results of this research.
theoretical evidence. Also, use of digital technologies and ESM will be linked to interorganizational collaborations. The theoretical framework will be followed by the methods and the results. In the discussion, based on results of this research, the most interesting insights will be presented and compared to the current literature. This research ends up by presenting implications, limitations, suggestions for future research, and the main conclusions of the research.
Theoretical background
For the quality and the clarity of this paper, first it is important to analyze the current state of the literature regarding interorganizational collaborations, digital technologies and ESM. At first, the theoretical and practical insights of interorganizational collaborations, and why firms should engage in forms of collaboration, are presented. Second, developments in digital technologies are outlined, and linked to the implications of those technologies in interorganizational collaborations. Third, the possibilities of ESM-tools in interorganizational collaborations will be outlined, based on the definition of ESM, and based on theoretical and practical findings of its use in organizations.
2.1 Interorganizational collaboration for innovations
Interorganizational collaborations occur when organizations seek organizational activities (such as research & development, new products, services or markets, or ways to implement innovations) across the organizational boundary, because 1) the organization does not possess the activities itself, or 2) it is more effective to collaborate in terms of costs and opportunities (Pereira, Borini & Oliveira, 2020; Gasmann, Zeschky, Wolff & Stahl, 2010; Bstieler & Hemmert, 2010). Interorganizational collaborations occur because “the sources of innovation are widely dispersed around the world” (Gomes, Galina, Vicentin & Porto, 2017, p. 1), and because it is almost impossible to survive competition on your own (Jaskyte & Lee, 2008). Collaborations can occur with many different partners, such as vertical collaborations with suppliers and clients, collaborations with universities and research institutes, and horizontal collaborations with competitors. Also, collaborations can consist of many different forms, being outsourcing, joint ventures, alliances and strategic partners (Phillips, Lawrence & Hardy, 2000).
collaborations are urged to manage the knowledge flows between the collaborators in a way that it selects and controls the appropriate knowledge flows for their own gain (Madhousi, Sadati, Delaravi, Mehdivand & Mihandost, 2011). A main benefit of using interorganizational innovations, opposed to intra-organizational innovations, is that interorganizational innovations tend to be more creative in their process, because of the diversity of organizational backgrounds (Du Chatenier, Verstegen, Biemans, Mulder & Omta, 2009), and ultimately leads to more ideas and creation of more novel ideas (Amabile, 1988).
In current literature, some drawbacks and challenges are presented as well regarding interorganizational collaborations. Knowledge spillovers is an important example of this in the interorganizational research fields. Although a firm chooses to transfer knowledge to other organizations (intended knowledge sharing), some knowledge, of which the organization wants to keep them in-house, may be transferred as well (unintended knowledge sharing) (Ding & Huang, 2009; Li, 2002). And so, entering an interorganizational collaboration calls for an effective knowledge management, in order to sustain competitive advantage. This effective knowledge management implies that unintended knowledge recipients are unable to absorb new knowledge from the knowledge transfer (Li, & Lin, 2013). Another challenge regarding interorganizational collaborations is communication. Differences and (geographic) distance between (members of) organizations may result in communication barriers (Jones & Thomas, 2007; Faems, Van Looy & Debackere, 2005).
2.2 Digital technologies in interorganizational collaborations
Developing digital technologies in interorganizational collaborations is not without a fight. A lot of challenges underpin an interorganizational collaboration, such as conflicting structures, difficulties in communication and goal alignment (Fames, van Looy & Debackere, 2005; Brown & Eisenhardt, 1998). Relationship management in these difficulties is the key ingredient for a successful relationship between collaborators (Ritter & Gemünden, 2003; Meier, 1995). Where relationship management in itself is important for the collaboration as a whole, relationship management in combination with the use of digital technologies requires strict attention as well, because trust in the digital technology and a good relationship with other users of the digital technology has proven to be important predictors of the effective use of the digital technologies (Sievert & Scholtz, 2017; Martin, Parry & Flowers, 2015). Managers constantly reflect on the collaboration, and compare the benefits and (financial) efforts frequently (Huxham & Macdonald, 1992). The same line is drawn for implementing digital technologies into interorganizational collaborations. Sufficient effort, attention and alignment is needed in carrying out such technologies or tools.
2.3 Enterprise Social Media (ESM) in interorganizational collaborations
Special focus in this research is on the (effects and implications of) use of ESM in interorganizational collaborations. ESM can be defined as “platforms that allow workers to communicate with coworkers or broadcast messages to others in the organization”, (Leonardi, Huysman & Steinfield, 2013 p. 2). In this platforms, workers are able to share knowledge, files and texts. These files, texts and knowledge can be viewed by other workers, at “any time of their choosing” (p.2) (Leonardi, 2014).
As previously mentioned, knowledge management is an important aspect of interorganizational collaboration. Here, knowledge management is defined as “the systematic underpinning, observation and optimization of a company’s knowledge economies” (Demarest, 1997, p. 374). Knowledge management consists of many components, in this study the most important to be knowledge sharing (or transferring), knowledge storability and learning from the shared and stored knowledge. ESM-tools have the possibility to enlarge those components of knowledge management, because organizational knowledge will be more visible in ESM-tools (Treem & Leonardi, 2012; Zbuchea & Vidu, 2018).
learning from the knowledge, ESM-tools are seen as very effective platforms, in terms of the ease and speed of knowledge sharing (Razmerita, Kirchner & Nabeth, 2014).
Moreover, if a switch takes place in users over time, collaborating via ESM is able to store the knowledge of the leaving users, so that current users can still benefit from the knowledge of these leaving users. On the other hand, new users can easily access important information and knowledge, related to their new function in the collaboration (Leidner, Gonzalez & Koch, 2018; Ramona et al, 2016). This storage of knowledge is important for leaving and entering users, but also for the collaboration in general. As the definition of Leonardi (2014) already indicates, users can acquire the shared knowledge at their own time. Users can always draw on previously shared knowledge, because of the storability of ESM-tools (Zbuchea & Vidu, 2018).
