Actions to Overcome Knowledge Transfer Barriers in MNCs

Journal of Knowledge ManagementActions to overcome knowledge transfer barriers in MNCsAndreas Riege

Article information:To cite this document:Andreas Riege, (2007),"Actions to overcome knowledge transfer barriers in MNCs", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 11 Iss 1 pp.48 - 67Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13673270710728231

Downloaded on: 22 August 2014, At: 11:03 (PT)References: this document contains references to 63 other documents.To copy this document: [email protected] fulltext of this document has been downloaded 4705 times since 2007*

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 478417 []

For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors serviceinformation about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visitwww.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additionalcustomer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

FSC

At 1

1:03

22

Aug

ust 2

014

(PT)

Actions to overcome knowledge transferbarriers in MNCs

Andreas Riege

Abstract

Purpose This paper seeks to offer a comprehensive list of actions that help managers to prevail over

numerous internal knowledge transfer barriers, an area that has received little attention thus far.

Design/methodology/approach Arguments draw upon theory in knowledge management and

related fields and in-depth interviews with over 60 senior and middle managers in 20 Australian-based

multinational corporations (MNCs).

Findings The approach established two main thrusts. First, the literature review has identified a wide

range of knowledge transfer barriers that managers need to consider. However, there also is some

confusion as to how to prevail over them. Second, based on the literature and fieldwork the paper

highlights an extensive list of initiatives managers can employ to overcome numerous internal transfer

barriers.

Research limitations/implications The number of respondents was sufficiently large to provide

analytical generalisation. Whilst the paper provides a general guideline on how to overcome diverse

barriers, there still is no conclusive empirical evidence based on a large-scale comparative study giving

indication about the effectiveness of diverse managerial actions to enhance knowledge transfers in the

internal and external supply chain.

Practical implications Senior and middle managers may utilise the provided list as an action

identification tool when challenged to overcome diverse knowledge transfer barriers.

Originality/ value This paper highlights a large number of possible actions to overcome barriers to

internal knowledge transfer. In particular, the action list serves as a starter or reassurance kit for

managerial decision making when facing various barriers upon introducing, maintaining, or seeking to

improve internal knowledge transfer practices. The aim, however, was no cookbook approach

suggesting that a set of particular managerial actions will suit all firms, that is, specific actions are likely

to show diverse levels of success and effectiveness.

Keywords Knowledge management, Knowledge transfer, Multinational companies, Australia

Paper type Research paper

Introduction

A firms competitive advantages are not only dependent on its distinctive intangible

resources but also on its capability to exploit those resources effectively (Nelson and Winter,

1982). Therefore, a firms intangible resources are increasingly becoming a differentiating

competitive factor, particularly in services industries and for the same reason, there has

been a growing interest in the management of intangible resources and the structure,

processes, mechanisms and organisation of multinational corporations (MNCs) to facilitate a

more effective internal and external flow of knowledge (Argote, 1999; Bartlett and Ghoshal,

1989; Gupta and Govindarajan, 2000; Holm and Pedersen, 2000; Minbaeva et al., 2003;

Teece, 1998). For well over a decade, the topic of knowledge transfer has been a discussion

point for researchers and practitioners alike. Knowledge transfer is the application of prior

knowledge to new learning situations (McKeough, 1995) and transfer practices often form a

PAGE 48 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 11 NO. 1 2007, pp. 48-67, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1367-3270 DOI 10.1108/13673270710728231

Andreas Riege is a Senior

Lecturer and Director of the

degree programs of

Bachelor of International

Business and Master of

International Business, in

the Department of

International Business and

Asian Studies, Griffith

Business School, Griffith

University, Brisbane,

Queensland, Australia.

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

FSC

At 1

1:03

22

Aug

ust 2

014

(PT)

key component of knowledge management programs, in terms of organisational and

individual learning, and innovation (e.g. Alavi and Leidner, 2001; Argote and Ingram, 2000;

Earl, 2001; Ford and Chan, 2003; Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998; Nonaka, 1994; Senge, 1990;

Sveiby, 1997).

