JILT 2001 (2) - Petter Gottschalk
Figure 1 Value Configuration Activities in a Law Firm as Value Shop Information and communication technology facilitating inter-organisational knowledge networks may be important in all five value shop activities. However, it is expected that there are core law firm activities requiring more external communications than other law firm activities. Hence, our first research proposition: Proposition 1: Benefits from information and communication technology facilitating inter-organisational knowledge networks will be greater for core value shop activities (e.g., problem solving and choice) than for other value shop activities (problem finding, execution and control). A law firm can be understood as a social community specializing in the speed and efficiency in the creation and transfer of legal knowledge ( Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998 ). Edwards and Mahling ( 1997 ) categorized the types of knowledge involved in the practice of law as administrative data, declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge, and analytical knowledge. Administrative data includes all of the nuts and bolts information about firm operations, such as hourly billing rates for lawyers, client names and matters, staff payroll data, and client invoice data. Declarative knowledge is knowledge of the law, the legal principles contained in statutes, court opinions and other sources of primary legal authority; law students spend most of their law school careers acquiring this kind of knowledge. Procedural knowledge involves knowledge of the mechanics of complying with the law's requirements in a particular situation: what documents are necessary to transfer an asset from Company A to Company B, or what forms must be filed where to create a new corporation. Declarative knowledge is sometimes labeled know-that and know-what, while procedural knowledge is labeled know-how ( Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998 ). Finally, analytical knowledge pertains to the conclusions reached about the course of action a particular client should follow in a particular situation. Analytical knowledge results, in essence, from analyzing declarative knowledge (i.e. substantive law principles) as it applies to a particular fact setting. Information and communication technology facilitating inter-organisational knowledge networks may be important in all four knowledge categories. However, it is expected that there is a core law firm work to be done internally. Hence, our second research proposition: Proposition 2: Benefits from information and communication technology facilitating inter-organisational knowledge networks will be greater for administrative and declarative knowledge than for procedural and analytical knowledge. Law firm knowledge can also be categorized according to knowledge level. Tiwana ( 2000 ) distinguishes between core knowledge, advanced knowledge and innovative knowledge:
Information and communication technology facilitating inter-organisational knowledge networks may be important at all three knowledge levels. However, it is expected that there is rising return at higher levels. Hence, our third research proposition: Proposition 3 : Benefits from information and communication technology facilitating inter- organisational knowledge networks will be greater at higher levels of knowledge. Mountain ( 2001 ) addresses the question why law firms ought to invest in online legal services when studies to date show that there is no correlation between law firm technology capabilities and profitability. It divides online legal services into two types: digital delivery and legal web advisors. It uses the framework set out by Clayton Christensen ( 1997 ) in The Innovator's Dilemma to explain how legal web advisors is a disruptive technology that law firm competitors (i.e. accounting firms, dot-coms, and corporate clients) are beginning to harness to erode law firm margins. Unless law firms reinvent themselves as technology organisations, they could find themselves increasingly marginalised. Large law firms need to develop legal web advisors and should consider spinning off technology subsidiaries to do so. Small law firms need to link up with online advisory services on an application service provider basis ( Susskind, 2000 ). Hence, our fourth research proposition: Proposition 4 : The Eurojuris network has provided law firms with options to avoid the innovator's dilemma. Eurojuris Norway represents a strategic alliance for inter-firm knowledge transfer ( Mowery et al, 1996 ). Use of information technology for inter-firm knowledge transfer is likely to be influenced by benefits perceived, and vice versa. Hence, our fifth research proposition: Proposition 5 : The extent of information technology use for inter-firm knowledge transfer is related to benefits perceived in value shop activities, transfer of knowledge categories, transfer at knowledge levels, and perceived avoidance of the innovator's dilemma. On their website, Eurojuris Norway argues why their network is of importance. If these arguments are actually supported by Eurojuris Norway lawyers, then one would expect higher benefits perceived from participating in the network. Hence, our sixth research proposition: Proposition 6: The extent of agreement with website arguments for IT usefulness in the network is related to benefits perceived from the network . The sample was comprised of 90 lawyers in 11 Eurojuris law firms in Norway. Out of 90 questionnaires mailed, 19 were returned, providing a response rate of 21%. All 19 respondents were lawyers, 9 of them were law firm partners. Average number of lawyers in responding firms was 11 lawyers, average number of employees was 14, and the responding lawyer had been with the firm for 13 years on average. All constructs in this research were measured as multiple item scales as listed in Table 1 . The first column contains the construct for use of IT in inter-firm knowledge transfer between Eurojuris law firms. The second column lists the items used to measure the construct. The third and final column shows the reliability of the multiple item scale measured using Cronbach's alpha. Table 1 shows that all scales have an acceptable reliability above 0,7 ( Hair et al. 1998 ).