Nevertheless, some issues and challenges regarding ESM are considered in theory and practice as well. Building trust and motivation in and for the ESM-tool are vital aspects for its success (Kaminska & Borzillo, 2017; Gopal, Hidaji, Patterson, Rolland & Zhdanov, 2016). The more a user is satisfied with the social media tool, and the more it trust the tool and its users, the more it is motivated to contribute to the existing knowledge. This motivation is also related to perceived pleasure and ease of the tool, as well as the incentives of contributing to the tools. The more knowledge is shared in the tool, the more users are satisfied, and ultimately the more knowledge they will share in the tool (Rode, 2016; Razmerita, Kirchner & Nielsen, 2016).
Also, knowledge management in interorganizational activities is quite complex. In current literature, Laursen & Salter (2014) introduced the paradox of openness regarding knowledge. On the one hand, interorganizational activities can only succeed if knowledge and resources are shared among those concerned. If, for example, knowledge is shared and transferred, the interorganizational collaboration as a whole benefits in terms of learning from this shared knowledge. On the other hand, however, firms involved in the interorganizational activities do not want their unique knowledge and resources to be imitated by others involved. Especially firms in collaborations with competitors will be prudent with sharing unique knowledge (Laursen & Salter, 2014; Wadhwa, Bodas Freitas & Sarkar, 2017; Arora, Athrey & Huang, 2016). This prevention of sharing knowledge is expected to play an important role in negative attitudes towards implementing an ESM-tool for knowledge management.
Methodology
3.1 Qualitative study and interviews
In order to give an appropriate overview of the possibilities and challenges of using digital technologies and ESM-tools in interorganizational collaborations, a qualitative study is organized. This qualitative research is characterized by depth-interviews with semi-structured questions. Semi-structured means that the questions are open-ended and that there is a possibility to diverge from the interview protocol.
Because of the explorative nature of this research, the interviews will be characterized by broad and general questions, complemented with specific research topics, which are relevant for the specific case, and are relevant in the scope of the study. Conducting interviews is the best way to understand what is really going on in the organizational collaborations in terms of digital technologies and ESM-tools, because of the relative newness of this research. Also, interviews were needed to fully recognize the attitudes towards the implementation of digital technologies and ESM-tools in interorganizational collaborations.
The first interviews had a more exploratory approach than the last ones. Because of the lack of use of ESM in interorganizational collaborations, the scope of the research shifted more to what are future opportunities in using ESM tools, instead of asking what the implications are right now. In the results of this research, reasons will be outlined for the lack of implementation of ESM-tools in interorganizational collaborations, and those reasons will be critically reflected on in the discussion part.
3.2 Data collection
Form of collaboration Function/role Reference Collaboration of a cleaning
company and its client
Team Leader in the cleaning company CleanEmpl1
Collaboration of a cleaning company and its client
Team Leader in the cleaning company CleanEmpl2
Collaboration of a cleaning company and its client
Operational manager in the client of the cleaning company
CleanEmpl3
Collaboration of a cleaning company and its client
Company director of the cleaning company
CleanMan
Collaboration between construction companies
Owner of an architectural firm,
connected to the collaboration between construction companies.
ConstrEmpl1
Collaboration between construction companies
Owner of a communication and media company, connected to the collaboration between construction companies.
ConstrEmpl2
Collaboration between construction companies
Starter of the collaboration between construction companies
ConstrMan
Collaboration between transportation companies and its client
Employee of one of the transportation companies involved in the collaboration with its client
TransEmp
A collaboration between insurance companies, and between bus companies and municipalities
Consultant Con1
Collaboration between cleaning company and its client (mentioned above)
Consultant Con2
3.3 Data analysis
In order to analyze the results of the interviews, all interviews are transcribed, and coded. The codes are partly deductive (based on theoretical evidence), and partly inductive (based on the evidence provided by the interviewees), Given the exploratory nature of this research. The coding has been done in three steps. At first, this research used open coding to assign relevant quotes and information to a topic of interorganizational collaboration or digital technologies/use of ESM. Secondly, these quotes were organized by a first-order code, which combines particular evidence. Finally, Those codes were further organized into second-order codes, which combines the first-order codes. An overview of the codes can be found in Appendix B.
Results
In this section, the results flowing from the interviews are presented. At first, the current state of use of digital technologies in different interorganizational collaborations will be outlined. In order to evaluate and analyze the attitudes and perceived benefits and challenges, it is important to first look at the current use of digital technologies, and what it is used for. Then, focus is on the benefits and challenges of these digital technologies. After these results, the possibilities and challenges of implementing an ESM-tool in interorganizational collaborations will be presented. This section ends up with a look to the future in terms of digital technology and ESM use. All quotations, deriving from the interviews, are marked with a reference to a certain respondent (see table 1: Respondents), in order to see differences in opinions and ideas.
4.1 Use of digital technologies in collaborations
All the collaborations are using (forms of) digital technologies in their way of working. In order to analyze the perceived benefits and challenges of digital technology use in interorganizational collaborations, first, the current use of digital technologies is outlined. Second, the benefits of digital technologies are presented. At last, the challenges of using these digital technologies are presented.
4.1.1 current use of digital technologies in collaborations
where they try to imitate their physical expert meetings, in order to keep sharing knowledge among the participants of the collaboration in times of Covid-19. The collaboration between the transportation companies is using many digital technologies, consisting of multiple apps and digital environments
The consultants mainly took the same stand on digital technology use in collaborations. The consultants helped the collaborations in arranging digital technologies, in order to deal with the impacts of Covid-19. The consultants actively supported this implementation, by helping collaborations in what tools to use, and which tools suit best for their operations. Different consultants also looked to digital technology use after Covid-19, because it can enforce the way of working of different collaborations. Most of the consultants were positive about the implications of digital technologies in interorganizational collaborations, and try to create such technologies, because they believe that many physical parts of the collaborations can be effectively turned into online collaboration.