Effective knowledge transfer is more than the movement of useful knowledge from one

location to another. The basic notion is that the transfer of viable knowledge should assist

with collaborative problem solving between people, directly and indirectly, supported by

networks and tools. In MNCs, knowledge can be generated in various parts and transferred

to diverse parts of an interconnected network of organisational units (Bartlett and Ghoshal,

1989; Hedlund, 1986; Holm and Pedersen, 2000). Transferring knowledge between units

and people can create significant learning benefits and is a powerful mechanism for

improving an organisations productivity and increasing its survival prospects (Argote,

1999, p. xvii). In spite of this, there are numerous examples where knowledge transfer

practices have not accomplished their objectives to manage firms intangibles, including

knowledge, which is mainly due to the large diversity of barriers.

Whilst recent research in the management domain presents an extensive overview of

possible knowledge transfer facilitators and barriers (for good discussions refer to, for

example, Argote, 1999; De Long and Fahey, 2000; Gupta and Govindarajan, 2001; Kogut

and Zander, 1996; Michailova and Husted, 2003; Minbaeva et al., 2003; Moeller and Svahn,

2004; Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998; Riege, 2005; Sveiby and Simons, 2002), there is very

little empirical evidence that suggests likely managerial actions or gives evidence about how

to overcome diverse knowledge transfer barriers and the effectiveness of those actions,

thereby assisting executives and middle managers in creating a more systematically

knowledge-driven collaborative environment. Thus far, the management literature provided

few specific solutions to particular knowledge transfer problems that are based on empirical

findings (Gupta and Govindarajan, 2001; Martin and Salomon, 2003; Tannenbaum and

Alliger, 2000), but rather offers generic guidelines on factors that impede or stimulate

knowledge transfer (Argote, 1999; Probst et al., 2000), and that serves its purpose. In

particular Gupta and Govindarajan (2000), emphasised the need for further research on

organisational mechanisms and initiatives that can facilitate better knowledge transfer.

Similarly, Minbaeva et al. (2003) call for further research to examine the relationship between

organisational units, the senders characteristics, and characteristics of the knowledge

transferred to enhance the benefits of knowledge transfer. Recently, Tannenbaum and

Alliger (2000) offered several ways to address specific knowledge transfer problems.

However, further research is required to enhance our understanding in this important area of

knowledge management.

Creating an environment supportive of knowledge flows

It has been widely recognised in the extant literature that organisations wishing to make their

business growth strategy a success and keep on top of their competition need to be able to

generate and transfer knowledge internally, and thus pay attention to a large number of

potential knowledge transfer barriers. Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) emphasised that for

ongoing knowledge creation to occur above all the transfer of tacit knowledge between

individuals with different capabilities and motivations becomes a critical step. It is of

economic importance that particularly international businesses with foreign subsidiaries

Effective knowledge transfer is more than the movement ofuseful knowledge from one location to another.

VOL. 11 NO. 1 2007 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTj PAGE 49

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

FSC

At 1

1:03

22

Aug

ust 2

014

(PT)

understand the large potential benefits of value-creating knowledge exchanges. This then

poses the key question of how organisations best develop a knowledge-based business

view and place greater emphasis on creating and incubating a collaborative knowledge

culture that is integrated and supported by a firms employees, its systems and processes,

and technology to maintain the competitiveness, profitability and long-term success of its

business operations and networks.

Furthermore, several authorities stressed the importance that individuals whom, and units

which, transfer knowledge are aware of the knowledge purpose, use, needs and gaps of the

people and units receiving the knowledge. This implies that not all people need to transfer

knowledge, because it would not be applied (Davenport and Prusak, 1998; Minbaeva et al.,

2003). Hence, knowledge transfer between intra- and interrelated organisational units can

be regarded as a dynamic process encompassing several stages from the sender or

sending unit identifying the knowledge to the transmission of viable knowledge to its final

application by the receiver or receiving unit (Minbaeva et al., 2003). Indeed, there is a need

for a better understanding of the dynamic process of knowledge transfer across

organisations, units and people and why some transfer knowledge more or less

effectively than others (Argote, 1999).

This paper offers several new contributions to the knowledge management field. First, it

investigates a large number of possible actions to overcome diverse internal knowledge

transfer barriers, an area that has received little attention thus far. In particular, the research

attempts to offer a guideline suggesting how to address diverse barriers, thereby offering

senior and middle managers a number of likely solutions to their knowledge transfer

problems and assisting them to overcome intrinsic barriers more successfully. Those

guidelines should serve as a starter kit for managerial decision making and for MNC facing

various barriers upon introducing, maintaining, or seeking to improve their

knowledge-transfer practices. Second, firms and especially international firms are looking

for more innovative ways of transferring knowledge that is, in terms of finding new and better

ways to create ideas and ultimately marketable products and technologies, delivering new

services to meet the challenges of the future. All of these emerge from an environment that

supports collaboration. This paper suggests various actions to transferring knowledge

effectively thus assisting organisations to, for instance, enhance their product/ service

innovativeness or process productivity and hopefully with it their overall profitability.

