SURVEY INSTRUMENTS
Survey 1 (Items TCa-TCj)
Tacitness of Technological Knowledge
Next we ask about the degree to which scientists and engineers in your firm can predict and explain how to formulate these adhesives in order to produce specific performance characteristics. For example, you are better able to predict when you can reduce the number of potentially effective formulas before experimenting with any of them. You are better able to explain when you can articulate most of the causal connections between a design option and a performance outcome. Please indicate the degree to which you can predict (before experimenting) or explain (either before or after experimenting) each of the following performance outcomes by circling a number from 1 to 7.
Completely
Almost completely
A great amount
Quite a bit
A moderate amount
Somewhat
None
a. We can predictwhich varieties of a component (e.g. esters or alkyd resins as plasticizers) to use to improve adhesive performance. / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7b. We can predicthow much of a particular component to use to improve adhesive performance. / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7
c. We can explainwhy using certain varieties of a component results in specific adhesive performance characteristics. / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7
d. We can explainwhy using certain amounts of a component results in specific adhesive performance characteristics. / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7
e. We can predict how to exploit the physical properties (e.g. molecular weight, Tg) of theseadhesives in order to improve their performance. / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7
f. We can explainwhy the physical properties (e.g. Tg, molecular weight) of these adhesives affect theirperformance characteristics. / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7
g. We can predict how a new product will perform under specific application conditions (i.e. adhesive performance in its wet state). / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7
h. We can explainwhy certain conditions (e.g. humidity, equipment) affect the way these adhesives perform when they are applied. / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7
i. We can predict how a new product will perform under specific usage conditions (i.e. adhesive performance in its dry state). / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7
j. We can explainwhy certain conditions (e.g. temperature, stress) affect the way these adhesives perform when they are used. / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7
1
Survey 2 (Items SP1a-SP1h)
Resource Specificity of Technological Knowledge
These questions ask about the extent to which adhesive formulators in your firm can draw upon their experience developing these reactive adhesives to formulate new adhesive products. Please circle the number that best reflects the extent to which understanding the first performance relationship mentioned in each statement provides formulators with sufficient information to manipulate the second relationship that is described*.
Completely
Almost completely
A great amount
Quite a bit
A moderate amount
Somewhat
None
a. Knowing how this backbone polymer's molecular architecture affects its physical properties (e.g. molecular weight, Tg) can help us manipulate the same properties of other backbone polymers used in these adhesives. / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7b. Knowing how the physical properties (e.g. molecular weight, Tg) of this backbone polymer affect adhesive performance can help us to exploit these properties of other polymers to improve adhesive performance. / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7
c. Knowing how one type of component (e.g. thickeners) affects adhesive performance when they are combined with this backbone polymer can help us determine how to use those components with other polymers. / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7
d. Knowing how one variety of a component (e.g. silica as a thickener) affects adhesive performance can help us determine how other varieties of the same component will affect adhesive performance. / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7
e. Knowing which varieties of a component improve adhesive performance in one application (e.g. wallcovering) can help us determine which varieties of components to use in other applications (e.g. ceiling tiles). / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7
f. Knowing how the physical properties (e.g. molecular weight, Tg) of these adhesives affect their performance in one application can help us determine how they will perform in other applications. / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7
g. Knowing which varieties of a component improve adhesive performance for one customer can help us enhance their performance for other customers that use these adhesives for the same application. / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7
h. Knowing how the physical properties of these adhesives affect their performance for one customer can help us enhance their performance for other customers that use these adhesives for the same application. / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7
* PLEASE NOTE: We define components as groups of materials that perform a distinct functional role in an adhesive, such as reducing foam, rather than according to similarities in their chemical composition.
1
Survey 3 (Items SP2a-SP2h)
Design Specificity of Technological Knowledge
In this section, we ask about the extent to which formulators in your firm can design these adhesives to satisfy the performance requirements of multiple customers and applications. Please circle the number that best reflects the frequency with which formulators manipulate the components used to make these adhesives in the indicated manner.
