Beyond the Boundary: An Information Perspective on the Role of the Gatekeeper in the
Organization
Stuart Macdonald and Christine Williams
Much has been written about information gatekeepers, mostly describing how gatekeepers function within organizations. There has been less consideration of the gatekeeper's activities beyond the organization's boundary, though the gathering of external informa- tion is fundamental to gatekeeping. Stuart Macdonald and Christine Williams examine gatekeeping from an information perspective, starting with external infor- mation and following it into the organization. With only primitive networking and a range of occasional contacts in the outside world, the gatekeeper is something of a scavenger of external information. The gatekeeper certainly transfers information from the external environment to colleagues within the organi- zation, but primary interest is in personal use of the information gathered. Seniority within the organiza- tion may allow the gatekeeper the latitude to function in ways that would not be tolerated in more junior employees. The article is wholly concerned with informal gatekeeping and concludes that organiza- tions may condone or even inhibit such activity, but are constrained by the nature of information, and of organization itself, from encouraging it.
Address correspondence to Stuart Macdonald, Centre for Corporate Strategy and Change, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, England, United Kingdom.
The Organizational Boundary
Around every organization is a boundary separating an environment of relative order and control from the chaos of the world outside. Within its boundaries, the organization has deliberately created conditions con- ducive to the conduct of its business, conditions which are not to be found in the world at large. That is the point of organization [6]. Yet few organizations are monasteries: their survival in a competitive world demands that they relate to that world, even that they acknowledge their dependence on it. The modem firm could simply not survive, much less prosper, as the bastion of corporate culture and competence that is so commonly depicted in management tracts. It must be part of, and yet not part of, its wider environment. Consequently, the organizational boundary must do more than merely define and contain; it must also admit. Chiefly, what it must admit is information.
It is not unreasonable to regard the organization as an information organism, existing primarily to handle information [12,18]. The organization can deal with the information it contains within its boundaries with impressive efficiency. There are, however, at least two problems, and--as tends to be the way with problems--they are related. The minor one is that the organization's informational efficiency is with infor- mation to which it is accustomed, information it knows how to use, information that is properly codified so there is no doubt about its place in the scheme of things, and for which there are established channels to ensure it reaches its proper place. The result is that the organization is able to do very well--perhaps better and better--what it has always
418 J PROD INNOV MANAG S. MACDONALD AND C. WILLIAMS 1993; 10:417--427
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES
Smart Macdonald is currently a principal research fellow in the Centre for Corporate Strategy and Change at Warwick Business School. He is also a visiting fellow in the Science Policy Research Unit at the University of Sussex, the Centre for Communications Research at City University, and the Graduate School of Manage- ment at the University of Queensland. His research interests focus on the role of information in the process of change. Informal information flow is a particular interest and has been studied in the context of high technology, export controls, industry and technol- ogy policy, regulation and legislation, and of company strategy. Stuart Macdonald is also European editor of the journal Prom- etheus.
Christine Williams obtained a B.A. (Hons.) degree from Stirling University, an M.Phil. from Oxford University, and is currently completing a Ph.D. at the University of Queensland. She worked at the National Institute for Economic and Social Research in London before becoming a management consultant in Melbourne. Now a lecturer in the School of Economics and Public Policy at the Queensland University of Technology, her research interests include the role of information in markets, the impact of imperfect information flows on market efficiency (particularly in agricultural markets), and the use of hedonic price analysis to study price dispersion in product markets.
done. It is less able to cope with strange information, the sort of information that is an essential ingredient of change. Indeed, the more proficient the organiza- tion is in dealing with familiar information, the less capable it may be with the unfamiliar [42]. There is an apparent trade-off between informational efficiency and flexibility [52], with large organizations charac- teristically reaping the advantages of informational efficiency and small ones those of flexibility.
The second problem is mainly a function of the boundary which distinguishes the organization. What contains and retains the organization's own resources also serves to repel external resources. Among these-- some would say chief among these--is information. Information is the fundamental resource for all that the organization does [27]. Yet no organization, no matter how large, contains more than a tiny fraction of the totality of information. This is just as well, of course, for no organization could function swamped by a universe of information. However, the organizational boundary cannot be expected to contain precisely all the informa- tion the organization would ever benefit from using, and no more. Despite all the organization's systems and controls, redundant information will still lurk inside. Much more important is the useful information that exists only outside the boundary. Indeed, some of the most relevant for firms undergoing technological change
seems to emanate from suppliers and customers [50]. Change presents the challenge. By definition, what the firm already does is supported by information the firm already contains, by internal information the organi- zation is accustomed to handling. While it may be possible to rearrange existing bits of information into the novel pattem that is innovation, or incorporate new bits that have lain neglected and unexploited in the firm, the fundamental information contribution to change within the firm must come from outside. Consequently, it must make its way over, under, or through the information barrier that is the boundary of the organization [8].
