You are on page 1of 3

INTRODUCTION

There are three investigations were carried out in relation to organization structures. We are asked to provide a synthesis of the three papers, so I am going to provide a combined essay and suggest the relevance point of the researches and discuss the way these papers conveying different ideas by exploring the aims, contents and the result of the findings.

DISCUSSION
The aim of first research which was conducted by Ozman (2010) was to explore the influence of two dimensions of product knowledge bases on organizational structures, while Thomas et al. (2010) study was to find out the variation in Individuals¶ psychological contracts across cultures. The third study, set out by Fiedler and Welpe (2010) to examine the impact of organizational structures on organizational memory (OM). The aims of these investigations clearly reveal that each of the study covers different views. For instance, the first research focuses on complexity of the product and reusability of the knowledge which can be utilized in different context, but the second study developed to discover how the psychological contract forms are different in four countries based on their national cultures. The research by Fiedler and Welpe (2010) was to explore the influence of organizational structures on OM by examining of structural organizational factors and organizational processes. Explicitly, the intention of each study is significantly different. On the other hand, according to Ozman (2010) when the product is complex and knowledge is reused in a higher degree in different context, then organizations form multi-product companies. The impact of organisational memory in formation of firms is significantly apparent. Thomas et al. (2010) states that OM is understood as a structure, in which the knowledge is created, stored and reused. Thus, when the knowledge within organisations is shared and retrieved between employees, then such firms can organise a multi-product companies. Fiedler and Welpe (2010) state that the organisation structure is affected by the way that the knowledge is utilized and reused in different context within an organisation. The content of the papers discover different aspects of organisations¶ structures as well. For example, Ozman (2010) study looks at relationship between product and knowledge which leads to organization formation. When the product is complex and the economies of scope is rich and the reusability of knowledge is weak, then how the firms emerge. Further, the

. Further. personalized information and electronic communication on OM. Ozman (2010) found that when the product is complex and knowledge is reused in a higher degree in different context. On the other hand. Chinese (vertical collectivist) as primarily custodial and Norwegians (horizontal collectivist) as primarily communitarian. many-to-one which many competences use for a single product. the more the knowledge reused in different products. the content of each study follow different directions of the organization structures. Subsequently. the content of the research by Fiedler and Welpe (2010) covers different direction of organizational structures. including standardization and specialization through the organizational processes. Furthermore. French interviewees (vertical individualist) described their psychological contracts as primarily exploitive. Thomas et al. In a broader sense. when the reusability of the knowledge is weak and product is complex and deep. second. then organizations form multi-product companies but with less inter-firm relationships. such as codification. (2010) study strongly suggest that psychological contract forms across cultures are different. while the investigations achieved the aims. including prediction patterns (cognitive and motivational mechanism) through which culture influence the employee¶s expectations.research examines the physical architecture of products that undermines the relationship between the knowledge and product complexity which results in two categories. one-tomany relationship which a piece of knowledge uses in different context. looks at the mediation degree between organizational structures factors and OM. the results of these researches are different as well. (2010) research looks at different aspect of organizations. while electronic communication partially mediates the relationship between specialization and OM. On contrast. and psychological forms of contract (transactional and relational) which further combined by symmetric and asymmetric power distribution through cultural dimensions (individualism and collectivism). mainly the influence of organizational structures factors. The results of Thomas et al. first. Canadians (horizontal individualist) as primarily instrumental. The personalized information has positive effects on OM. The specialized firms with intensive interaction can be emerged. the greater diversifications become. The results of Fiedler and Welpe (2010) findings reveal that it is codification of knowledge indentified as a mechanism which completely mediates the relationship between standardization and OM. but it does not mediate the relationship between organizational factors and OM.

To justify the study by Ozman (2010) only focuses on knowledge bases of product. Fiedler and Welpe (2010) looks at the influence of organizational structures factors on OM and how the organizational processes mediates the relationship between such factors and OM. there is no apparent relevance in the papers. (2010) examined how the psychological contract forms can be different based on national culture. contents and the results of the findings shed lights on how these investigations cover different areas. Regarding the aims. . However. while there are some relevance points as well. product complexity and reusability of knowledge in different context on how the firms emerge. the psychological contract impacts on OM and subsequently OM has influence on knowledge bases of product. through the review of the three papers I found that each paper follows different direction as the aims.CONCLUSION Overall. contents and outcomes. The research by Thomas et al.