“People think that some physical meetings cannot be shifted to online meetings, but the good news is that it is possible, when organized well” (Con2).
4.1.2 Positive outcomes of using digital technologies in collaborations
Digital technologies are positively related to interorganizational collaborations, because it causes more efficiency in communicating, it helps in sharing and storing knowledge and it has positive implications for attracting new entrants in the collaboration. Also, because of the knowledge creation, sharing and storing, learning is important positive outcome of using digital technologies, foremost in times of Covid-19, where physical meetings are cancelled.
The consultant of the collaboration between two insurance companies detected problems during the set-up phase of the collaboration, because there was no unequivocal way of communicating and file sharing. By building a digital intranet, designed for both parties, communication was more efficient, and files were shared to a much greater extent. Moreover, physical meetings are mostly time-consuming. Right now, lot of efficiency is added to the collaborations, because the collaborators can meet online, and can spare out travelling times towards physical meetings.
Another positive outcome is the ability of digital technologies in terms of knowledge management. Employees and managers of the collaborations are able to share knowledge, ideas, experiences and lessons learned among other employees and managers, via digital tools or online meetings. In the collaboration between the construction companies, the knowledge sharing is the most important goal of the collaboration. The respondents of this collaborations were relieved that digital technologies allowed this sharing of knowledge to occur still in times of Covid-19.
Another positive outcome is the possibility of co-creation in digital environments. In an online platform, collaborators are able to make adjustments and additions to ideas or concepts of other collaborators. For example, online brainstorming about concepts of the collaboration can be very beneficial via digital tools, because of its ability to easily remove, adjust and add concepts.
The last benefit is an external benefit of adding digital technologies and an online way of working in interorganizational collaborations. In network-based collaborations (such as the collaboration of the construction companies) growing in terms of knowledge and partners is important. In an online environment, the collaboration is more accessible for new entrants and members.
“If I take the example of Miro (online whiteboard), I can share it with everyone, Adjustments can be made easier and I can organize the insights much easier than with a physical whiteboard. Also,
collaborators can easily co-create in these online brainstorming, in reacting to each other or complement each other's knowledge” (con2).
“Message exchanges are stored and organized much better in Slack than in mail or phone calls and all our reviews in Confluence and Jira are documented and stored. For learning reasons, but also for
new entrants in the collaboration” (TransEmp).
“We store the online meetings and presentations, for people who could not be there, or people who want to see it again. There is a library internally, where all participants of the collaboration can look
up other online meetings” (ConstrEmpl1 & ConstrMan).
“The online meetings are a stimuli for other stakeholders in the market of construction companies to join our collaboration. Our online meetings are the motor for our collaboration, and
our success as a collaboration” (ConstrEmpl2). 4.1.3 Challenges of using digital technologies in collaborations
“The concentration of participants is completely gone, and discussing relevant topics is reduced to the minimum right now. Also, problems in technicalities are still present in our online meetings. People are not able to find their mute-button for example, or the connection is not good
enough to stream” (ConstrMan).
Psychological arguments play a role in the challenges of using digital technologies as well. Collaborators and responsible for collaboration experience difficulties in implementation of digital technologies, because other collaborators do not trust the specific digital tool, or even the digital technology as a whole.
“Almost every physicality can be done digitally. But things that are not tangible, we can’t trust. This can be a difference in age as well, because I recognize that changing elderly people in
terms of digitalization is more difficult and asks more attention than younger people” (Con1).
Next to technical and psychological problems and issues in collaborations during implementation of digital technologies, another challenge lies in managing the relationship and trust between the collaborators. Building or sustaining trustable relationships is quite difficult in an online environment, because many collaborators want to meet in person, in order to make contact and build that trustable relationship to share knowledge. In the collaboration between construction companies, collaborators who did meet-up already (or even did projects together already) can sustain their relationships in an online environment. However, new entrants, who do not know everyone, perceive more difficulties in building relationships and collaborations with other collaborators. This caused a deterioration of the relationship in times of online collaboration. In the collaboration of the cleaning company and its client, problems in making new relationships and contacts occurred as well, because the physical learning days were deleted completely, while this was the best occasion to meet others in the collaboration, build relationships and share lessons learned and experiences. When different collaborators already have met in physical terms, communication and knowledge sharing is more likely to happen to a higher extent.
“The physical “learning days” also enforce the relationship between the collaborators, and participants communicate and share knowledge faster and easier with participants they spoke to on a
physical learning day” (CleanEmpl2).
“Currently, I am researching the effect of working digitally and the social impact of this way of working, because I noticed that it is difficult to manage the trust-relationship in the collaboration. You have not seen or spoken to new people or organizations within the collaboration in person, and
thus it is difficult to build a trust-relationship” (Con2)
“Relationship-building differs among different nations or parts of the world. “For example, people from Italy have a much more social-culture than other countries do
(Netherlands/Germany/Sweden/Norway). In the more social-distant cultures, adaptation to the online environments was less complicated than for the Italian guy” (Con2)
4.2 Use of ESM in interorganizational collaborations
For many collaborations, the use of ESM is far away. The only collaboration using an ESM-tool for the collaboration is the collaboration of the transportation companies. Most of the others mention the wish to implement such a tool. In this section, the opportunities and positive outcomes of an ESM-tool in interorganizational collaborations are outlined, as well as the challenges in implementing such a tool. Also, possible solutions for the drawn challenges are presented by different respondents.
4.2.1 opportunities and positive outcomes of use of ESM in collaborations
ESM can help in combining the intranet of one company and an intranet of other collaborators. Working closely together is vital in an interorganizational collaboration, and ESM has great possibilities in realizing this. One consultant is responsible for a collaboration between two port companies. In order to integrate the way of communication and knowledge sharing, he equipped an ESM-tool. In this ESM tool, he arranged different channels, all with another purpose of knowledge sharing or communication. These channels helped integrating different companies, and different employees of these companies, in their way of collaborating.