The main objective of this research is to fill a gap in the area of knowledge management, with

particular reference to knowledge transfers between foreign units of MNCs. Whilst several

researchers have investigated organisational processes, methods and mechanism as well

as individuals ability and motivation to enhance internal and external knowledge transfers

and thus gain competitive advantages, there is very little empirical evidence about

organisations initiatives and managers actions on how to overcome diverse knowledge

transfer barriers. Indeed, organisations wishing to make their knowledge management

strategy a success need to pay attention to a potentially more than three dozen human,

organisational and technological obstacles to transferring knowledge (Riege, 2005). This

research will expand on previous research which has demonstrated that the transfer of

knowledge correlates positively with an organisations aspiration to innovate, the richness of

communication channels, the strategic role of the individual, prior related knowledge of the

individual, organisational investments in employees ability and motivation to contribute to

purposeful knowledge transfer thus enhancing the senders ability and motivation to identify

and distribute knowledge as well as the receivers ability and motivation to acquire and

absorb knowledge, and increase in performance and profit generation (Cohen and

Levinthal, 1990; Epple et al., 1996; Gupta and Govindarajan, 2000; Kim, 2001; Lane et al.,

2001; Minbaeva et al., 2003; Szulanski, 1996; Zahra and George, 2002). Nonetheless, the

literature seems to offer little evidence indicating the success of a range of possible actions

that managers could consider to minimise barriers to transferring knowledge within and

across units of MNCs.

Most executives seem to have realised that their organisations gain a greater business

benefit, for instance in terms of enhancing their product and process innovativeness,

PAGE 50 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTj VOL. 11 NO. 1 2007

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

FSC

At 1

1:03

22

Aug

ust 2

014

(PT)

minimising the risk and cost and optimising their overall profitability, by transferring their

knowledge more effectively (Kotabe et al., 2003). Knowledge transfer can occur on several

levels: across products or processes, across units of the same organisation, across

organisations embedded in a superordinate relationship (i.e. through a franchise, chain or

network relationship), and across independent organisations. Further, past research

suggested that intra-organisational knowledge transfer as well as transfer between affiliated

organisations and stakeholders is greater than transfer between independent organisations

(Argote, 1999). This research concentrates on the transfer across units of the same

organisation. It is recognised that not all locally generated knowledge, seeking to exploit

local market resources and opportunities, is relevant outside a unit-specific local

environment. Yet some special routines and processes may be relevant in other markets

and, if transferred and leveraged time and cost effectively, can provide substantial

economic benefits and competitive advantages across borders. This suggests that

organisational units performing similar activities such as BMWs R&D centres along with

complementary activities such as BMWs engineering, design and marketing units can

benefit from knowledge exchanges and frictionless operational coordination (Gupta and

Govindarajan, 2001). The main part of this paper focuses on those actions managers have

implemented and frequently utilise to optimise internal knowledge transfers between

individuals and business units in need of useful knowledge exchanges.

Methodology

This project began with an examination of possible solutions or managerial actions to

diverse internal knowledge transfer barriers. Based on a detailed literature review, the author

compiled a comprehensive list of actions that were suggested to limit or remove knowledge

transfer barriers. This list was based on more than three-dozen knowledge transfer barriers

related to human, organisational, and technological issues and addressed more than

120 actions to tackle them. Note that this research did not pursue to measure the efficiency

(measuring peoples/ organisations use of their capacity to share) or effectiveness

(measuring peoples / organisations performance in terms of satisfying a need of those they

serve, internally as well as externally) of diverse actions to better facilitate knowledge

transfer. Nor was it the purpose to highlight reasons for particular barriers, for example due

to companies country of origin, organisational structure, number of employees, and so on.

The next step was to examine the suitability of diverse actions to overcome one or more

(potential) knowledge transfer barriers in international business practice. In doing so, over

60 executive interviews were conducted drawing upon rich experiences and knowledge of

senior and middle managers in 20 MNCs. The transfer of knowledge is deep rooted in

personal and organisational value systems, norms, and practices. Within corporations these

must be embodied and personified by mainly senior and middle managers whom openly

support and encourage knowledge transfer initiatives and lead by example on a daily basis.

