Dfc
HD28
.M414
%
ALFRED
P.
WORKING PAPER
SLOAN SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT
Do Nominated Boundary
Become
Spanners
Effective Technological
Gatekeepers?
Kumar S. Nochur
Thomas J. Allen
WP
# 3198-90-BPS
June 1990
MASSACHUSETTS
TECHNOLOGY
50 MEMORIAL DRIVE
CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS 02139
INSTITUTE OF
Do Nominated Boundary
Become
Spanners
Effective Technological
Gatekeepers?
Kumar S. Nochur
Thomas J. Allen
WP
# 3198-90-BPS
June 1990
f\
Abstract
recent years, organizations have started formally assigning
In
technical professionals to
this
study
spanners
we examine
in
transferring
organization to
its
fill
the role of technological gatekeepers.
In
the effectiveness of such nominated boundary
technologies from the
operating units.
We
R&D
find that
center of a large
more than
half the
designated liaison agents do not function as gatekeepers because they lack
either
for
the
internal
being effective
or external
in
that role.
communication networks that are
critical
Introduction
Numerous researchers have pointed out
transfer can
be
facilitated
by the presence
of special
different organizational
identified
task-force groups,
corporate
level,
mechanisms
that various
their ideas
as
integrate the values,
a research result
in
is
to
for
for this
According
to
to
groups
staff
at
individual
of organizational
purpose.
coordinating
this
generally the same:
mechanism
formal
between them.
a key factor
is
and perspectives
roles,
some
divisions through
some examples
companies have used
but the underlying idea
conflicts
the boundary
Quinn and Mueller (1963) have
corporate development units,
Other descriptions and classifications
exist,
agents,
liaison
research groups with special budgets, and
who champion
researchers
units.
technology
of
who span
operating either individually or as part of a group,
between
process
that the
there
role
also
a need
is
to
different functional
of
resolve differences and
Roberts and Frohman (1978), "when
be transferred, movement
research personnel
of
is
the project's survival through the torturous journey toward
manufacturing or the market."
Allen (1977) has identified the
technological gatekeeper
in
The gatekeeper
functions.
boundary spanning
the context of
is
R&D and
role of the
other technical
who connects an
He keeps up with
a high technical performer
organization with outside sources of technology.
technical developments outside the organization by reading the
professional
literature
because
Further,
experts.
of his
proven technical competence he
As a
frequently consulted on technical matters.
acts as a very effective channel
across organizational boundaries.
initially
identified
by Allen
in
for
is
the gatekeeper
technical
information
Though the gatekeeper phenomenon was
the context of
R&D
project groups, the role
information transfer has been extended and
in
terms
analyzed
in
other contexts also (Roberts,
In
result,
transferring
definition
of
more
and by communicating with external technical
recent years there has been a trend
1978).
in
technical organizations
towards formalizing the role of the gatekeeper.
In
this
study
we examine
whether people
effectively
such formally designated boundary spanning roles
in
fulfill
Data
charter.
their
the study were gathered from
for
company
geographically separate operating divisions of a large
five
The company's Corporate Research Center
energy resources industry.
(CRC)
technologies to
at the
new
responsible for developing and disseminating
is
the
in
these operating
To
units.
facilitate
exploration
transfer process
this
divisions has a formally designated
operations level, each of the
Technology Resource Group (TRG) whose members are charged with two
tasks:
1)
act as internal consultants
to
in
providing technical information, and 2) to act as a liaison with the
and promoting
learning about technologies developed there
their
CRC
by
use by the
professionals.
divisional
The members
TRG
of the
are the focus of our attention
nominated boundary spanners.
the divisions and
the
emergence
of
We
we
paper
this
In
examine the degree
and technical gatekeeping.
facilitate
and
solving technical problems
identify the
between
of overlap
as
their role
in
gatekeepers
in
TRG membership
also discuss the factors that prevent or
nominated
liaison
agents as effective
gatekeepers.