“I organized channels with private groups, consisting of employees with (kind of) the same tasks in one of the port companies. Specific information is shared in these channels. The amount of learning is
high in these channels, because members experience their own learning, and try to help other ones too. Another channel is the general channel, where everyone within the collaboration is included.
This channel is set up for relevant announcements for the whole collaboration. Also, there is a channel named “library”, where important articles, documents and lessons learned are shared. This channel is also set up for discussions regarding the shared information and knowledge. At last, there
ESM-tools can bring much more efficiency and effectiveness in the knowledge management of the collaboration. In communication, knowledge sharing, knowledge storing, and learning of this shared and stored knowledge, ESM has high potentials. Right now, communication and contact between various stakeholders in the collaboration occurs mostly via phone-calling and emailing, and because of this, many important knowledge streams are only shared among a small part of the collaborators. When sharing specific knowledge meant for only one person, phone-calling and emailing is an effective way to do that. However, less specific knowledge can be interesting for others in the collaborations as well, and it would be a shame when this knowledge is lost in the way of communicating. The only collaboration actively using an ESM-tool (Slack) is very positive about the developments and implications of working in such a tool, because communication and knowledge sharing between collaborators is better in ESM-tools than via phone-calling or mailing, because multiple collaborators can learn from the experience of other collaborators, and can learn from the knowledge sharing of other collaborators.
“The communication and contact between various stakeholders should be recorded or stored in such a way that other stakeholders can also learn from the contact and communication of others and ESM
has this functions” (Con1).
“An ESM-tool will help in looking back to other experiences of other participant. Right now, we only see solutions for big problems, shared in our safety-dashboard” (CleanEmpl2).
“Communicating, knowledge sharing with others and storage of knowledge is so much better than via mail or phone calling” (TransEmp).
“You notice that everyone wants to share information and knowledge again, also in times of Covid-19, but we miss an organizer for this type of tooling. We did use a WhatsApp-group, but no one reacted in the group, because many people did not see the positive outcomes of the group. The group
has positive outcomes, but there is a need for an organizer who manages this” (CleanEmpl1).
“Implementing ESM-tools in collaborations is very difficult, because employees and managers are busy with their own jobs. This seems a very bad excuse, but it is the truth. They have no time to
research the tools, setting up the tool, and getting everyone aboard” (Con1).
Second, psychological difficulties play an important as well in implementing ESM-tools in interorganizational collaborations. Being motivated to use the ESM-tool is a vital psychological aspect that determines the successfulness of the tool. In this research, most of the respondents indicated a lack of motivation to use the ESM-tool. Different forms of ESM (even simple WhatsApp-groups) were implemented in some collaborations, but because most of the participants were unmotivated, the ESM-tool lost its relevance, and it became redundant in the collaboration. This lack of motivation is mostly due to the lack of understanding how the ESM-tool works, and what it could bring the users in collaborating terms.
“We used Slack in another collaboration, but this was not a success. Although we did everything we could to implement the system, and address the importance of it, most of the members were reluctant
in sharing documents or knowledge. If sharing is absent, the tool loses its functionality” (con3).
“I think this could bring some benefits for the collaboration. But if I take look at the current use of digital technologies, and the response in, for example, the WhatsApp-group, this will be very hard to
recuperate in the collaboration. Employees are pretty convinced they don’t need more digital technologies, let alone more social media tools” (CleanEmpl1).
Third, an important reason why ESM-tools are not implemented in collaborations, is because of the lack of need of such a tool. In the collaboration of the cleaning company and its client, some respondents saw no (or at least less) beneficial outcomes of implementing such a tool, because the collaboration was mostly based on communication. This communication runs via E-mail and phone-calling, and that works well for this collaboration.
meeting each other in the form of a collaboration, this might be a great issue in exploiting the collaboration in combination with necessary digital technologies or tools.
“If I have to make a channel for every collaboration, it would be very hard to manage” (Con5).
“Combining the ESM with other parties is quite difficult, and implementing another social media for all our collaborations is a lot of work to implement” (CleanEmpl3).
“Some companies are no further than only using video conferencing, whether others use fully equipped social media tools. This causes trouble in the collaboration” (Con2).
Surprisingly, the expected challenge in openness of knowledge did not came up in the interviews. Even competitive collaborators (such as the construction and the transportation companies) wanted to be as open as possible on unique knowledge and resources, because that is the only way that the collaboration has benefits. In return, collaborators expect the same thing of other collaborators. They expect, say to say, reciprocity in knowledge sharing.
“Trust in our collaboration is high, and that is because we all share unique knowledge. I share a lot of knowledge about my specific field, but in turn, others do the same thing with their knowledge in a
specific field” (ConstrEmpl1).
4.2.3. Solving challenges in implementing ESM
by explaining how the tool works and introducing the usefulness of the ESM-tool. This will ultimately motivate the users to adopt and use the ESM-tool. If a user knows what is expected, knows how to meet this expectations, and he is aware of the benefits it could bring, his motivation to actually use this tool will be much higher.
Solutions for the challenge of differences in organizations are more complicated than the solutions for the challenges in management and psychological factors. Respondents, who introduced this problem, were not able to give specific solutions for the challenge, and handled it with the response that it was just not possible to solve. However, in the collaboration of the transportation companies and their client, the use of an ESM-tool was implemented, although there was a big difference between the organizations. Experience in using ESM-tools of the client was key in the success of its implementation. This suggests that there is a way of fixing the challenge of difference in organizations, but one of the organizations needs to take the lead in implementing the tool, so that they can develop and explain the tool to others.
“Appointing a manager of social media tools can solve the problems. Someone who is in charge of the social media implementation, and foremost someone who can convince others to contribute to the
social media tool” (Con3).
“In our collaboration, the use of Slack was not even a question. Our client uses Slack as the main communication channel, and so we had to implement it as well. The client was already quite experienced with the tool, so knowledge about this tool was quite high. Also, the client helped us in
developing skills in the tool, by providing a training on how to use it” (TransEmp).