Always
Very often
Fairly often
Sometimes
Once in a while
Rarely
Never
a. We modify the molecular architecture of this backbone polymer in such a way that all customers using these adhesives for a particular application experience the same degree of performance improvement. / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7b. We make one set of changes to the molecular architecture of this backbone polymer to improve the performance of these adhesives, regardless of the application. / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7
a. We use the same component varieties (e.g. silica as a thickener) to improve adhesive performance for all customers using these adhesives for a particular application. / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7
b. We use the same component varieties (e.g. silica as a thickener) to improve the performance of adhesives that are used for different applications. / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7
c. We exploit the same physical properties of this backbone polymer (e.g. molecular weight, Tg) to enhance a given adhesive performance criterion (e.g. strength), regardless of the application. / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7
d. We exploit the same physical properties of other components (e.g. molecular weight, Tg) to enhance a given adhesive performance criterion (e.g. strength), regardless of the application. / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7
e. We use the same adhesive formula (i.e. variety and amounts of various components) to satisfy all customers that use these adhesives for a specific application. / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7
f. We tailor the formula of these adhesives to satisfy the unique performance requirements of individual customers. / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7
1
Survey 4 (Items CX1 - CX6)
Complexity of Technological Knowledge
The table lists components that are typically used to formulate reactives. First, please cross out those you do not use and add others you do use to develop these reactive adhesives. Next, please fill in the matrix as follows. Read down each column, from 2 through 7, and enter a number to rank the components listed in column 1 according to their relative influence on each performance characteristic. For example, if the physical properties of viscosity modifiers (e.g. their molecular weight, thixotropic properties, etc.) typically determine about 80% of the ease of application of these adhesives, you would enter 1 in column 2, row m because this component has the largest influence on this performance criterion. If a particular component does not affect a performance criterion, leave the cell blank. If two components have approximately equal influence on a performance characteristic, give them the same number.
Please note that stability refers to the performance of an adhesive during the time a customer applies it, while aging refers to the durability of an adhesive once it has cured. Ease of application is more commonly referred to as machinability for some adhesives.
Adhesive Performance Characteristics
1.Adhesive
Components / 2.
Ease of Application / 3.
Open Time/ Set Speed / 4.
Adhesion / 5.
Stability / 6.
Strength / 7.
Aging
a. Backbone Polymer / ______/ ______/ ______/ ______/ ______/ ______
b. Reactive Resins / ______/ ______/ ______/ ______/ ______/ ______
c. Catalysts / ______/ ______/ ______/ ______/ ______/ ______
d. Chain Extenders / ______/ ______/ ______/ ______/ ______/ ______
e. Curing Agnt/Hardenr / ______/ ______/ ______/ ______/ ______/ ______
f. Primers / ______/ ______/ ______/ ______/ ______/ ______
g. Inhibitors / ______/ ______/ ______/ ______/ ______/ ______
h. Stabilizers / ______/ ______/ ______/ ______/ ______/ ______
i. Release Agents / ______/ ______/ ______/ ______/ ______/ ______
j. Reinforcers / ______/ ______/ ______/ ______/ ______/ ______
k. Plasticizers/Diluents / ______/ ______/ ______/ ______/ ______/ ______
l. Fillers / ______/ ______/ ______/ ______/ ______/ ______
m. Viscosity Modifiers / ______/ ______/ ______/ ______/ ______/ ______
n. Elastomeric Modifiers / ______/ ______/ ______/ ______/ ______/ ______
o. Lubricants / ______/ ______/ ______/ ______/ ______/ ______
p. Coupling Agents / ______/ ______/ ______/ ______/ ______/ ______
(Please specify others) / ______/ ______/ ______/ ______/ ______/ ______
1
TABLES
Table 1.
Knowledge Attributes and Competitive Advantage
Attribute / Links to Competitive AdvantageTacitness / Imitation:
Tacitness increases causal ambiguity, slows knowledge diffusion, and hinders imitation (Nelson & Winter, 1982; Teece, 1986, 1998; Mansfield, et. al. 1981; Winter, 1987; Reed & DeFillippi, 1990; Peteraf, 1993).
Continuous Improvement:
Communicate to surface tacit knowledge about the sources of and impediments to improvement, identify root causes of performance gaps and variation, transfer best practices (Sitkin, et. al. 1994; Reger, et. al. 1994; Winter, 1994; Szulanski, 1996; Teece, Pisano, & Shuen, 1997).
Innovation:
Make tacit knowledge explicit so that assumptions can be questioned and explicit knowledge can be recombined in new ways (Hedberg, 1991; Nonaka, 1991; Senge, 1992; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; West & Dale, 1997). Tacit knowledge is hard to transform, leads to inertia, incumbent failure (Nelson & Winter, 1982; Henderson & Clark, 1990; Montgomery, 1995; Argyris, 1999).
Specificity / Imitation:
Transaction specificity increases causal ambiguity (Reed & DeFillippi, 1990). Application / firm-specificity increase rent potential by reducing resource mobility (Klein, Crawford, & Alchian, 1979; Williamson, 1985; Montgomery & Wernerfelt, 1988; Grant, 1991; Peteraf, 1993; Amit & Schoemaker, 1993).
Continuous Improvement:
Products and processes can be improved more rapidly if their elements are reused across applications (Garud & Kumaraswamy, 1995).
Innovation:
Specific knowledge hinders adaptability and flexibility (Hannan & Freeman, 1977; Amit & Schoemaker, 1993; Peteraf, 1993).