Thirty-two technical
members
282) are
professionals
of the
charged with the task
of
approach
the divisions
in
Technology Resource Group.
communicating with the
technologies developed there
important to see
Resource Group Members
Technical
of
Profile
among
this issue
from a number
a
in
this
of angles,
liaison
of
total
Since they are
and promoting new
other divisional professionals,
they are successful
if
CRC
(out of
We
role.
each touching on a
it
is
will
different
aspect of the boundary spanning function.
1.
TRG
Communication with the CRC
to
communicate more
professionals. This
is
1.7
communication partners
mean
statistically
We
:
CRC
at the
CRC
(p<0.001).
TRG members
of the
had, on average,
during the last year,
contacts for non-members.
significant
would expect members
than do other divisional
borne out by the data.
the
of 0.7
with the
Further,
This difference
69 percent
of
compared
is
them had
at
to
least
CRC
one contact with the
2.
compared
the last year, as
in
32 percent
to
sample (p<0.001).
rest of the
for the
Visits to the
interaction with the
CRC The coordinating
CRC, which should result
would
role
:
call
more
for
TRG members
in
making
more visits to the CRC than other divisional professionals. The mean
number of visits reported by TRG members is 2.5, almost double the mean
However, the proportion of TRG
of 1.3 for non-members (p=0.002).
members who had visited the CRC (69%) is not significantly different
from the proportion for non-members (60%), indicating that those who are
not
the
members of the TRG as just as likely
TRG members do so more frequently.
3.
Exposure
programs
to
to
Programs
Orientation
have
to
visited the
CRC
The
:
to
runs orientation
34 percent
their work.
members had attended the orientation sessions
non-members was 35 percent.
but that
new CRC developed
acquaint divisional professionals with
technologies that would be relevant
CRC,
of
TRG
CRC, whereas
at the
the
proportion for
4.
Adoption of Technologies
from the
CRC
adopted by
whereas the mean
TRG
:
staff
of
over the
years
for other divisional
many
of
number
of
new
last three
professionals
indicating that the special nature of their task
adopt a greater
new
The mean number
is
technologies
1.6
0.7 (p<0.001),
is
TRG
does lead
members
to
Further, almost twice as
technologies.
them (72%) adopt new technologies as compared
to
non-members
(37%).
5.
Contacts with
other
communication partners within
the data.
The mean number
of
TRG
members
6.
to
the
from the
Attitudes
mean
for
This
is
whom
3.3.
:
We
would
have more
to
their divisions.
people with
communicated over the previous year
different
professionals
divisional
expect (as did the organization)
a
is
not borne out by
TRG member
This
is
not significantly
other divisional professionals, which
regarding the
CRC
CRC, one might expect TRG
:
Because
members
of their greater
to hold attitudes
is
3.1.
exposure
towards the
CRC
that are
divisional
based on more
employees.
first-hand experience as
compared
to
other
Scores on the three perception factors determined
through an attitude survey show that the attitudes of Technology Resource
Group members are
significantly
professionals with regard
to
more favorable than those
the perceptions of
relevance
of other
of
CRC
and approachability of researchers (Table I). On the perception
CRC's user-orientation with reference to the divisional
professionals, TRG members did not differ significantly from their
projects
of
colleagues.
Table
I
Members of the Technical Resource Group
about the Corporate Research Center
Attitudes of
Members
Mean
Factor Score
of
TRG
(N=30)
sophistication and difficulty of comprehension,
these
as judged by experts
in
The other two journals are more in the nature of trade
From Table
to read and understand.
fields.
magazines and are judged as easy
we
note that
demanding
of
TRG
journals,
II
members rank higher in readership of the technically
while non-members reported more regular readership
the trade journals.
Table
Journal Readership by
Members
II
Resource Group
of the Technical
Readership*
Non-
Members
Journal
members
of
TRG
(n=248)
(N=31)
Geophysics
5.1
4.3
0.004
Geophysical Prospecting
3.1
2.3
0.02
3.5
4.5
0.008
3.9
4.1
N.S.