4.3 Future
After having discussed the current situation of digital technologies and ESM-tools, the respondents looked to the future of the interorganizational collaborations, and the role of digital technologies and ESM in this future.
4.3.1 Future of digital technologies in interorganizational collaboration
“I hope it will continue in physics as well as in online meetings. Also within one meeting. That it is possible to physically attend the meeting, but that there is a livestream via digital technologies as well (Teams). And that the meeting will be recorded, and that we have a possibility to share the file among
interested people” (ConstrEmpl2).
“Physical meetings are more natural, but online meetings are more efficient, foremost because travelling distances will be reduce” (CleanEmpl2).
4.3.2 Future of ESM in interorganizational collaboration
The future of ESM in interorganizational collaboration is somewhat more challenging to predict, because of current lack of use in interorganizational collaborations. The expectations of future use are therefore mixed. Some managers, employees and consultants are positive about the implementation of ESM in interorganizational collaborations, whether others have more reservations regarding this implementation. All respondents acknowledged the fact that an ESM-tool could have possibilities and benefits for their collaboration, but some respondents were skeptical about the fact that the benefits will outweigh the costs.
“Our employees need to connect water pipes to water holes in the winter. In order to fix this problem, we used special hand gloves, which are also used by window cleaners. A brilliant solution. However, we used this in Zwolle, and in other cities they have absolutely no clue about this solution, and they might be still struggling with this problem. That is why we need an ESM-tool” (CleanEmpl2).
“Is using ESM-tools so much better and more efficient than phone calling or mailing?” (Con4).
Discussion
In this discussion, the four most interesting insights regarding digital technology and ESM use in interorganizational collaborations are highlighted and discussed by reflecting on them based on the current literature and the findings of this research. After reflecting on the most important findings of this research, the theoretical and managerial implications will be presented. This section ends up with limitations and suggestions for future research.
5.1 Key findings
outlined, and reflected on with current literature about digital technologies and ESM. Second, challenges of implementing digital technologies and ESM-tools in interorganizational collaborations will be analyzed, based on this research complemented with theoretical evidence. Third, the impact of the paradox of openness on digital technology use in interorganizational collaborations will be discussed critically, complemented by the motive of reciprocity in the difficult choice on how to be open towards collaborators. Fourth, different forms of collaborations within this sample showed differences in their attitudes towards the implementation of an ESM-tool. This finding is being reviewed with help of current literature about different forms of collaborations, and the way those collaborations consider knowledge management in the collaboration.
5.1.1 Benefits of implementing digital technologies and ESM-tools in interorganizational collaborations
This research sets out the possibilities and benefits of implementing digital technologies in interorganizational collaborations. The biggest benefit for the sample of this research can be found in the efficiency within the collaboration. Digital technologies enable collaborators to communicate in faster ways, and facilitate online meetings, which can be done without travelling towards physical meetings, for example. This finding is completely in line with the evidence presented in the theoretical framework of this research, which states that digital technologies can enhance the efficiency of communication (Klewes, Popp & Rost-Hein, 2017; Merschbrock, 2012; Chi & Holsapple, 2005).
Another positive outcome of using digital technologies in interorganizational, detected by the sample of this research, are (minor) benefits in knowledge management. Current literature about the benefits in digital technologies in terms of communication is therefore extended by minor beneficial characteristics of digital technologies, such as its storability and the ability to make co-creation interactive and easier to adjust.
5.1.2 Challenges in implementing digital technologies and ESM in interorganizational collaborations
Based on the results of this research, major challenges in implementing digital technologies and ESM-tools in interorganizational collaborations are detected. In digital technologies, the biggest challenge lies in relationship management. In implementing ESM-tools, challenges lie in management, psychological factors, differences between collaborating organizations and the perceived need of an ESM-tool in interorganizational collaborations.
As we have seen in the theoretical framework as well, relationship management is one of the most important characteristics of interorganizational collaborations (Gray, 1985; Meier 1995). Due to the impact of Covid-19, the collaborations are urged to shift physical meetings (such as learning days and expert meetings, in this sample) to online environments. In this sample, this has a major impact on the relationship-building within the collaboration. In online environments, all the respondents perceived difficulties in building new relationships in the collaboration. In line with the argumentation of Merschbrock (2012), already existing relationships, build on trust through a history of collaboration, are able to be sustained in digital technologies. Yet, the relationship-building is perceived as more difficult. The importance of relationship-building and the absence of relationship-building in digital technologies is the reason why the respondents argue for a hybrid form of on- and offline collaboration. Interestingly, this absence of relationship-building in this sample is not in line with the results of the article of Van Osch & Steinfeld (2015), who argue that digital technologies can help building new relationships. Important note to this discussion, is that the study of Van Osch & Steinfeld (2015) is based on evidence in internal use of digital technologies. Comparing those internal insights with the insights of collaborating insights shows an important difference in relationship-building. Internally, digital technologies are seen as an important relationship builder, whether digital technologies in an interorganizational collaboration decline the building of relationships.
Results of this research showed the current reluctant attitude towards the implementation of an ESM-tool in interorganizational collaborations. Where internal use of ESM is being accepted and used in all sorts of internal business operations (Kane, 2015; Leonardi, 2013), the implementation of these technologies is still lacking in theory and practice on interorganizational collaborations, because of the challenging environment.
tool and in other users of the tool, are strongly related to the commitment of using these tools (Aboelmaged, 2018). Commitment, flowing from the motivation and trust, is important for the operation of the ESM-tool (Kamsinka & Borzillo, 2017). Also, accessibility and perceived ease of use of the digital tools are researched in current literature by Razmerita (2016). He argues that the more accessible and easy the use of tools, the more adaptation and use of this tool will take place. All of these challenges in implementing ESM tools are being recognized by the sample of this research as well.