Table 1: Reliability of Multiple Item Scales Table 2 contains descriptive statistics and correlations between study variables. The Likert-scale in the questionnaire was running from 1 (completely disagree) to 9 (completely agree). Agreement was concerned with benefits from each variable. Hence, an average score in Table 2 of less than 5 does indicate that the respondent did not report benefits from that variable. This means that use of information and communication technology facilitating inter-organizational knowledge transfer was not associated with benefits for neither problem finding nor execution. It was associated with some benefits for problem solving, choice, and control and evaluation. Overall usefulness of ICT in Eurojuris was reported quite high (6.62). Furthermore, ICT was not associated with any benefits for knowledge categories (administrative, declarative, procedural and analytical knowledge). ICT use was marginally associated with benefits for advanced knowledge, but not for core or innovative knowledge. There was little support for the suggestion that the Eurojuris ICT-based network has contributed to avoiding the innovator's dilemma, and there was even less support for the opposite suggestion that without Eurojuris, online legal services would be impossible for the law firm. Finally, usefulness measured by knowledge transfer found some agreement in this survey. When looking at the standard deviations, there seems to be a strong agreement concerning the extent of usefulness (s.d. of 1.00). There seems to be little agreement concerning declarative knowledge and concerning the innovator's dilemma.
Statistical significance of .01<p at ** and .05<p at * Table 2: Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Research propositions were tested as hypotheses using statistical techniques. The first proposition argued that benefits from information and communication technology facilitating inter-organizational knowledge networks will be greater for core value shop activities (e.g; problem solving and choice) than for other value shop activities (problem finding, execution and control). In Table 3 , all five value shop activities are listed. The Table contains t-statistics for differences between each pair of activities. The table shows that there are significantly more benefits associated with the core value shop activity of problem solving than with problem finding, execution and control. The Table also shows that there are significantly more benefits associated with the core value shop activity of choice than with problem finding, execution and control. Hence, our first research proposition finds full support in the data collected in this research.
Statistical difference significant at p<.01 at ** and p<.05 at * Table 3: Differences in Benefits for Value Activities The second proposition argued that benefits from information and communication technology facilitating inter-organizational knowledge networks will be greater for administrative and declarative knowledge than for procedural and analytical knowledge. Table 4 shows t-statistics between each pair of knowledge categories. We find significant differences for declarative knowledge, providing support for the suggestion that benefits are greater for declarative knowledge than for other knowledge categories except analytical knowledge. We do not find support for the other part of this proposition concerning administrative knowledge.
Statistical difference significant at p<.01 at ** and p<.05 at * Table 4: Differences in Benefits for Knowledge Categories The third proposition argued that benefits from information and communication technology facilitating inter-organizational knowledge networks will be greater at higher levels of knowledge. From Table 5 we see that there are significantly more benefits associated with advanced knowledge than with core knowledge, thereby providing support for more benefits at higher knowledge levels when moving from core to advanced knowledge. However, when moving from advanced knowledge to innovative knowledge there are no more benefits. Hence, the third proposition is only partly supported in the collected data. In fact, the collected data indicate that advanced knowledge is the best knowledge level for IT support as advanced knowledge is significantly higher than both core and innovative knowledge in Table 5 .