The Boundary as an Information Barrier
The organization has control over information that lies within its own boundaries, or at least that information which the organization uses to function: it has no control over external information. This is important, first because it is control which is often taken to define where the boundaries of the organization lie [39], and second because no organization relishes dependence on a fundamental resource beyond its control. Consequently, the firm anxious to secure external information tends to be equally anxious to control this information. The failings of the patent system demonstrate some of the difficulties inherent in controlling information itself [33]. Information being a somewhat elusive good, the organization prefers to exert control over its sources and the means by which the information is transferred. This is a purpose of many formal co-operative arrangements with other firms, ranging from collaborative agreements to joint ventures. From an information perspective, the corporate acquisition is simply at the far end of a spectrum of institutional measures intended to render external information internal [29]. Extension of control has a further advantage: it permits a better match between external and internal information so that the two may be more easily blended within the organization. External information often does not mix well with internal, the not-invented-here syndrome being but the most notorious consequence of this. In their isolation, independent inventors have no awareness of what information is already within the organization and, therefore, of what new information might be comple- mentary. Their inventions are rejected as a matter of course [28].
Information from independent inventors clearly has much more difficulty scaling the barriers surrounding the organization than does information from more
THE GATEKEEPER IN THE ORGANIZATION J PROD INNOV MANAG 419 1993;10:417-427
promising sources. Most firms seeking external infor- mation pride themselves on their links with the most likely sources--responsible government departments, trade associations, appropriate universities. But obvi- ous sources of external information may well yield only obvious information, predictable information that fits readily within the organization because it is so similar to that already in use there. This sort of additional information is more likely to permit incremental innovation than radical change. For that, bits of information are required very different from those already in use within the firm. Such bits are to be found outside the organization, but perhaps scattered in a diverse range of obscure places. It is just not possible for the firm to forge institutional links with all these places, to extend its control to reach them all. This does not mean that the organization need be isolated from them.
The Individual and Information Flow
Much of the external information entering a firm is brought over its boundaries by individuals, by employ- ees acting informally and, at least in part, in their own interests [4]. In as much as these individuals acquire information from sources that institutional channels can tap only with difficulty, and that such sources provide bits of information needed to contribute to radical change, this is of some importance. This importance does not go unacknowledged [12], nor without equivocation.
All employees bring external information into their firms, information from their education, their experi- ence, from the media, from conversations with friends. Little of this is likely to make much contribution to the information packages in use within the firm, if only because there is rarely any mechanism more sophisti- cated than the suggestion box by which such informa- tion can flow to other parts of the organization. What use is made of this information within the firm tends to be confined to the carriers themselves. Restricted transfer of information provides little incentive for the gathering of external information that might be used by other employees elsewhere in the firm.
A few of the employees bringing external informa- tion into the organization operate in a markedly different way from the mass of their colleagues. These key employees are most evident--and have been most studied [43]--in the high-technology industries, in- dustries where firm survival is as dependent on
incessant innovation as this innovation is on the acquisition and rapid exploitation of massive quanti- ties of external information. These individuals acquire their external information through information ex- change in networks, a mechanism which is as appropriate to the peculiar characteristics of informa- tion as a good as the formal transactions of the firm, and even the open market, are inappropriate. Ex- change, particularly through the multilateral mecha- nism of the network, goes some way towards overcom- ing the problems inherent in information transactions, problems of demanding information in ignorance, of pricing information, of being able to use what is received, of matching supply to demand, of inevitably retaining what has also been given, and of accommo- dating the timeliness required in the use of information [ 11,30].
Exchange, however, presents problems for the firm, problems that extend well beyond its lack of control over personal sources of external information and the mechanism by which this information is acquired [43,49]. Exchange demands that information be given if it is to be received. As the key employee is neither willing nor able to distinguish between personal information and that which belongs to the firm, what is given to the network may not strictly be the em- ployee's to give [9]. Firms typically display a mercantilistic attitude towards information: the more they have and the less their competitors, the better off they are and the worse their competitors. They do not take kindly to information being given away through a system beyond their control, particularly as the key employee exchanges information for personal benefit and only indirectly--through the employee's use of the information--for the benefit of the firm. If the information received is passed on, it is only after the key employee has made use of it. Even then, the information is passed on, through external networks, to those outside the firm rather than to fellow employees. Even high-technology firms, accustomed as they are to their key employees exchanging information through personal and informal networks, are only tolerant of such behavior. Most firms cannot distinguish between this network exchange of information and industrial espionage. Consequently, they do what they can to discourage it and--unwittingly but inevitably--to inhibit the innovation it facilitates [31]. Similarly, while firms may be anxious to acquire key personnel from other organizations--and appreciate the contri- bution such human containers of information make to major innovation [ 15,16]--they are generally loathe to
420 J PROD INNOV MANAG S. MACDONALD AND C. WILLIAMS 1993; 10:417--427
accept that the transfer of their own employees is a necessary part of the same process of information exchange.
