BEM31- COURSEWORK-1

INTRODUCTION So far there has been increasing emphasis on diverse ways how organisations are structured. Too many researches have been conducted to find out how organisations emerge in respect with product complexity through knowledge reusability and technological diversifications, and the effects of organisation memory on product innovations. Besides, studies focus on how psychological contracts take various forms based on cultural variations. I am going to review three studies how the firms emerge and the impact of organizational memory in terms of sharing and reusability of knowledge and how the psychological contract forms are different based on cultural changes, and draw conclusion based on the findings of review. REVIEW OF PAPERS The aim of the research by Ozman (2010) is to explore the influence of two dimensions of product knowledge bases on organizational structures, and Thomas et al. (2010) did a study to find out the variation in Individuals psychological contracts across cultures. Fiedler and Welpe (2010) research is to examine the impact of organizational structures on organizational memory (OM). According to Ozman (2010) when a product is complex and knowledge is reused in different context, then organizations form multi-product companies. Where the knowledge has significant impact on formation of organisation, Teece (1980 cited in Ozman, 2010) highlights that knowledge is human capital that can be used to produce a variety of related products through diversifications and this theory results in emerging of multi-product firms. Fiedler and Welpe (2010) argue that the organisation structure is affected by the way that the knowledge is utilized and retrieved within an organisation. OM affects product development processes by influencing, such as sharing and retrieving of information and knowledge and the innovations for new complex product. The higher OM levels and the greater memory dispersion increase the higher performance of product and innovation. It is clearly pointed by Ozman (2010) that the significant impact on product complexity is the technological diversification within the firm. On of the motive behind technological diversification is to improve the absorptive capabilities of the organisation and to make better use of it. Knowledge creativity and innovation is the key to technological diversification success where the knowledge creativity and sharing is affected by the emotions felt by employees involved, as Thomas et al. (2010) categorised the levels into two, short-term

1 Ghulam Abbas Niazai 08838042

BEM31- COURSEWORK-1

which is transactional refers to monetary exchange and long-term which is relational refers to social exchange. In addition, Fiedler and Welpe (2010) state that the sharing of the knowledge can be reinforced by the effective interaction between members who use their competences and creating OM in the forms of sheared belief, values, norms and behaviours. knowledge in cultural change and change in process and structures, Thus, where organisational capacity links the capabilities and competences of an organisation, skills and Thomas et al. (2010) conforms that psychological contracts are taking various forms regarding cultural changes. Standardisation and specialisation have impact on OM and the relationship between them is maintained by codification and electronic communication (EC), where standardisation completely mediates by codification and specialisation partially mediates by EC (Fiedler and Welpe, 2010). Therefore, standardised operating procedures can lead to effective knowledge sharing and combining various competences, where Ozman (2010) explicitly, highlights that in addition to economies of scope, a wide range of competences are required in production and also shape organisation structures, by intensifying inter-firm networks and technological diversification. For instance, in automobile many distinct competences are required to produce cars, while a chef in a restaurant can comprehend the work. Furthermore, Ozman (2010) study reveals that when the product is complex and knowledge is reused in a higher degree in different context, then organizations form multi-product companies. The specialised firms emerge when the product is complex and deep. In addition, the results of Thomas et al. (2010) study strongly suggest that psychological contract forms across cultures are different. French interviewees (vertical individualist) have as primarily exploitive, Canadians (horizontal individualist) as primarily instrumental, Chinese (vertical collectivist) as primarily custodial and Norwegians (horizontal collectivist) as primarily communitarian. CONCLUSION Overall, through the review of three papers I found that it is not only economies of scope is essential for the production of complex product and shaping the organisation, while a variety competences are required, including technological diversification, and intensifying inter-firm networks, for example, automobile production. Technological diversification is a strong tool which improves the absorptive capabilities of organisation. In addition, the knowledge
2 Ghulam Abbas Niazai 08838042

BEM31- COURSEWORK-1

dispersion is unconditionally useful to organisation, the more the knowledge is dispersed the better the capacity of an organisation is improved and, thus the innovation will be achieved. OM as embodied in organisational artefacts and procedures, so standard operating procedures can drive individual competence for maintaining effective knowledge management. The production system divided into two categories, knowledge which uses and defuses by human, and artefacts. However, each product has a unique configuration, and some draw upon a wider knowledge than others. The difference in restaurant and automobile, in restaurant the chef doing the entire work, while in automobile various competence are required. The psychological contract was thought before to be universal, but now accepted to be contingent on contexts based on cultural variations.

REFERENCE Fiedler, M and Welpe, I. (2010) How do organizations remember? The influence of organizational structure on organizational memory, Organization Studies Vol 31, No 04, pp.381-407 Ozman, M. (2010) the Knowledge Base of Products: Implications for Organizational Structures, Organization Studies Vol 31, No 08, pp. 1129 1154 Thomas, D.C. et al., (2010) Psychological Contracts across Cultures, Organization Studies, Vol 31, No 11, pp.1437-1458

3 Ghulam Abbas Niazai 08838042