KT archetype and organizing logic | Explorative dimension | Exploitative dimension | Strengths | Leadership challenges |
---|---|---|---|---|
Archetype D | Governance of research process shared between academics and service providers. | Exploitation supported high levels of trust that facilitate emergent connections between research and implementation. | Low levels of inertia to overcome at early stages, as individuals already have connections and goodwill ties. | Cliques and silos can arise from unconnected groups within network as no designated brokers are accountable or assigned. |
Building on existing networks | Academics and service providers involved in research process; existing relationships form the basis for the collaboration, relinquishing some academic autonomy. | Efforts to balance research and implementation goals in the early phases are assisted by existing structures and informal mechanism rather than central management. | High levels of possible integration and tailoring of research projects with local provider needs. | Informal governance is difficult to hold to account. |
Research questions heavily influenced by local provider concerns. | Absorptive capacity enabled by increased practitioner involvement in research. | Strengthening existing ties enables solid basis for legacy to remain once funding for overall initiative ceases. | Difficult to extend the network beyond certain size when working more informally as this is not centrally managed and more ad hoc; ICTs can help facilitate this. |