The gatekeeper performs an information function rather different from that of either the key employee or the general run of employees. There are information channels inside organizations, formal ones based on hierarchy and function, and also informal channels, based on personal contacts, that may supplement the formal. Neither type of channel extends through the organizational boundary to the information sources of the outside world, and certainly not to the information networks of key employees. The gatekeeper is thought to provide the link.
Defining the Gatekeeper
The term gatekeeper seems to date from 1947, applied to an individual who directs along one path rather than another, much as a gate functions in electronic circuitry [13]. In some areas, such as insurance and medicine, the term has come to refer to an individual who acts as a filter and is very much part of the bureaucratic structure, often protecting senior manage- ment from unsought external influence [26]. From here it is but a short step to perceiving the gatekeeper as someone who withholds information [19]--the very opposite of the activity with which we are concerned. In the context of technology policy and innovation, the importance of gatekeeping owes its initial recognition to Allen [2]. His original interest in the activity was inspired by analogy with the role of opinion leaders in the 1940 election in the United States, interpreting information from the media for the general public [ 1 ]. The definition of Allen, Tushman, and Lee of 1979 is more appreciative of organizational boundaries: gate- keepers are
individuals who maintain consistent, ongoing contact outside their organizations, who understand the way in which outsiders differ in their perspective from their own organizational colleagues, and who are able to translate between the two systems [3, p. 703].
In considering how this translation takes place, Allen traces the networks of gatekeepers inside the organization [2], an approach adopted more deliber- ately still by Tushman [46]. Neither is particularly concerned with networks outside the organization. Indeed, as no distinction is made between spanning the boundaries of units within the organization and
spanning the boundary of the organization as a whole, little attention is paid to the gatekeeper's truly external activities, and less to any external information net- works.
Tushman and Katz draw a distinction between gatekeepers and other individuals whose activities span organizational boundaries [47]. While the latter may well bring external information into the organiza- tion, they may not be able to transfer this information within its boundaries. For Tushman and Katz this is a prerequisite; gatekeepers are
those key individuals who are both strongly connected to internal colleagues and strongly linked to external domains [47, p. 1071 ].
The definition is explicit enough, but precisely where these external domains may lie is less clear. Evidently they are where the gatekeeper is not, though it seems that the gatekeeper's information network somehow straddles the boundary between that which is internal and that which is external. Gatekeepers are
individuals in the communication network who are capable of understanding and translating contrasting coding schemes. With the help of these key individu- als, external information can flow into the system by means of a two-step process. First, gatekeepers are able to gather and understand external information, and subsequently they are able to translate this information into terms that are meaningful and useful to their more locally oriented colleagues [47, pp. 1072-1073].
We have just a little difficulty with this approach. While accepting the importance of a linking mecha- nism, we are not convinced that information networks outside the organization can be joined to internal networks in quite this way. We are not convinced that gatekeeping is necessarily a network activity. Second, in as much as technological innovation now tends to be seen as a product of rather more organizational effort than comes from R&D, it seems unnecessarily restric- tive to concentrate, as most studies of the gatekeeper do, on the contribution of information to only that function; indeed, on only an oral contribution. Third, because there is a profuse literature on boundary spanning and because all employees engage in boundary spanning activity to some extent in that they are not incarcerated within their organizations, much effort has been directed to distinguishing between the
THE GATEKEEPER IN THE ORGANIZATION J PROD INNOV MANAG 421 1993;10:417-427
gatekeeper and other boundary spanners. Inevitably, this effort has emphasized the internal linkages of gatekeepers. Consequently, what is taken to distin- guish the gatekeeper is not so much extraorganiza- tional activity, as what is done with information inside the organization [48].
In many studies of the firm, the organization sets the context and provides the perspective from which issues are viewed. This is perhaps less appropriate when the issue is how the external world relates to the world within the boundaries of the organization. This is surely the issue with gatekeeping. Yet, so strong is the concept of boundary, the organizational perspec- tive tends to dominate even investigation of the activities of gatekeepers [5]. Thus, for example, the designer is a gatekeeper in integrating the functions of the firm [52]. Thus, a fundamental obstacle to gatekeeping activity is the use of information as a power resource within the organization [38]. Thus, firms should facilitate gatekeeping almost to the point of giving employees formal responsibility for the task [10,37]. Lost is any appreciation that crucial to whatever it is the gatekeeper does is done beyond the boundaries of the organization, and that it is done informally, beyond the control of the organization.