Firms that can share scientific and technological knowledge across markets may be more productive in their innovative activities (Henderson & Cockburn, 1996; Quinn, 1992; Prahalad & Hamel, 1990).
Complexity / Imitation:
Complexity increases causal ambiguity, slows knowledge diffusion; interdependence increases the costs of imitation (Lippman & Rumelt, 1982; Winter, 1987; Levin et. al. 1987; Dierickx & Cool, 1989; Reed & DeFillippi, 1990; Peteraf, 1993; Teece, Pisano & Shuen, 1997).
Continuous Improvement:
Modularity increases opportunities for repetition and continuous improvement (Garud & Kumaraswamy, 1995).
Complex knowledge is more difficult to transfer across time (Garud & Nayyar, 1994).
Innovation:
Modularity enhances flexibility and innovative capacity (Sanchez & Mahoney, 1996; Garud & Kumaraswamy, 1995).
Complex capabilities are more difficult to change (Nelson & Winter, 1982).
1
Table 2.
Product Components by Technology
Reactives / Emulsion Polymers / Hot Meltsa. Backbone Polymer / a. Backbone Polymer / a. Backbone Polymer
b. Reactive Resins / b. Functional Groups / b. Tackifying Resins
c. Catalysts / c. Plasticizers / c. Plasticizers
d. Chain Extenders / d. Viscosity Modifiers / d. Fillers
e. Curing Agnt/Hardenr / e. Tackifiers/Extenders / e. Antioxidants
f. Primers / f. Fillers / f. Waxes
g. Inhibitors / g. Stabilizers
h. Stabilizers / h. Humectants
i. Release Agents / i. Preservatives
j. Reinforcers / j. Foam Control Agents
k. Plasticizers/Diluents / k. Surfactants
l. Fillers / l. Coalescents/Solvents
m. Viscosity Modifiers
n. Elastomeric Modifiers
o. Lubricants
p. Coupling Agents
1
Table 3
Describing Knowledge Structures in Diverse Contexts
Technological Product Knowledge / Technological Process Knowledge / OrganizationalKnowledge
Basis for Distinguishing Categories
SpecializedFunctions / product performance subsystems subassemblies components raw materials / process performance processes subprocesses equipment techniques / service performance functional areas activities tasks methods
Coordination of Specialized Functions / product architecture
key design choices
component architecture key design choices (e.g. interface specifications) / what is being coordinated: material, people, information flows
how is coordination achieved: coordination mechanism, method, & techniques / coordination mechanism (e.g. leadership, reporting, incentives, team structure)
coordination method (e.g. specific leadership styles, reporting formats, incentive and team structures)
Objects
(Lowest Level in Knowledge Hierarchy) / specific models of a particular category of component or specific raw materials / techniques used to operate equipment or perform tasks such as assembly or packaging / methods individuals use to organize their own tasks (e.g. to decompose, prioritize tasks)
Properties of Categories
Physical Properties / characteristics of subsystems, subassemblies, components, materials (e.g. molecular weight, conductivity, tensile strength, viscosity) / characteristics of processes, equipment, techniques (e.g. programmability, reliability, physical dimensions, proximity, type of interdependence, number of contacts points among specialized activities) / characteristics of functional areas, activities, tasks, methods (e.g. autonomy, centralization, formalization, breadth of task partitions, span of control)type (e.g. sequential, reciprocal) and areas (e.g. number of contacts points among specialized activities) of interdependence
Characteristic Behaviors / interactions among components, materials, environmental factors that alter their physical properties or efficacy / interactions between process, equipment, techniques and firm/environment characteristics that affect performance outcomes / interactions between an organizing mode and firm/environment characteristics that affect performance outcomes
Normal Configuration / prototypical way of decomposing a product into subsystems or components (e.g. dominant design) / prototypical mode of partitioning a process into specialized subprocesses and characteristic means of coordinating them / prototypical mode of partitioning work into specialized functions and characteristic means of coordinating them (e.g. M-form, cross functional teams)
Operational Principles / theories, heuristics that describe the basis for partitioning functions among subsystems, component, etc. and for integrating them (e.g. theories of adhesion) / technological and organizational principles that describe the basis for partitioning functions among specialized groups and individuals and for coordinating them / organizing principles that describe the basis for partitioning functions among specialized groups and individuals and for coordinating them (e.g. autonomy, redundancy)
1
FIGURES
Figure 1.
Knowledge Attributes and the Dynamics of Sustainable Competitive Advantage
1
Figure 2.
A Knowledge Hierarchy of Organization Level Product Development Knowledge
(Source: Grant, 1997)
1
Figure 3.
A Knowledge Hierarchy
1
Figure 4.
Hierarchy of Technological Knowledge
Used to Manipulate Adhesive Performance
1
1