Oil
and Gas Journal
The Leading Edge
*
According
12
to the following scale:
J
Do
read
Mann-Whitney U
personally adopt more
to
1
1
J
4
5
6
Read once
in
all
profile descriptions,
connected with the
divisional
3
J
7
Read
regularly
a while
tests
From the above
better
at
1
L
not
CRC
it
is
new technologies from
professionals.
It
influence the adoption of
clear that
and the hard technical
the
CRC
TRG members
than other
appears therefore that they are
new technologies by
are
They also
literature.
in
a position
other divisional
employees.
If
potential
this
is
realized
respondents who have consulted with
we would
practice,
in
TRG members
to
expect
have adopted more
new technologies than those who did not have any interactions with them.
A test of this hypothesis shows that the adoption behavior is not
TRG
by communicating with
affected
significantly
Table
consultants (Table
III).
III
Association between Contacts with TRG
and Technology Adoption
members
Respondents not
who have
no
with
links
in
TRG
at least
TRG Members
link
one
with
TRG
(n=153)
(n=95)
Proportion who have adopted at least
one technology from the Corporate
Research Center in the last three years
Mean number
*
of
39%
0.66
technologies adopted
N.S.
0.75
N.S.
Chi-square test
Mann-Whitney U
A plausible
members seek
tests
explanation for this
their help only for
the interaction does not result
It
34%
is
also likely that though the
links with the
individual
CRC
in
is
that those
who
consult with
TRG
narrow problem solving needs, so that
any actual transfer
TRG members
of
new
technologies.
taken as a group have more
and adopt more technologies on average, there might be
differences
in
their
cancel out at the aggregate
gatekeeping effectiveness which
level.
To probe
this
matter
we now
might
turn to an
analysis of the true gatekeepers (those with both high external and high
communication)
internal
gatekeeping
of the
role
in
defining
the gatekeeper
is
1977):
an 'external communication
connected substantially more than
technical
•
he
is
Divisions
the
in
characteristics of a gatekeeper are generally specified
along two dimensions (Allen,
•
emphasis on the
particular
staff.
Gatekeepers
The
with
the divisions,
TRG
a top technical performer
who
communication
gatekeepers.
links
in
with
matters.
is
more
organizational colleagues than
This characteristic
being an 'internal communication
of
This internal
the gatekeeper developing
his
he
frequently consulted by
is
organizational colleagues on technical
consultant role results
i.e.
organization
outside the
information
star',
colleagues with sources
his
is
non-
generally described as that of
star'.
Therefore, the gatekeeping role involves two functions
—
a
It
is the
communication function and a technical consulting function.
combination of these in one person that makes the gatekeeper such an
channel
effective
There
interna!
to
is
for
transferring
a certain arbitrariness
or external
communication
technology.
in
deciding whether an individual
star
because there
is
no one
an
is
right
way
determine a cut-off point such that people below that point are not
communication
gatekeeper
role
stars,
is
whereas those above
it
are.
In
often operationalized by specifying
one standard deviation above the mean on
Another important issue
for
identifying
all
practice, the
a cut-off point of
the relevant measures.
gatekeepers
is
the frame of
reference: should a person be classified on the basis of the communication
behavior he himself reports, or should his role as described by other
people be the basis
for deciding
whether he
is
a gatekeeper?
We
between gatekeepers
distinguish
by
referring
them as
to
sources of bias and error
communication partners
names
of
have substantial
fact
On
if
the contrary,
if
links
some respondents may
whom
a particular person
we can be more
effectively
criterion for
in
is
of
list
aimed
at
not report the
may
is
in
the organization.
consistently
named as a
CRC,
the division as well as at the
confident that this nominated gatekeeper does
the gatekeeper role.
fill
a number of
they communicate, though they
or outside
within
communication partner by people
then
to
they suspect that the survey
the people with
all
and nominated gatekeepers,
respondents may provide a long
--
gatekeepers; further,
identifying
under these different methods
measures may be subject
Self-reported
respectively.
identified
self-reported
Therefore
examining the gatekeeping
role of
we
TRG
shall
primarily
in
fact
use
this
members.
following procedure was used to
A questionnaire was filled out by
which they listed the names of others in their
Based on these considerations, the
identify
the divisional gatekeepers.
divisional
professionals
whom
division with
each
division,
in
they communicated at least a few times per year.
a master
list
respondents was compiled.
the
number
of
of
all
the
names mentioned by
all
For each of these names, a count
respondents who had mentioned
The mean
it.