The Survey
A superior definition of gatekeeping is not an aim of this article. What we wish to explore is the process by which certain individuals bring external information into their organizations. The study starts from the premise that there are gatekeepers, and examines the activities of those who might reasonably be expected to fall into this category. It does so--and whatever contribution it might make to knowledge emanates from this approach from the perspective of informa- tion itself, rather than from the perspective of organization. Thus, the gatekeepers--if gatekeepers they be--are discovered outside their organizations and, like bees with pollen, they return with it to the hive. It is almost universal among studies of gatekeep- ing to identify the gatekeeper through those who receive his or her information within the organization. While the external information gathering of the gatekeeper is of fundamental importance in the definition of the gatekeeper, it is merely incidental in most empirical examinations of the activity. The notion of gatekeeping provides an essential conceptual basis for the study: the study itself is intended to add a
new perspective to the understanding of gatekeeping activity.
The possible gatekeeping activity whose investiga- tion gave rise to this article was generated by a program of the UK Department of Trade and Industry, intended to stimulate the interest of UK firms in new materials [36]. The information component of the Materials Matter program was contracted out to the Design Council in London, which fortunately kept full records of all enquiries. From these, it was possible to identify both requests for technological information about new materials (as opposed to information about suppliers of new materials) and also requests which came from industry (rather than from students and the media). During 1988 and 1989, some 400 individuals from UK industry sought information about new materials through the program by calling in personally, or by letter or telephone. This group was approached by means of a postal questionnaire and 125 usable responses were eventually received (a 31% response) from individuals employed in a wide variety of firms and industries [32].
The Individuals
The characteristics of the individuals who approached the Design Council for information on new materials were a source of some surprise. The DTI had advertised the program widely in the media, so widely that many students sought information from the Design Council for projects and assignments on new materials. We had assumed that managers who wanted to exploit such a program for information about new materials would have assigned an assistant or a secretary to make contact with the Design Council, that senior managers would be far too busy and too important to deal with the matter themselves. Not a bit of it.
The average age of the 125 who approached the Design Council was 40 and they were typically senior managers or directors of finns. All but 23 had at least a first degree, 18 had a masters degree, and 14 held doctorates. Qualifications were predominantly in sci- ence and engineering, and about one quarter were qualified in more then one discipline. All but three were male, which probably says more about British management than it does about gatekeeping. Now it could be that new materials is a subject so high on the agenda of UK firms that it commands the personal attention of senior management, but this seems
422 J PROD INNOV MANAG S. MACDONALD AND C. WILLIAMS 1993; 10:417-427
unlikely and would be in conflict with the justification for the DTI program. Such very strong evidence permits speculation that these individuals considered the information sufficiently valuable that procuring it was worthy of their own personal efforts.
There is also some indication that these individuals were procuring information for their own use as much as for their firms. For instance, though the group was exceptionally well qualified, qualifications in librari- anship, computer studies, information science, or any other field which might indicate a professional information worker--someone paid to transfer tech- n o l o g y - w e r e notably lacking. Again, though the evidence is clear that these individuals attached a high personal value to the information in that they went to some personal trouble to obtain it, their estimation of how well their firms used the information they brought in was not especially high (Figure 1).
These individuals were asked what was done with the information they introduced to their firms. Their response is very clear: nearly all used the information themselves. However, nearly as many also passed on their information to others in the firm, not for these people to pass on in turn, but for them to use. It was rare for the information ever to leave the firm again. This is characteristic gatekeeper behavior, entitling these individuals to be regarded as gatekeepers, but it also reflects the nature of information. These individu- als are able to use the information they procure because they are sufficiently knowledgeable to appreciate what information is worth procuring. Information is needed to screen and to use other information. They also know who else within the firm would be able to use their information and they transfer the information directly. Information workers of various sorts, those charged with the responsibility for technology transfer, are
Figure 1. Estimation of firms' use of technological information introduced.
always well used
often well use¢
sometimes well used
never well used
h
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Total (120)
c
Total (123)
20 40 60 80 100
Technological information acquired externally is:
A used personal ly 85
B given to others in the firm for their use 77
C given to others in the firm for them to pass on 21
D given to others outside the firm for their use 15
E given to others outside the firm to pass on 5
Figure 2. Internal disposal of technological information ac- quired externally.
given no part to play in the process. Now this could be because the gatekeeper considers the personal transfer of information more efficient, but it is more likely that something is expected in return, a favor now in exchange for a favor later. These gatekeepers pass on their information not simply to other departments within the firm, but to specific individuals. Yet they tend to regard these individuals not as friends or even acquaintances: they are seen as colleagues. A transac- tion is taking place, and it is a transaction in information (Figure 2).
