MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2911618301 · doi:10.1108/jocm-09-2018-0256

The significance of knowledge sharing platforms for open innovation success

2019· article· en· W2911618301 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Organizational Change Management · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicKnowledge Management and Sharing
Canadian institutionsMacEwan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKnowledge sharingAbsorptive capacityOpen innovationOriginalityKnowledge managementThematic analysisBusinessNew product developmentEarly adopterVariety (cybernetics)Exploratory researchProcess (computing)IncentiveAllianceProduct (mathematics)Focus groupMarketingProcess managementComputer scienceQualitative researchSociologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the theoretical background on how organizational change (OC) enhances open innovation (OI) processes and enables a company to reach performance results through implementing knowledge sharing platforms (KSPs). The authors aim to better understand and investigate how the changes introduced by the implementation of KSPs impact the OC and facilitate the OI process. Design/methodology/approach In this paper, an exploratory longitudinal single case study based on a variety of data sources is used: participant observations, focus group discussions and semi-structured interviews with the KSP members and top managers of a Tunisian SME operating in the dairy products sector. The open-ended responses were subsequently exposed to thematic discourse analysis. Findings The case study findings deeply explore and investigate a company’s experience in implementing OCs when using a joint-venture alliance with a French leader to develop OI. Central to this exhibit is the nature and magnitude of the knowledge sharing between the parties in the OI process, and the significant impact it had on the consumers’ reception of the new products. The outcomes show that due to the sharing of external research and development skills, the creation of the KSP has been an incentive for significant changes and customer targeting and for promoting internal absorptive capacity, minimizing complexity, uncertainty and risks and reaching performance results. Originality/value This paper provides a deep understanding of the new product development process and offers a holistic approach with respect to KSP practices. The significant impact on the consumers’ first response and the subsequent adaption of an industrially produced cheese as a subsidiary product to an existing artisan quality product are examined in this study. Examining the implementation of an OI process, this research is one of the few studies revealing the shortcomings of a former process and a subsequent adaption of a newly successful one that targets the consumers in a MENA country.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.787
Threshold uncertainty score0.281

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.087
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it