INTRODUCTION

There are three investigations were carried out in relation to organization structures. We are asked to provide a synthesis of the three papers, so I am going to provide a combined essay and suggest the relevance point of the researches and discuss the way these papers conveying different ideas by exploring the aims, contents and the result of the findings.

DISCUSSION
The aim of first research which was conducted by Ozman (2010) was to explore the influence of two dimensions of product knowledge bases on organizational structures, while Thomas et al. (2010) study was to find out the variation in Individuals psychological contracts across cultures. The third study, set out by Fiedler and Welpe (2010) to examine the impact of organizational structures on organizational memory (OM). The aims of these investigations clearly reveal that each of the study covers different views. For instance, the first research focuses on complexity of the product and reusability of the knowledge which can be utilized in different context, but the second study developed to discover how the psychological contract forms are different in four countries based on their national cultures. The research by Fiedler and Welpe (2010) was to explore the influence of organizational structures on OM by examining of structural organizational factors and organizational processes. Explicitly, the intention of each study is significantly different. On the other hand, according to Ozman (2010) when the product is complex and knowledge is reused in a higher degree in different context, then organizations form multi-product companies. The impact of organisational memory in formation of firms is significantly apparent. Thomas et al. (2010) states that OM is understood as a structure, in which the knowledge is created, stored and reused. Thus, when the knowledge within organisations is shared and retrieved between employees, then such firms can organise a multi-product companies. Fiedler and Welpe (2010) state that the organisation structure is affected by the way that the knowledge is utilized and reused in different context within an organisation. The content of the papers discover different aspects of organisations structures as well. For example, Ozman (2010) study looks at relationship between product and knowledge which leads to organization formation. When the product is complex and the economies of scope is rich and the reusability of knowledge is weak, then how the firms emerge. Further, the

research examines the physical architecture of products that undermines the relationship between the knowledge and product complexity which results in two categories, first, one-tomany relationship which a piece of knowledge uses in different context, second, many-to-one which many competences use for a single product. On contrast, Thomas et al. (2010) research looks at different aspect of organizations, including prediction patterns (cognitive and motivational mechanism) through which culture influence the employees expectations, and psychological forms of contract (transactional and relational) which further combined by symmetric and asymmetric power distribution through cultural dimensions (individualism and collectivism). On the other hand, the content of the research by Fiedler and Welpe (2010) covers different direction of organizational structures, mainly the influence of organizational structures factors, including standardization and specialization through the organizational processes,

such as codification, personalized information and electronic communication on OM. Further, looks at the mediation degree between organizational structures factors and OM. Subsequently, the content of each study follow different directions of the organization structures. Furthermore, the results of these researches are different as well, while the investigations achieved the aims. Ozman (2010) found that when the product is complex and knowledge is reused in a higher degree in different context, then organizations form multi-product companies but with less inter-firm relationships. The specialized firms with intensive interaction can be emerged, when the reusability of the knowledge is weak and product is complex and deep. In a broader sense, the more the knowledge reused in different products, the greater diversifications become. The results of Thomas et al. (2010) study strongly suggest that psychological contract forms across cultures are different. French interviewees (vertical individualist) described their psychological contracts as primarily exploitive, Canadians (horizontal individualist) as primarily instrumental, Chinese (vertical collectivist) as primarily custodial and Norwegians (horizontal collectivist) as primarily communitarian. The results of Fiedler and Welpe (2010) findings reveal that it is codification of knowledge indentified as a mechanism which completely mediates the relationship between standardization and OM, while electronic communication partially mediates the relationship between specialization and OM. The personalized information has positive effects on OM, but it does not mediate the relationship between organizational factors and OM.

CONCLUSION
Overall, through the review of the three papers I found that each paper follows different direction as the aims, contents and the results of the findings shed lights on how these investigations cover different areas, while there are some relevance points as well. To justify the study by Ozman (2010) only focuses on knowledge bases of product, product complexity and reusability of knowledge in different context on how the firms emerge. The research by Thomas et al. (2010) examined how the psychological contract forms can be different based on national culture. Fiedler and Welpe (2010) looks at the influence of organizational structures factors on OM and how the organizational processes mediates the relationship between such factors and OM. Regarding the aims, contents and outcomes, there is no apparent relevance in the papers. However, the psychological contract impacts on OM and subsequently OM has influence on knowledge bases of product.