In contrast, those identified as external sources of information are seen as acquaintances. At the business level, the relationship is not close enough for sources to be colleagues: at the personal level, it is not close enough to amount to friendship. The important point, though, is that there is a personal level. These gatekeepers associate their sources with specific individuals, presumably individuals with whom they have had previous dealings. Thus, when these gate- keepers identify their sources of technological infor- mation, it is actually individuals within these organiza- tions who are their real sources. This may help explain why universities--perceived as collections of individ- uals rather than as institutions--should rank alongside suppliers and customers as sources of the most important technological information (Figure 3). Sup-
THE GATEKEEPER IN THE ORGANIZATION J PROD INNOV MANAG 423 1993; 10:417-427
suppliers
universities
customers
consultants
competitors
government departments
collaborators
0 20 40 60
Total (121)
Figure 3. External sources of technological deemed important.
80 100
information
pliers and customers are now commonly acknowl- edged to be the most significant of sources of external information for technological innovation [50], but universities are not usually considered to be in the same league at all [20]. Also interesting is that collaborators--and most of these gatekeepers worked for firms in some form of technological collabora- t i o n - w e r e not regarded as valuable sources of important information. There is some evidence that technological collaboration does not necessarily facili- tate technology transfer [29], and the evidence here suggests that these gatekeepers may be tapping external sources that might not otherwise be readily accessible to the collaborating firm (Figure 3).
This impression is reinforced by examination of the means by which these gatekeepers procure external information. The telephone is the most common. A telephone conversation must always be with an individual rather than with an institution, as must face-to-face contact. That original publications are an important means of procuring information may attest to the dedicated reading of this group, but it might also mean that articles and cuttings are being selected by others and sent to the gatekeepers. This can be the only way they can receive photocopies of parts of publica- tions. Such selection might also explain the impor- tance of consultants in Figure 3. What is most significant is that personal and informal means of communication are obviously vastly more important than institutional means. Formal meetings have very little part to play in the acquisition of external information (Figure 4).
A comparison of the data in Figure 5 with those in Figure 4 satisfies the principal criterion of gatekeeping laid down by Tushman and Katz--that it is a two-step process. Very clearly, these individuals are translating--
even processing--the external information they receive before passing it on to others in the firm. For instance, only parts of original publications are passed on. As interesting is that the telephone is less used for internal transfer. Face-to-face contact is more important, to- gether with memos and letters. This would accord with an individual anxious to ensure that information is successfully transferred [14,34], and that recipients are fully aware that the gatekeeper is their source [44]. Once again, even within the organization, formal meetings have little part to play in the transfer of information. Nor, indeed, does such an anonymous means of information transfer as electronic mail [35].
So far the survey has uncovered nothing that is not readily recognizable as conventional gatekeeping behavior. It would be easy to conclude, as others have done, that such individuals are members of informa- tion networks and that their function is to transfer information from an external information network to an internal information network. Yet it is a hazardous leap from recognition of a gatekeeping function to an assumption that the gatekeepers are networking. It requires a perilous disregard for the characteristics of information and how information networks operate. Such networks are basically exchange mechanisms, information being received in return for information given. While gatekeepers have expertise sufficient to recognize valuable information and to make use of it themselves, they are not necessarily sufficiently expert to make much of a personal contribution of informa- tion to the network. Much of their expertise lies in knowing who is doing what within their own firm, the sort of proprietary information that does not normally enter the peer networks of key employees and which would actually devalue them if it did. More funda- mentally, it is quite uncharacteristic of network
Figure 4. Form in which external technological information is received.
Form in which information received:
telephone conversation
original publication
part copy publication
face/face conversation
fax
memo/letter
report at meeting
electronic mail
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Total (124)
424 J PROD INNOV MANAG S. MACDONALD AND C. WILLIAMS 1993; 10:417-427
Form in which information passed on:
part copy publication
face/face conversation
memo/letter
original publication
telephone conversation
report at meeting
fax
electronic mail
0 2 0 4 0 60 8 0
Total (114)
Figure 5. Form in which technological information is passed on to others in the firm.
behavior to dispense information to those who are not members of the network. Networks may certainly overlap, with some individuals belonging to more than one, but their boundaries are always determined by the ability and willingness of their members to exchange information. The boundary of the organization is delineated by other considerations altogether. There is little evidence of gatekeepers receiving information from internal networks to supply to external ones.
There are, then, severe constraints, derived from the very nature of information, which seem likely to limit the information networking of the gatekeeper. The survey results reflect these limitations. Figure 6 makes very clear that information exchange is taking place, with gatekeepers providing information in return for that received from their external sources. This suggests networking. That they tend to contribute information as opporthnity arises rather than as part of a discrete and immediate transaction is added confirmation. The disturbing factor is that so few provide information in exchange via someone else in the network. Multilateral exchange is an essential feature of the sophisticated peer network, transforming a series of individual contacts into an interactive system.