However, next to the existing challenges, the results of this research show more challenges regarding the implementation of an ESM-tool in interorganizational collaboration, that have not been researched yet. The current theoretical challenges are complemented with two specific challenges for the interorganizational field of digital technologies, being differences between the collaborating organizations and the perceived need of a digital tool in the collaboration. By adding those challenges, the (already challenging) implementation of an ESM-tool in interorganizational collaboration becomes even more complex. This is an important argument why use of ESM-tools is still lacking in current interorganizational collaborations.
5.1.3 Reciprocity of knowledge sharing
In the theoretical framework of this research, the importance of knowledge management in interorganizational collaborations and the importance of the management of openness in interorganizational collaborations were indicated. Where digital technologies and ESM-tools have great opportunities in knowledge sharing and learning, negative impacts of sharing unique knowledge and resources can occur as well. Where the expectation was that these negative impacts of openness would influence the attitudes of implementing an ESM-tool, this has not been recognized by the sample of this research. The sample of this research trusted their collaborators (even competitors) and saw the full openness of knowledge as the only way to succeed in the collaborations. In sharing as much information and knowledge as possible, the collaborators expected reciprocity from other collaborators.
protecting unique knowledge and information were not recognized. For this reason, against the expectations, the lack of ESM tools is not caused by unwillingness to share knowledge and create “unintended” knowledge flows towards collaborators or competitors.
5.1.4 Differences in goal of collaboration in ESM-tool implementation
Different forms of collaboration ask for different strategies in knowledge management (Bogers, 2011). The sample of this research consists of different collaborations in terms of the type and goals of collaboration. In the results, a difference in type of collaboration and attitudes towards an ESM was identified. The interorganizational collaboration of the construction companies, in this research, is created with the ultimate goal to share knowledge, and amplify the knowledge of the participants. The collaboration of transportation companies is created to share knowledge in developing a new product. In order to succeed in the ultimate goals of these collaborations, a lot of knowledge has to be shared. Bogers (2011) refers to these collaborations as the “open exchange strategy” (p.108). These open exchange collaborations needed all the information and knowledge from other participants, in order to fulfil the high potential of the collaboration. Cricelli & Grimaldi (2010) add to this debate by analyzing knowledge-based interorganizational collaborations (such as the collaboration between construction companies). Those collaborations are established with the cause of knowledge sharing, and the systems in which the collaborators share the information are all shared among the (other) collaborators (Cricelli & Grimaldi, 2010). Next to the ability of digital technologies to share a high amount of knowledge, it is also important to store this knowledge (Greco, Grimaldi & Hanandi, 2009). Because of the necessity of knowledge sharing and storing in these types of collaboration, and because of the possibility of ESM to facilitate this, the positive attitude of the collaboration between construction companies regarding the implementation of a digital tool (such as ESM) is theoretically explained and supported.
In other collaborations (buyer-supplier collaborations) the sharing of knowledge is desirable, but not necessarily in order to keep the collaboration up and running (Rönnberg-Sjödin, 2013). This is in line with the findings in this research, regarding the supplier-buyer collaboration between the cleaning company and its client, for example. In this collaboration, the team leaders are calling for an ESM-tool, in order to share experiences and the lessons learned, while others in the collaboration have their reservations by such implementation, because they are wondering whether the benefits outweigh the costs and effort for implementing this ESM-tool. The goal of this collaboration is the effective exploitation of the collaboration and communication within the collaboration. Sharing knowledge is present, and this is encouraged by the managers in this collaboration. However, as said, the attitudes regarding implementation of an ESM-tool are mixed.
5.2 Theoretical implications
This research is an extension of the current knowledge about knowledge sharing in interorganizational collaborations and it explores the role of digital technologies and ESM in these collaborations. Benefits of using digital technologies and ESM in interorganizational collaborations(e.g. knowledge sharing, knowledge storability, learning and communication) are outlined, which complements the current knowledge about the use of ESM in organizational environments. Theoretically, using digital technologies and/or ESM-tools in interorganizational collaborations have the same benefits as using those tools within one organization, with additional minor beneficial outcomes in terms of knowledge management in interorganizational collaborations with using digital technologies.
Theory indicates difficulties in implementing ESM in organizations, and this research exposes the increase of this complexity in interorganizational collaborations. The challenges in management and in psychological barriers, as explained in the literature, are the same in internal use of ESM as in interorganizational collaborations. However, this research extends the challenges with differences between the collaborating organizations and the challenges in perceived need of a digital tool in the collaboration. Use of digital technologies is more complex as well, because of the importance of relationship-building in interorganizational collaborations, and the disability of digital technologies to enable this.
Interesting reflection on current theoretical evidence has been given in terms of the paradox of openness, introduced by Laursen & Salter (2014). Based on this research, the concept of “reciprocity” should be added to the consideration on whether and how to be open with unique knowledge and information. This research showed that reciprocity in an interorganizational collaboration can drastically influence the amount of openness, in a way that when reciprocity is present on a high level, collaborators have no (or at least little) reasons to protect unique knowledge and resources.
Furthermore, the literature is extended by the analysis of different types and goals of collaboration and its impact on the attitude towards implementing an ESM-tool. In this research, collaborations between competitors, with the cause of sharing knowledge, are positive about the implementation of tools to share this knowledge. Collaborations between supplier and buyer are seemingly less positive about the tools, because these collaborations are less urged to share all knowledge. Hence, the attitudes towards the implementation of a digital tool (such as ESM) is lower in such collaborations.
5.3 Managerial implications
technologies and ESM-tools in interorganizational collaboration. Specifically, implementation of (more) digital tools or ESM, in an interorganizational collaboration can have major implications in terms of knowledge management, foremost in collaborating environments where knowledge sharing is key to the success of the interorganizational collaboration. Managers of an interorganizational collaboration should take the challenges presented in this research into serious consideration. Managers should pay close attention to these tools, and help their users in terms of training in the tools. Also, managers should consider the hybridization of on- and offline events, for optimizing the efficiency of communication and knowledge sharing, and sustaining the relationship between collaborators.