For
the
was made
for
of
these
was computed for each division. Those people whose
frequency was one standard deviation above the mean for that division
were designated as internal communication stars.
Similar questionnaires
frequencies
were administered
at the the
Researchers' contacts
in
CRC
and processed
the divisions
in
a similar fashion.
were tabulated and those who were
mentioned with a frequency one standard deviation above the mean were
designated as external communication stars.
almost identical
for
names appeared on
stars
all
the
of the
lists
five
divisions
The
(Table
cut-off points
IV).
were
Individuals
whose
as both internal and external communication
were designated as gatekeepers.
Table IV
Criteria
Identifying
for
Number
of
Regional Gatekeepers
Internal
Number
nominated
contacts with divisional
colleagues to be an
Commn.
of
nominated
contacts with Corporate
Research Center to be an
Star
External
Commn.
Star
Domestic Region A
Domestic Region B
Domestic Region C
International
Region A
International
Region B
A
total
of
19 gatekeepers were identified
together (Table V).
that
Out
of
these 19, 15 were
in
all
the divisions taken
TRG members. Thus we
find
78 percent of the gatekeepers are members of the formally
designated liaison groups
membership
of the
in
the divisions.
TRG, we note
that only
However, looking
38 percent
of
its
at the total
39 members
emerge as gatekeepers. This partly explains our finding that contacts
members is not associated with a significant increase in the
with TRG
number of technologies adopted by non-members.
10
Table
Distribution of
Gatekeepers and
Number
Region
of
Gatekeepers
V
TRG Members
in
the Regions
Number of
Number of
Number of
TRG
Gatekeepers TRG Members
Members
not in TRG
who are also
Gatekeepers
Domestic Region A
11
basis of the internal and external links that they themselves reported.
Only seven are internal communication stars.
percent
is
This proportion of 22
almost identical with the proportion of non-TRG
are internal communication stars according to
However, 13
TRG
members were
percent of their
proportion of 41
percent prevailing
the
for
rest
members who
self-reported
data.
external communication stars and this
total
of the
is
higher than the
significantly
divisional
professionals
17
(Chi-square
= 9.8, p < 0.002).
The data also show
that there are four self-reported
gatekeepers who
members of the Technical Resource Group. In addition to these
four, there are many other non-members who are well connected either
There are 56 such
with their divisional colleagues or with the CRC.
professionals who are internal communication stars and 43 who are
This underscores the need for managers in
external communication stars.
are not
the divisions to develop the gatekeeping potential of these individuals by
helping
them
develop the missing internal or external linkages.
to
Influence of
CRC
Experience on
Communication and Technology Adoption
Roberts and Frohman (1978) and Cohen, et
the value of personnel transfer from research
technologies downstream
the data to see
the company's
if
in
divisional
CRC
the organization.
professionals
exhibit significantly
adoption behavior as compared
to
al
to
In
(1979) have pointed out
section
this
who had worked
better
for
in
communication and
VI).
at the
is
As would be expected because
CRC
as their colleagues without such experience.
reported having adopted almost twice as
the
respondents.
before
of their prior
experience, the ex-researchers had almost three times as
with the
CRC
The communication and adoption data
compared with the rest of the divisional
the divisions.
these ex-researchers
personnel (Table
previously at
other respondents.