Gatekeepers' perceptions of their suppliers' motiva- tions are even more revealing. Asked why they thought their external sources provided them with information, most gatekeepers replied that the sources expected information in return, an indication of the exchange characteristic of information networks (Figure 7). However, almost as many replied that it was the job of their sources to provide information, perhaps thinking of individuals working for suppliers or even in universities. Members of information networks are certainly obliged to supply information to the network, but not by their employers. More telling is that almost
half these gatekeepers considered that their sources were contributing to a common pool of knowledge. This is the very antithesis of network behavior. Network members are particularly concerned with their reputation among their peers for it is this that entitles them to membership of the network and which draws information from other members. Dispensing information that others will value boosts individual reputation, yet few of these suppliers were thought to be motivated by improving their reputations.
Discussion
It has been the purpose of this article to examine from an unusual perspective what appears to be gatekeeping behavior. The normal perspective is that of fellow employees inside the organization asked to identify colleagues notable for the information they provide, most commonly oral information for research and development. This study has taken external informa- tion as its starting point, identifying possible gatekeep- ers from their activities beyond the boundaries of the organization rather than from their distribution of information within. Observations from this perspective might be expected to complement those from the customary organizational perspective.
Figure 6. Supply of technological information to external sources.
D
0 20 40 60 80 100
Total (86)
A Technological Information is not supplied
to sources in return: 17
B Technological information is supplied
to sources in return: 83
i -as opportunity arises 65
i -of equal value 24
iii -of less value 15
iv -immediately 12
v -via others in the same circle 10
vi -of greater value 7
THE GATEKEEPER IN THE ORGANIZATION J PROD INNOV MANAG 425 1993; 10:417-427
Indeed, much of what this study finds is fully consonant with what most other studies of gatekeep- ers and gatekeeping reveal. There is clear evidence here that the process is, as Tushman and his colleagues insist, two-stage, with gatekeepers acting as mediators, transforming external information so that it can be digested within the organization, and delivering it in ways that ensure its consumption. Similarly, this study is in accord with the many others that find gatekeepers to be well qualified academi- cally, and to function unencumbered by organiza- tional structure, independent of formal systems dedi- cated to the dissemination of information. However, the information perspective picks out differences as well as similarities.
While much that has been written about gatekeep- ing acknowledges that the activity is largely informal, an organizational perspective can still lead to the conclusion that gatekeeping should be managed as an organizational function [48]. It may be possible to create formal replicas of informal systems, but it is certainly not possible for the organization to engage in the exchange of information through personal external networks. To the extent that these are exploited in gatekeeping, the organization is absolutely excluded from the activity. The organization, it would seem, may facilitate gatekeeping within its boundaries through toleration, but any more positive intervention may well be damaging [2, p. 161; 45]. Even the obvious step of reducing constraints on internal communication [53] may undermine the gatekeeper's personal advantage and thereby reduce his incentive to disseminate information [7]. It may well be more profitable for the organization to seek to change itself than to seek to propagate the gatekeeper [13].
In their eagerness to identify their prey, other studies of gatekeepers have been less anxious to explain why Johnston and Gibbons failed to find them at all [22]. These authors are unusual in taking innovation as their starting point. A possible explana- tion is that, while informal mechanisms can often cope well with the transfer of complex information [14, p. 10], gatekeeping cannot [3,23]. The mass of information pertinent to an innovation may have to be sought directly by the individuals who need it [47]. This is important, for it makes plain that increased gatekeeping, and the increased management of gate- keeping, cannot satisfy all the organization's informa- tion requirements equally well. Gatekeeping must coexist with the other means, both formal and informal, by which information enters the organiza-
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Total (86)
Others supply technological information:
A to receive technological information in return 53
B it is their job to supply others 52
C to contribute to a common pool of knowledge 41
D because of a formal collaborative agreement 31
E to boost their reputation among their peers 26
F for other reasons 9
Figure 7. Why sources are thought to supply technological information.
tion [17]. Research on these relationships might even reveal that gatekeeping flourishes at the expense of other means of information acquisition.
An organizational perspective lends support to Pettigrew's hypothesis that gatekeepers use external information as a source of power within their organizations [39; see also 25,40,44]. An information perspective suggests that perhaps it is only because these individuals have power that their gatekeeping activity is tolerated. They are, after all, giving away their firm's information in order to receive external information in return, information which they intend using primarily for their own benefit. Indeed, given that junior managers are likely to have more of the sort of information that seems to be valued in the outside world [21], it may be that seniority is a more essential requirement for a gatekeeper than even knowledge. Allen would probably not agree [2, pp. 168-174]. While Pettigrew at least searches for some personal benefit for the gatekeeper arising from the activity, most studies of gatekeeping make the unlikely assumption that the gatekeeper's only interest lies in benefiting the organization. Only from an organiza- tional perspective can the gatekeeper seem to be an agent of the organization.
