ASSESSING ORGANIZATIONAL KNOWLEDGE CREATION THEORY IN COLLABORATIVE R&D PROJECTS
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper describes research from an intensive study of technological innovation in collaborative research and development (R&D) projects. Specifically, the factors of organizational knowledge creation presented by Nonaka and Takeuchi are extended into the inter-organizational realm by examining survey results of 25 collaborative R&D projects. A case study is also presented from a set of six in-depth cases from the study's population of projects. It was found that specification of goals and scanning of relevant environment factors were significant positive factors in successful technological innovation in this context. In general, the results presented in this paper indicate that inter-organizational collaboration in R&D may require different technical knowledge-creating factors or enabling conditions from the single organization situation. Practical and theoretical implications regarding the use of such managerial devices in successful technical knowledge creation strategies are also discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it