The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Knowledge, Integration, and the Locus of Learning: An Empirical Analysis of Process Development
Abstract
This paper uses data on 23 process development projects in pharmaceuticals to explore the broader issue of how organizations create, implement, and replicate new routines. A framework is presented which links approaches to experimentation and the structure of underlying knowledge. Although the concept of learning-by-doing is well accepted in the literature, the framework here suggests that where underlying scientific knowledge is sufficiently strong, effective learning may take place outside the final use environment in laboratories (i.e., ‘learning-before-doing’). This proposition is tested by comparing how an emphasis on laboratory experimentation impacts process development lead times in two different technological environments: traditional chemical-based pharmaceuticals and new biotechnology-based pharmaceuticals. The data indicate that in chemical-based pharmaceuticals—an environment characterized by deep theoretical and practical knowledge of the process technology—more emphasis on laboratory experimentation (learning-before-doing) is associated with more rapid development. In contrast, in biotechnology-based pharmaceuticals—an environment in which process technology is often characterized as being more of an ‘art’ than a science—a greater emphasis on laboratory experimentation does not seem to shorten process development lead times. These results suggest that there is no one best way to learn, but that different approaches may be required in different knowledge environments.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Kale, P., Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (2002) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.248 · Cited by 1,803
Understanding the elusive black Box of dynamic capabilities
Pavlou, P. A., & El Sawy, O. A. (2011) · Decision Sciences · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.2010.00287.x · Cited by 1,329
Pavlou, P. A., & El Sawy, O. A. (2006) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.1060.0094 · Cited by 1,311
Theory and research in strategic management: Swings of a pendulum
Hoskisson, R. E., Hitt, M. A., Wan, W. P., & Yiu, D. (1999) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/014920639902500307 · Cited by 1,364
Spanos, Y. E., & Lioukas, S. (2001) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.174 · Cited by 1,113
Metadata
- Authors
- Pisano, G. P.
- Venue
- Strategic Management Journal
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1994
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- S1
- Pages
- 85-100
- ISSN
- 0143-2095 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0266
- OpenAlex
- W2053562213
- Cited by
- 888
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 32.29
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Knowledge, Integration, and the Locus of Learning: An Empirical Analysis of Process Development. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/smj.4250150907
- The paper
- Pisano, G. P. (1994). Knowledge, Integration, and the Locus of Learning: An Empirical Analysis of Process Development. Strategic Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250150907
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.