Furthermore, practical suggestions for solving complex problems in the implementation and usage phase are presented in the results, provided by some respondents, in order to overcome (parts) of these challenges. The theoretical underpinning of these solutions are currently lacking, but the respondents suggested that a hybrid form of collaboration (in on- and offline terms) should help the relational problems to be solved. In this hybrid form, the collaborators are able to get in contact with other collaborators in online environments, as well as in physical terms. This will cause more efficient collaboration, but will not be at the expense of the relational challenges caused by only online environments.
Solutions for the issues in implementing an ESM-tool in interorganizational collaborations lie foremost in the management of the interorganizational collaborations. Managers need to give priorities to the implementation of the tool, and also in building commitment and trust in the tools. Commitment and is strongly associated with perceived ease of use, pleasure and performance and training in the tool (Razmerita, 2016; Kaminska & Borzillo, 2017). Managers should give substance to these challenges, and equip the tool in such a way that collaborators will use it.
Managers should also take a close look to the significance of implementing an ESM-tool in the collaboration, in combination with the goal of the collaboration. The goal of the collaboration can be fostered by the implementation of an ESM-tool, in case of collaborations with high amount of knowledge sharing (in for example collaborations with competitors). However, in other sorts of collaborations, the implementation of an ESM-tool can be unnecessary, due to the low need for knowledge sharing.
5.4 Limitations and suggestions for future research
For more information and understanding about what implications ESM has on interorganizational collaborations, further research is needed, also because of the limited number of interviews in this research
.
Subsequently, more research in this field is needed in order to fully understand the use of digital technologies and ESM-tools in interorganizational collaborations. Researching more interorganizational collaborations will also enhance the generalizability of the results.Besides, because of the relative newness of this subject in interorganizational collaborations, and the fact that the implications of ESM use are based on predictions and expectations, interviews could be conducted with the same collaborations five years from now, to see what the current state of affair is in five years. It would be interesting to see what steps were taken regarding the communication or knowledge sharing in an ESM-tool in interorganizational collaborations.
In this research, differences in collaborations are present among the sample of interviewees. Different forms of collaboration might benefit more or less from the implementation of more digital technologies or ESM-tools. Because of the relatively small sample of this research, further research is needed to research the effect of form of collaboration on the effectiveness of such technologies or tools. This research also provided some possible explanations of this difference in effectiveness. These explanations can be elaborated on as well in future research, in order to get a better understanding on what type of digital technology or use of ESM will enhance a certain type of collaboration.
Subsequently, in accordance with Con2 and Con4, it might be interesting to look at the consequences between different sectors or countries. Furthermore, implications of digital technologies, and ESM-tools can differ in the stage of the collaboration. Different benefits and challenges can arise during different stages of the collaboration. Further research is needed to understand what type of technology can be used best in what stage of the collaboration.
Conclusion
Interorganizational collaborations can no longer be ignored in business operations, and the examples of fruitful relationships are numerous. The rise of digital technologies, such as online events, and ESM-tools have positive implications for interorganizational collaborations in terms of communication, knowledge management and learning.
collaborators are intending to research the possibilities for their own collaboration, and are aware of the benefits in implementing an ESM-tool. Regarding digital technologies, it is expected and desired that interorganizational collaboration will apply a hybrid form of on- and offline collaboration. Online collaboration is more time efficient, and offline collaboration is more constructive in terms of relationship management.
Concluding, reflecting on the research question, the (possible) benefits of using digital technologies lie foremost in communication and knowledge sharing, where the use of ESM helps in enforcing the management of knowledge in interorganizational collaborations. Challenges of using digital technologies lie foremost in relationship management, where the challenges of ESM, in its infancy, lie in managerial and motivational factors.
References
Aboelmaged, M. G. (2018). Knowledge sharing through enterprise social network systems: motivational drivers and their impact on employees’ productivity. Journal of Knowledge Management, 22(2), 362-383.
Almeida, F; Santos J.D; Monteiro, J.A. (2020). The Challenges and Opportunities in the Digitalization of Companies in a Post-COVID-19 World. Engineering Management Review, 48 (3), 97-103.
Amabile, T.M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10, 123-167.
Arora, A; Athreye, S; Huang, C. (2016). The paradox of openness revisited: Collaborative innovation and patenting by UK innovators. Research Policy, 45 (7), 1352-1361.
Bogers, M. (2011). The open innovation paradox: knowledge sharing and protection in R&D collaborations. European Journal of Innovation Management, 14(1), 93-117.
Brown, S. L; Eisenhardt, K. M. (1997). The art of continuous change: linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly , 42 (1), 1-34.
Bstieler, L; Hemmert, M. (2010). Increasing Learning and Time Efficiency in Interorganizational New Product Development Teams. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27 (4), 485-499.
Cai, Z; Huang, Q; Liu, H; Wang, X. (2018). Improving the agility of employees through enterprise social media: the mediating role of psychological conditions. Journal of Information Management, 38(1), 52-68.
Chi, L; Holsapple, C.W. (2005). Understanding computer-mediated interorganizational collaboration: a model and framework. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(1), 53-75.
Demarest, M. (1997). Understanding knowledge management. Longe Range Planning, 30 (3), 374-384.
Du Chatenier, E; Verstegen, J.A.A; Biemans, H.J.A; Mulder, M; Omta, O. (2009). The Challenges of Collaborative Knowledge Creation in Open Innovation Teams. Human Resource Development Review, 8, 350-381.
Duerr, S; Oehlhorn, C; Maier, C; Laumer, S. (2016). A Literature Review on Enterprise Social Media Collaboration in Virtual Teams: Challenges, Determinants, Implications and Impacts. Association for Computing Machinery, 113-122.
Faems, D; Van Looy, B; Debackere, K. (2003). The role of Inter-Organizational Collaboration within Innovation Strategies: Towards a Portfolio Approach. Department of Applied Economics, 1-37.
Faems, D; Van Looy, B; Debackere, K. (2005). Interorganizational collaboration and Innovation: Toward a Portfolio Approach. Product Innovation Management, 22, 238-250.