Statistical difference significant at p<.01 at ** and p<.05 at * Table 5: Differences in Benefits for Knowledge Levels The fourth proposition suggests that the Eurojuris network has provided law firms with options to avoid the innovator's dilemma. This hypothesis was tested by comparing two variables. The first variable suggests that ICT in Eurojuris has enabled the law firms to provide online legal services. The second variable suggests that without ICT in Eurojuris, it would be impossible for the law firms to provide online legal services. Table 2 shows that there is little support for the suggestion that Eurojuris has enabled online legal services (average score 4.94). There is even less support for the suggestion that it is impossible without Eurojuris to provide online legal services (average score 4.25). No statistically significant difference was found between with-Eurojuris (4.94) and without-Eurojuris (4.25). Hence, the fourth proposition finds no support in the collected data. The fifth proposition suggests that the extent of information technology use for inter-firm knowledge transfer is related to benefits perceived in value shop activities, transfer of knowledge categories, transfer at knowledge levels, and perceived avoidance of the innovators dilemma. To test this proposition, multiple regression was applied ( Hair et al, 1998 ). Knowledge transfer was defined as the dependent variable, while the other variables were defined as independent variables. However, with only 19 observations, multiple regression analysis cannot be justified, making it impossible in this research to test proposition five. The sixth and final proposition suggests that the extent of agreement with website arguments for IT usefulness in the network is related to benefits perceived from the network. Simple regression analysis was applied between usefulness and each of the benefits variables as listed in Table 6 . A significant relationship was found between perceived usefulness according to the web and perceived benefits from information and communication technology facilitating inter-organization knowledge network of Eurojuris, for half of the benefits categories. An interpretation of this result is that respondents who agree with statements on the web concerning the usefulness of the Eurojuris network also find more benefits using the network for problem-finding, problem-solving, access to declarative knowledge, access to advanced knowledge, access to innovative knowledge, and enabling avoidance of the innovator's dilemma.
Table 6: Usefulness according to the Eurojuris Web as Predictor of Perceived Benefits The research question was: What are the main benefits of using ICT in inter-organizational co-operation in the Eurojuris law firm network? We found, as listed in Table 2 , that benefits are perceived in some, but not all, suggested areas. First, benefits are perceived in three out of five value activities: problem-solving, choice, and control and evaluation. Second, benefits are perceived in one out of three knowledge levels: advanced knowledge. Hypotheses testing indicated that there are significant differences between benefits of various value activities, knowledge categories and knowledge levels. When little benefits are perceived in the early late stage of value creation in law firms, then this suggests that law firms may have a long way to go to do e-business as suggested by Susskind ( 2000 ). When little benefits are perceived in procedural and analytical knowledge, then this suggests that the Eurojuris network has not yet explored the potential of co-operation on a case-by-case basis. When little benefits are perceived in core knowledge, then this suggests that the Eurojuris network has not yet explored the potential of closer administrative joint support. Implications for Eurojuris Norway could be that they should first strengthen the functions and contents that already are successful, such as information for problem-solving, choice, and control and evaluation at the advanced stage of knowledge. The next step could be to explore online legal services, and thereafter information for other tasks could be strengthened. Benefits are perceived from using information and communication technology facilitating the inter-organizational Eurojuris knowledge network. Benefits are perceived by lawyers in problem-solving, choice, control and evaluation at the advanced stage of knowledge. However, in many other areas, little benefits are perceived. Aadne, J H, Krogh, G and Roos, J (1996), Representationism: The Traditional Approach to Cooperative Strategies; In: Krogh, G and Roos, J (eds.), Managing Knowledge - Perspectives on Cooperation and Competition , SAGE Publications, London. Bensaou, M (1997), 'Interorganisational Cooperation: The Role of Information Technology', Information Systems Research , 8 (2), pp.107-124. Christensen, C M (1997), The Innovator's Dilemma , USA: Harvard Business School Press. Cummings, LL and Bromiley, P (1996), The Organisational Trust Inventory (OTI) - Development and Validation, In: Kramer, RM and Tyler TR (editors), Trust in Organisations - Frontiers of Theory and Research , Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications. DN (1999). Kraftig vekst for revisoradvokater (Strong growth for auditing attorneys), Dagens Næringsliv (the Norwegian equivalent of Wall Street Journal), January 27, p.6. Easton, G (1992), Industrial Networks: A review, In: Axelsson, B and Easton G (editors), Industrial Networks - A New View of Reality , London: Routledge. Edwards, DL and DE Mahling (1997), Toward Knowledge Management Systems in the Legal Domain, Proceedings of Group 97 , Published in May 1997 by the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), USA: Phoenix Arizona, pp. 158-166. Eurojuris (2001), < http://www.eurojuris.com > Grandori, A and Soda G (1995), Inter-firm Networks: Antecedents, Mechanisms and Forms, Organisation Studies , vol. 16 (2), pp.183-214. Hair, J F, Anderson, R E, Tatham, R L and Black, W C (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis , Fifth Edition, USA: Prentice Hall. Hansen, M T (1999), The Search-Transfer Problem: The Role of Weak Ties in Sharing Knowledge Across Organisational Subunits, Administrative Science Quarterly , vol. 44, pp.82-111. Kraatz, M S (1998), Learning by Association? Interorganisational Networks and Adaptation to Environmental Change, Academy of Management Journal , vol. 41(6), pp.621-643. Larsson, R, Bengtsson, L, Henriksson, K and Sparks, J (1998), The Interorganisational Learning Dilemma: Collective Knowledge Development in Strategic Alliances, Organisational Science , vol. 9 (3), pp.285-305. Monge, P R, Fulk, J, Kalman, M E, Flanagin, A J, Prnassa, C and S Rumsey (1998), Production of Collective Action in Alliance-Based Interorganisational Communication and Information Systems, Organisation Science , vol. 9 (3), pp.411-433. Mountain, D (2001), 'Could New Technologies Cause Great Law Firms to Fail?', Journal of Information, Law & Technology, 2001 (1) 9 pages, < http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/elj/jilt/>. Mowery, D C, Oxley, J E and Silverman, B S (1996), 'Strategic Alliances and Interfirm Knowledge Transfer', Strategic Management Journal , 17, pp.77-91. Nahapiet, J and Ghoshal S (1998), Social Capital, Intellectual Capital, and the Organisational Advantage, Academy of Management Review , vol. 23 (2), pp.242-266. Nohria, N (1992), Is a Network Perspective a Useful Way of Studying Organisations? In: Nohria, N and Eccles RG (editors), Networks and Organisations , Boston, Harvard Business School Press. Palmer, J and Richards I (1999), Get Knetted: Network Behaviour in the New Economy, Journal of Knowledge Management , vol. 3 (3), pp.191-202. Ring, P S and Van de Ven, A H (1994), Developmental Processes of Cooperative Interorganisational Relationships, Academy of Management Review , vol. 19 (1), pp.90-118. Ryan, S D and Harrison, D A (2000), 'Considering Social Subsystem Costs and Benefits in Information Technology Investment Decisions: A View from the Field on Anticipated Payoffs', Journal of Management Information Systems , vol. 16 (4), pp.11-40. Seufert, A, Krogh, G and Bach, A (1999), Towards Knowledge Networking, Journal of Knowledge Management , vol. 3 (3), pp.180-190. Stabell, C B and Fjeldstad, Ø D (1998), 'Configuring Value for Competitive Advantage: On Chains, Shops, and Networks', Strategic Management Journal , 19, pp.413-437. Susskind, R (2000), Transforming the Law , England: Oxford University Press. Sydow, J and Windeler, A (1998), Organizing and Evaluating Interfirm Networks: A Structurationist Perspective on Network Processes and Effectiveness, Organisation Science , vol. 9 (3), pp.265-284. Tiwana, A (2000), The Knowledge Management Toolkit - Practical Techniques for Building a Knowledge Management System , USA, Prentice Hall. Wall Street Journal Europe (1999), European Law Firms Look to Join Forces, Wall Street Journal Europe , July 6, p.4. Wathne, K, Roos, J and Krogh, G (1996), Towards a Theory of Knowledge Transfer in a Cooperative Context. In: Krogh, G and J Roos (editors), Managing Knowledge - Perspectives on Cooperation and Competition , London, SAGE Publications. |