Frédéric Créplet

Consultants and experts in management consulting firms

The aim of the article is to explore different aspects concerning the distinction between the expert and the consultant. We analyse theoretically and empirically these distinctions in the framework of the knowledge-based economy in order to introduce the central concepts of epistemic community and community of practice. The question is to know to which community experts and consultant belongs. We also investigate the role that some actors coming from outside the firm play in reinforcing knowledge creation and codification processes in the firm.

Organisational Innovation, Communities of Practice and Epistemic Communities: the Case of Linux

A growing number of works in the literature consider the process of production and circulation of knowledge within the firm as is the key determinant of the capability of the organisation to innovate Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Leonard-Barton, 1995; von Krogh, Roos and Kleine, 1998, etc…). It is widely agreed that the “cognitive architecture” of knowledge within the firm (the way knowledge is produced, stored, exchanged, transmitted, retrieved) strongly influences the process of organisational learning, and in turn the innovative process. As Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) emphasised, the process of creation of knowledge within firms relies on two main dimensions; the first one is the “epistemological dimension”: the critical assumption is that human knowledge is created and expanded through social interaction between tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge (“knowledge conversion”); the second one is the “ontological dimension” which is concerned with the levels of knowledge creating entities (individual, group, organisational and inter-organisational). In line with the assumptions initially made by Argyris and Schon (1978), the organisation supports creative individuals or provides contexts for them to create knowledge.“Organizational knowledge creation therefore should be understood as a process that organizationally amplifies the knowledge created by individuals and crystallizes it as a part of the knowledge network of the organization. This process takes place within an ”expanding community of interaction“ which crosses intra and inter-organizational levels and boundaries”Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995. emphasised, the process of creation of knowledge within f1rms relies on two main dimensions; the first one is the “epistemological dimension”: the critical assumption is that human knowledge is created and expanded through social interaction between tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge (“knowledge conversion”); the second one is the “ontological dimension” which is concerned with the levels of knowledge creating entities (individual, group, organisational and inter-organisational). In line with the assumptions initially made by Argyris and Schon (1978), the organisation supports creative individuals or provides contexts for them to create knowledge.“Organizational knowledge creation, therefore, should be understood as a process that organizationally amplifies the knowledge created by individuals and crystallizes it as a part ofthe knowledge network of the organization. This process takes place within an ”expanding community of

Matching Communities and Hierarchies within the Firm

This article, which draws on recent literature on organizational communities, raises the question of the coherence of the firm through the analysis of the dialectic interaction between hierarchies and Knowledge-Intensive Communities (KnICs) within the firm. Focusing on the cognitive dimension of the firm, we analyze the matching between hierarchies and KnICs and draw conclusions as to the coherence of the firm. Using two key elements (the frequency of interactions and the intensity of communication between communities), we draw a typology allowing a better understanding of the processes of coordination and knowledge creation within the firm.

Episteme or practice? Differentiated communitarian structures in a biology laboratory

This paper explores the different social structures coexisting within a biology laboratory. This work draws upon an empirical study and the results are analysed using the social network analysis toolbox. We evidence that actors form links between them in order to carry out cognitive activities. Depending on the content of this activity, resulting networks can take different shapes. When dealing with scientific knowledge, actors tend to form an epistemic community, whereas they form a community of practice when they seek to enhance their skills in setting experiments. Moreover, these two structures are connected by means of boundary objects and boundary spanners.