Filstad, C; Simeonova, B; Visser, M. (2018). Crossing power and knowledge boundaries in learning and knowledge sharing: the role of ESM. The Learning Organization, 25(3), 159-168.
Gasmann, O; Zeschky, M; Wolff, T; Stahl, M. (2010). Crossing the industry-line: Breakthrough innovation through cross-industry alliances with ‘non-suppliers’. Long Range Planning, 43(5), 639-654.
Gebayew, C; hardini, I.R; Panjaitan, G.H.A; Kurniawan, N.B. (2018). A Systematic Literature Review on Digital Transformation. International Conference on Information Technology Systems and Innovation, 260-265.
Gomes, R.C; Galina, S.V.R; Vicentin, F.O.P; Porto, G.S. (2017). Interorganizational innovation networks of Brazilian and Spanish biotechnology companies: Dynamic comparative analysis. International Journal of Engineering Business Management, 9, 1-12.
Gopal, R; Hidaji, H; Patterson R.A; Rolland, E; Zhdanov, D. (2016). Design improvements for message propagation in malleable social networks. Production and operations management, 25(6), 993-1005.
Gray, B. (1985). Conditions facilitating interorganizational collaboration. Human Relations, 38(10), 911-936.
Greco, M., Grimaldi, M., Hanandi, M. (2009). How to Select Knowledge Management Systems: A Framework to Support Managers. International Journal of Engineering Business Management, 5(5), 1-1.
organizational effects of interorganizational collaboration. Journal of Management Studies, 40(2), 321-347.
Hernandez-Espallardo, M; Osorio-Tinoco, F; Rodriquez-Orejuela, A. (2017). Improving firm performance through inter-organizational collaborative innovations. Management Decision, 56(6), 1167-1182.
Huan, Q; Zhanwen, N. (2018). Knowledge management in consultancy involved LPS implementation projects via social media. Electronic commerce research, 18(1), 89-107.
Holtzblatt, L; Drury, J.L; Weiss, D; Damianos, L.E; Cuomo, D. Evaluating the Uses and Benefits or an Enterprise Social Media Platform. Journal of Social Media for Organizations, 1(1), 1-21.
Jaskyte, K; Lee, M. (2008). Interorganizational Relationships. Administration in Social Work, 30(3), 43-54.
Jones, N; Thomas, P. (2007). Inter-organizational Collaboration and Partnerships in Health and Social Care. Public Policy and Administration, 22(3), 289-302.
Kaminska, R; Borzillo, S. (2018). Challenges to the learning organization in the context of generational diversity and social networks. The learning organization, 25(2), 92-101.
Kane, G. C. (2015). Enterprise Social Media: Current Capabilities and Future Possibilities. MIS Quarterly Executive, 14(1), 1-16.
Klewes, J; Popp, D; Rost-Hein, M. (2017) Digital Transformation and Communications: How Key Trends Will Transform the Way Companies Communicate. Out-thinking Organizational
Communications, 7-31.
Knoben, J; Oerlemans, L. A. G. (2006). Proximity and inter-organizational collaboration: A literature review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 8(2), 71-89.
Laursen, K; Salter, A.J. (2014). The paradox of openness: Appropriability, external search and collaboration. Research Policy, 43(5), 867-878.
Lawson, B; Peterson, K.J; Cousins, P.D; Handfield, R.B. (2009). Knowledge Sharing in
Interorganizational Product Development Teams: The Effect of Formal and Informal Socialization Mechanisms. Product Development & Management Association, 26(1), 156-172.
Leidner, D, E; Gonzalez, E; Koch, H. (2018). An affordance perspective of enterprise social media and organizational socialization. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 27(1), 117-138.
Leonardi, P. M; Huysman, M; Steinfield, C. (2013). Enterprise Social Media: Definition, History, and Prospects for the Study of Social Technologies in Organizations. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(1), 1-19.
Leonardi, P.M. (2014). Social media, knowledge sharing, and innovation: toward a theory of communication visibility. Information Systems Research, 25(4), 796-816.
Luna-Reyes, L.F; Picazo-Vela, S; Luna, D.E; Gil-Garcia, J.R. (2016). Creating Public Value through Digital Government: Lessons on InterOrganizational Collaboration and Information Technologies. Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 49, 2840-2849.
Li, L. (2002). Information sharing in a supply chain with horizontal competition. Management Science, 48, 1196–1212.
Li, W.W; Lin J. (2013). Knowledge sharing and knowledge effectiveness: learning orientation and co-production in the contingency model of tacit knowledge. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 28(8), 672-686.
Madhousi, M; Sadati, A; Delaravi, H; Mehdivand, R; Mihandost, M. (2011). Entrepreneurial Orientation and Innovation Performance: The Mediating Role of Knowledge Management. Asian Journal of Business Management, 3(4), 310-316.
Martin, G; Parry, E; Flowers, P. (2015). Do social media enhance constructive employee voice all the time or just some of the time? Human resource management journal, 25(4), 541-562.
Majchrzak, A; Jarvenpaa, S.L; Bagherzadeh, M. (2015). A Review of Interorganizational Collaboration Dynamics. Journal of Management, 41(5), 1-23.
Meier, J. (1995). The importance of relationship management in establishing successful interorganizational systems. Journal of strategic information systems, 4(2), 135-148.
Merschbrock, C. (2012). Unorchestrated symphony: The case of inter-organizational collaboration in digital construction design. Journal of Information Technology, 17, 333-350.
Phillips, N; Lawrence, T. B. & Hardy, C. (2000). Inter-organizational collaboration and the dynamics of institutional fields. Journal of Management Studies, 37(1), 1-37.
Ramona, D.L; Rodriquez-Rodriquez, R; Gomez-Gasquet, P; Mula, J. (2016). Social network analysis: A tool for evaluating and predicting future knowledge flows from an insurance organization.
Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 114, 103-118.
Ramsetty, A; Adams, C. (2012). Impact of the digital divide in the age of COVID-19. Journal of the American Mediacl Informatics Association, 27(7), 1147-1148.