426 J PROD INNOV MANAG S. MACDONALD AND C. WILLIAMS 1993;10:417-427
It is clear that the gatekeepers in this study are not engaged in the sophisticated information exchange most closely associated with the networking of key employees in the high-technology industries. The information networking here is relatively primitive and almost entirely restricted to external transactions. From an information perspective, this is understanda- ble. The gatekeeper uses whatever means are availa- ble to procure external information, including infor- mation exchange via personal networks. The primary aim is to use the information procured: passing it on to others in the organization is very much a secondary aim and does not involve information networks. In fact, in importing information from an external world of personal networks and contacts to an internal environment of institutional control, the gatekeepers in this study are behaving much as Allen's gatekeep- er s - they are translating between two systems. Inevi- tably this is a two-step process, but the linking described by Tushman and Katz underestimates the difficulties of transferring information across the organizational boundary, from an external world of information to a very different internal world.
This study suggests that gatekeepers are often not impressed by the use to which their firms put the information they introduce. It may well be that crucial to gatekeeping behavior is a certain disdain for organiza- tional methods of handling information, a disdain borne of some familiarity with information in the outside world. The gatekeeper has little use for the organ- ization's information channels. While it is convenient to seek the gatekeeper in the organization, and necessary to consider the gatekeeper's activities in an organizational context, understanding of these activities is not to be found entirely within the organization. It is ironic that the study of a role that is important for its boundary spanning, for translating information from the outside world to satisfy needs within the boundaries of the organization, should itself be constrained by these same organizational boundaries.
Much of this research was funded by the Programme on Information and Communication Technologies (PICT) through the Science Policy Research Unit at the University of Sussex. Support was also received from PA Consulting Group and from the consortium of organizations that helps fund the research of the Centre for Corporate Strategy and Change. The authors are grateful for the assistance of Martin Wardrop at the DTI (now with ASTEC in Australia), Gill Money at the Design Council, and those who sought information from the Materials Matter program and found themselves supplying information for this study. They are also
grateful to Marta Rosario for her dedication and patience in working with the resulting data, and to both the Editor of JPIM and an anonymous referee for their exceptionally helpful comments. Remaining mistakes and omissions are, of course, the responsibil- ity of the authors.
References 1. Allen, T. Communications in the research and development laboratory.
Technology Review 70( 1 ): 31-37 (1967).
2. Allen, T. Managing the Flow of Technology: Technology Transfer and the Dissemination of Technological Innovation within the R&D Organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1977.
3. Allen, T., Tushman, M., and Lee, D. Technology transfer as a function of position in the spectrum from research through development to technical services. Academy of Management Journal 22(4):694-708 (1979).
4. Allen, T., Hyman D., and Pinckney, D. Transferring technology to the small manufacturing firm: A study of technology transfer in three countries. Research Policy 12(4):199-211 (1983).
5. Aloni, M. Patterns of infi)rmation transfer among engineers and applied scientists in complex organizations. Scientometrics 8(5-6):279-300 (1985).
6. Am)w, K. The Limits of Organization. New York: Norton, 1974.
7. Bacharach, S. and Aiken, M. Communication in administrative bureaucracies. Academy of Management Journal 20(3):365-377 (1977).
8. Badaracco, J. The Knowledge Link. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1991.
9. Baram, M. Trade secrets: What price loyalty? Harvard Business Review 46(6): 66-74 (1968).
10. Bozeman, B. Public managers' acquisition of scientific and technical information. R&D Management 11 ( 1 ):33-35 ( 1981 ).
11. Carter, A. Knowhnw trading as economic exchange. Research Policy 18:155-163 (1989).
12. Daniel, E. Information resources and organizational structure. Journal of the American SocietyJbr Information Science 34(3):222-228 (1983).
13. Davis, P. and Wilkof, M. Scientific and technical information transfer for high technology: Keeping the figure in its ground. R&D Management 18(1):45-58 (1988).
14. Doheny-Farina, S. Rhetoric, Innovation, Technology. Case Studies of Technical Communication in Technology Transfers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1992.
15. Ettlie, J. Manpower flows and the innovation process. Management Science 26(11 ): 1086-1095 (1980).
16. Ettlie, J. The impact of interorganizational manpower flows on the innovation process. Management Science 31(9):1055-1071 (1985).
17. Gibbons, P. and Prescott, J. Parallel competitive intelligence processes in organizations. Presented at Strategic Processes: State-of-the-Art Research Issues. Oslo, Norway: Norwegian School of Management, May 1991.
18. Glauser, M. Upward information flow in organizations: Review and conceptual analysis. Human Relations 8(37):613-643 (1984).
19. Guevara, J. and Boyer, L. Communication problems within construc- tion. ASCE Journal of Construction Division 107:551-557 (1981 ).