There were 17 divisional scientists who had worked
they started work
move
we examine
operating units to
many
many
They
contacts
also
technologies as the rest of
12
Table VI
Communication and Technology Adoption bv Regional Professionals with
Corporate Research Center Experience
Regional Professionals
who
13
We
next examine
if
ex-researchers are better coupled with the
compared
with divisional colleagues as
worked
at
had more
CRC.
We
contacts with the
well
the other hand,
of both
members as
who
VII).
have not
TRG
TRG members who
are not
in
and
the
group
had
But these ex-researchers are not as
TRG members. On
the four ex-researchers who are in the TRG exhibit a lower
internal and external communication than other TRG
connected with
degree
TRG members who
CRC, on average, than
worked there before (Table
not
to
note that ex-researchers
CRC
their divisional
well as other
colleagues as the
non-TRG ex-researchers.
no
are only four such
individuals,
be drawn about
anomalous behavior.
this
statistically
Table
However, since there
significant conclusions
can
VII
Members of the Technical Resource Group
about the Corporate Re search Center
Attitudes of
Comparison
of
TRG Members TRG Members
who
also
are
ex-
researchers
(n=4)
Mean number
within
Mean number
are
not ex-
researchers
(n-28)
and
without
Corporate
Research
Center
experience
with
of links
region
with the
who
TRG
Members
2.3
3.4
2.9
N.S.
1.5
1.7
2.2
N.S.
of links
Research
Center
Kruskall-Wallis
k
sample
test
14
and Conclusions
Discussion
The major
finding from this study
38%
that only
is
of formally
designated liaison agents actually perform as gatekeepers.
boundary spanning
that the
individuals
strong
expected
in
to
This suggests
be performed by such
because most
practice
of
high degree of internal and/or external communication that
lack the
needed
is
unrealized
substantially
is
role that
one important gatekeeper
satisfy
to
criterion,
i.e.
them
is
the presence of
communication networks.
Our study shows
assigning people
that effective
to
that
fill
formed over a period
overnight to
fulfill
Effective
communication networks are
as formal and informal contacts are
of time
developed and cultivated.
gatekeeping cannot be mandated just by
role.
This process cannot be
made
happen
to
the charter of a designated boundary spanning role.
Instead of nominating
individuals,
without the benefit of a careful
selection process, to be gatekeepers, organizations would do better by
selecting
positions
individuals already
where
known
their strengths
to
be effective gatekeepers
can used
to
to
maximum advantage.
The
process of transfer can be greatly enhanced by giving such communication
stars
the
responsibility,
rewards and supporting budget
and transfer technologies developed outside
However,
if
effective by selecting
credibility
and strong
cultivate the "missing"
transfers,
exposure
facilities
rotation,
to
to
actively track
organizational
units.
professionals with gatekeeper characteristics can not be
readily found, formally assigned
more
their
to
boundary spanning roles can
internal
or external
component
and
still
be made
people who have both high technical
visits
to
orientation programs;
promote greater
via
networks and by helping them
mechanisms
(Allen,
technology source units;
and design and
internal
1977) such as:
priority
location of physical
communication.
15
References:
Allen, T.J. 1977.
Managing the Flow
of
Technology
.
Cambridge, MA: The
MIT Press.
Cohen,
H.,
Seymour,
Technology from Research
no. 3,
and
K.,
to
Streeter, D. 1979.
Development".
"The Transfer
of
Research Management,
vol.
11-17.
Quinn, J.B., and Mueller,
Operations".
J. A.
Roberts, E.B. 1978.
Research Management,
"What do we
vol. 21,
Roberts, E.B., and Frohman,
Research
"Transferring Research Results to
1963.
Harvard Business Review,
Utilization".
really
no. 6,
A.I.
vol. 41,
no.
1,
49-66.
know about managing R&D?"
6-11.
1978.
Technology Review,
"Strategies for Improving
vol.
80, no. 5, 32-39.
22,
Date Due
Mil
I
3
III
I
II
III
TOfiO
LIBRARIES
III
||||
II
II
II
I
III
III
OObllOlfl
5