Reconciling ambiguity with interaction: implementing formal knowledge strategies in a knowledge-intensive organization

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to look at the actions autonomous knowledge workers perform to implement formalized knowledge strategies as part of an accreditation. Design/methodology/approach Using a strategy-as-practice framework, this paper follows a qualitative approach to study the implementation of a standard in a business school. The data collection was carried out over a 14-month period, with access to interviews, observations, meetings minutes and other institutional information. Findings Even though faculty members received similar information, the standard was implemented in different and conflicting ways. Three themes explain these differences: different approaches to ambiguous knowledge management practices, enablers and inhibitors of knowledge sharing and different conceptions of continuous improvement. Research limitations/implications As this was a single case, findings are not broadly generalizable. The research is based on rich data over a prolonged period, albeit in a very specific setting where unique actor and structural characteristics are not generally representative of the wider business and organizational environment. The nature of the university setting is quite unique. Although possible links to other fields which share some specific similarities with universities are provided, the contextual limitations are acknowledged. Accordingly, the work is presented as a basis for future enquiry when investigating implementation, especially activity-based research within knowledge-intensive organizations. Practical implications This paper provides a deep analysis of the actions knowledge workers perform when implementing standards promoted by organizational directives. It exposes tensions and conflicts among knowledge workers when implementing a standard. Our model is the basis for insights on how managers can balance the tensions of creative change and stable structure. Originality/value This paper describes how ambiguity and human interactions can reveal a deeper understanding of the different stages of standards implementation. It provides a model that uses the level of ambiguity and structure to explain how knowledge workers interacted in groups and as a whole can implement Assurance of Learning.