20. Hoglund, L. and Persson, O. Communication within a national R&D system: A study of iron and steel in Sweden. Research Policy 16:29-37 (1987).
21. Huseman, R., Alexander E., and Driver, R. Planning for organizational change: The role of communication. Managerial Planning 28(6): 32-36 (1980).
THE GATEKEEPER IN THE ORGANIZATION J PROD INNOV MANAG 427 1993; 10:417-427
22. Johnston, R. and Gibbons, M. Characteristics of information usage in technological innovation. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Manage- ment EM-22(1 ):27-34 (1975).
23. Katz, R. and Tushman, M. Communication patterns, project perform- ance, and task characteristics: An empirical evaluation and integration in an R&D setting. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 23:139-162 (1979).
24. Keegan, W. Multinational scanning: A study of the information sources utilized by headquarters executives in multinational companies. Administrative Science Quarterly 19(3):411-421 (1974).
25. Keller, R., Szilagyi, A. and Holland, W. Boundary-spanning activity and employee reactions: an empirical study. Human Relations 29(7):699-710 (1976).
26. Keuch, R. Getting to the decisionmaker. Life Association News 82(3):115-121 (1987).
27. Lamberton, D., ed. The Economics of Information and Knowledge. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1971.
28. Macdonald, S. The distinctive research of the individual inventor. Research Policy 15:199-210 (1986).
29. Macdonald, S. Formal collaboration and informal information flow. International Journal of Technology Management 7(1-3):49-60 (1992).
30. Macdonald, S. Information networks and the exchange of information. In: The Economies of Information Networks. Cristiano Antonelli (ed.). Amsterdam: North Holland, pp. 51-69, 1992.
31. Macdonald, S. Nothing either good or bad: Industrial espionage and technology transfer. International Journal of Technology Management 8(1-2):95-105 (1993).
32. Macdonald, S. and Williams, C. The survival of the gatekeeper. Research Policy 23(2), 1994.
33. Mandeville, T. and Macdonald, S. Innovation protection viewed from an information perspective. In: Direct Protection of Innovation. William Kingston (ed.). Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, pp. 157-170, 1987.
34. Midgley, D. and Dowling, G. Innovativeness: The concept and its measurement. Journal of Consumer Research 4(4):229-242 (1978).
35. Moenaert, R. and Souder, W. An analysis of the use of extrafunctional information by R&D and marketing personnel: Review and model. Journal of Production Innovation Management 7:213-229 (1990).
36. PA Consulting Group. Materials in UK Industry. London: DT1, 1989.
37. Paolillo, J. Technological gatekeepers: A managerial perspective. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management EM-29(4): 169-171 (1982).
38. Pettigrew, A. Information control as a power resource. Sociology 6(2): 187-204 (1972).
39. Pfeffer, J. and Salancik, G. The External Control of Organizations. New York: Harper & Row, 1978.
40. Pucik, V. Strategic alliances, organizational learning, and competitive advantage: The HRM agenda. Human Resource Management 27( 1 ):77-93 (1988).
41. Quirm, J. Managing innovation: Controlled chaos. Harvard Business Review 3:110-123 (1985).
42. Rogers, E. Information exchange and technological innovation. In: The Transfer and Utilization of Technical Knowledge. Devendra Sahal (ed.). Lexington: Lexington Books, pp. 105-123, 1982.
43. Schrader, S. Informal technology transfer between finns: Cooperation through information trading. Research Policy 20:153-170 (I 991 ).
44. Spekman, R. Influence and information: An exploratory investigation of the boundary role person's basis of power. Academy of Management Journal 22(1 ): 104-117 (1979).
45. Taylor, R. and Utterback, J. A longitudinal study of communication in research: Technical and managerial influences. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management EM-22(2):80-87 (1975).
46. Tushman, M. Managing communication networks in R&D laborato- ties. SIoan Management Review 20(2):37-49 (Winter 1979).
47. Tushman, M. and Katz, R. External communication and project performance: An investigation into the role of gatekeepers. Manage- ment Science 26(11):1071-1085 (1980).
48. Tushman, M. and Scanlan, T. Boundary spanning individuals: Their role in information transfer and their antecedents. Academy of Management Journal 24(2):289-305 (1981 ).
49. von Hippel, E. Cooperation between rivals: Informal know-how trading. Research Policy 16:291-302 (1987).
50. von Hippel, E. The Sources of Innovation. New York: OUP, 1988.
51. Ward, P. Organization for technological change. Long Range Planning 14(4):121-124 (1981).
52. Walsh, V. and Roy, R. The designer as 'gatekeeper' in manufacturing industry. Design Studies 6(3): 127-133 (1985 ).
53. Whitley, R. and Frost, P. Task type and information transfer in a government research laboratory. Human Relations 25(4):537-550 (1973).
