top of page

Situated Knowledge and Learning in Dispersed Teams

Situated Knowledge and Learning in Dispersed Teams

By:

Deborah Sole and Amy Edmondson


Our study explored how teams with members dispersed across different geographic sites are able to collaborate and innovate by drawing on specialized knowledge anchored in their different locations. This is referred to as "situated knowledge."


Theory:


Our key theoretical perspective is the practice-based view of knowledge, which contrasts with more rational-cognitive views. Some key concepts related to a practice lens:

  • Practice - Shared, recurrent activities that involve both explicit and tacit elements; grounded in context.

  • Situated knowledge - Insights, approaches, and expertise grounded in the work practices and contexts associated with a specific organizational site.

  • Situated expertise - Combination of transactive memory (knowing what others on a team know) and awareness of members’ networks/relationships at a site.

  • Community of practice - Groups of practitioners with shared practices, interpretations, and identities around a joint endeavor (can form within sites).


Taking a situated/practice view of organizational knowledge suggests that what people come to know is highly shaped by the contextual specifics of where and with whom they work on a recurring basis. Their challenges faced and approaches taken are tied to site-specific tools, norms, assumptions that can differ across locations.


This lens helps explain why geographic dispersion introduces complexities beyond simple distance - "situated knowledge" gets embedded in site-specific communities in ways that complicate collaboration across boundaries unless deliberately recognized.


Methods:


Our paper presents findings from an in-depth qualitative study of seven new product development teams within one large multinational company. The teams ranged from 4-7 members distributed across at least 3 geographic sites spanning North America, Europe, and Asia.


Data collection involved over 70 interviews with team members, functional managers, and other participants, as well as direct observation of team interactions and access to project documentation. Analysis focused on unpacking 44 identified "learning episodes" - occasions where teams gained key insights or knowledge needed to advance their project.


Accordingly, our findings around situated knowledge and differences across sites are grounded in rich qualitative data - including first-hand accounts from globally dispersed team members reflecting on their collaboration challenges and successes.


Findings:


Evidence for situated knowledge:

We expected to find differences in knowledge associated with cross-functional boundaries. More interestingly, we found that people located in the same physical site shared subtle knowledge, including priorities and approaches to work, which transcended functional groups.


Conversely, certain work practices, methods and sources of information were associated with individual locations; despite performing similar functions, individuals thus had important differences in their base of assumed knowledge. So practices and knowledge differed for members of the same function located in different sites.


Learning from situated knowledge:

To successfully complete their tasks, these dispersed development teams had to integrate knowledge situated in different sites. This learning process involved team members recognizing and accessing their own or others’ site-specific knowledge to address a given (team) problem or ‘knowledge gap’. The ease with which teams recognized (awareness) and used knowledge (appropriation) varied by whether it was situated locally to or remotely from where the problem had surfaced.


Leveraging local knowledge was straightforward. When relevant knowledge was local to where a knowledge ‘gap’ was experienced, team members were readily aware of that knowledge and able to appropriate it for solving their project issue.

Liberating remote knowledge was more challenging. When relevant knowledge was remote from where the knowledge ‘gap’ was experienced, team members were not always aware of suitable knowledge or experts, or they often struggled to engage those resources to address their project problem


Some key insights on situated knowledge:


  • Members at the same company can develop substantially different working styles and assumptions depending on their site, even in similar roles. For example, research scientists approached tasks differently at different lab facilities.

  • Situated knowledge embedded in the practices and context of a site can be highly valuable for dispersed teams, but it is often invisible or difficult for remote members to recognize and leverage.

  • When local issues arose, teams could conveniently tap into unique expertise at that same site to help quickly resolve problems. However it was more difficult to make use of relevant knowledge situated at distant sites.

  • Strategies like temporary on-location visits and sharing stories about site-specific norms and assets helped uncover situated knowledge across sites and enabled collaboration.


In summary, geographically dispersed teams can leverage specialized expertise anchored in their different sites, if they establish practices to uncover and share situation-specific insights. However, a lack of understanding of site-specific contexts poses barriers for remote collaboration.


Findings suggest several implications:


  • Managers should promote mechanisms like searchable expertise directories, site visit exchanges, and documenting/sharing stories about site-specific practices. These can make localized know-how more visible.

  • Occasional but purposeful relocation of key team members helps them gain first-hand experience of different sites' norms, resources, and working styles. This enables them to better recognize and leverage knowledge situated at each locale.

  • Rather than facing uniformly greater challenges, dispersed teams can benefit from access to specialized knowledge across different locales. But they need structures and processes to surface localized insights that members take for granted.


The full article is published here.


bottom of page