Senior managers in support of KM initiatives were seen as a rich source due to their strategic

and operational understanding of key human, organisational and technological issues.

Middle managers were regarded as a good source as they can be seen as catalysts through

which knowledge can be distributed more purposefully (Riege and Zulpo, 2005). All MNCs

were selected based on convenience sampling. However, the authors wished to preselect

an even sample of service and manufacturing companies from various industry sectors to

identify any obvious differences in actions to overcome knowledge sharing barriers.

Table I highlights some particular facts about each company. Note that due to confidentiality

and anonymity reasons, full identities of companies cannot be revealed nor can detailed

information on their profitability or revenue. Similarly, so as not to provide any obvious clues

about corporations, employee numbers are stated in approximate numbers (the maximum

number is set at 30,000 ) and no specific details about MNCs world-wide network is noted(all MNCs were represented in more than six countries). The average duration of each

interview was about 60 minutes. All interviews were conducted in English and individually to

minimise the possibility of biased answers. The interview format was semi-structured and

followed a particular sequence and fixed wording but provided sufficient flexibility to alter

the sequence tomaintain a conversation. Most of the questions remained open-ended, so as


Dow

nloa

ded

by U

FSC

At 1

1:03

22

Aug

ust 2

014

(PT)

not to predetermine the answers and to help motivate respondents to share their knowledge.

That is, managers were asked about how they indeed do or would tackle a particular sharing

problem referring to a particular actual past event or situation before they were asked

about the suitability of diverse actions as they were suggested in the extant literature. The

intention of face-to-face and open-ended interviews was to get inside peoples heads and

gain access into their mindset, perspectives, and perceptions to find out more about their

actual practices and actions that cannot be gathered in other ways. After the initial data

analysis, the results were shown to participants to confirm and verify their answers and thus

enhance the validity of their responses. Any further suggestions not considered during the

interview were added to the results.

The following sections highlight a large number of actions that managers have either

successfully used or perceived as effective to minimise knowledge transfer barriers. Note

that due to the idiosyncratic nature of every business no rankings of managerial actions were

established.

Overcoming people barriers

Whilst a large number of authors identified diverse people barriers to transferring knowledge

within and across organisational units (e.g. Argote et al., 1990; Baron and Markman, 2000;

Davenport and Prusak, 1998; De Long and Fahey, 2000; Fai and Marschan-Piekkari, 2003;

Husted and Michailova, 2002; Jarvenpaa and Staples, 2001; Marschan-Piekkari et al., 1999;

Michailova and Husted, 2003; Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995;

Probst et al., 2000; Tiwana, 2002), the following list highlights possible actions that

managers can employ to overcome 20 people barriers:

1. What if your people perceive . . . a lack of time to share knowledge, and time to identify

colleagues in need of specific knowledge?

B Acknowledge user time pressures and allocate purposeful slack time for knowledge

transfer, e.g. set aside one hour per week to facilitate sharing initiatives.

B During training/launch of KM initiatives, provide examples that illustrate how specific

actions can save people time and perform or prioritise certain tasks in the future more

efficiently.

Table I Facts about MNCs

Business sector Country of originNo. of employees

(approx.) No. of executives interviewed

ServicesAdvisory services USA 30,000 4Advisory services USA 30,000 3Business service solutions USA 10,000 3Business service solutions Australia 1,000 4Financial services Australia 30,000 3Financial services Australia 30,000 3Financial services USA 10,000 2Health care Australia 20,000 3ITC Australia 30,000 3Retail Australia 2,000 4Retail USA 1,000 3ManufacturingAutomotive Germany 30,000 3Construction UK 20,000 3Fashion Australia 1,000 3Fashion Australia 1,000 4Mining Australia 10,000 3Mining South Africa 30,000 3Paint & coating Australia 2,000 3Paint & coating USA 3,000 3Publishing USA 3,000 4


Dow

nloa

ded

by U

FSC

At 1

1:03

22

Aug

ust 2

014

(PT)

B Provide formal sharing settings, e.g. fairs, expert networks, communities of practice.

B Offer informal areas, e.g. coffee rooms, bars, gymnasiums, game rooms, where

people can meet and connect socially, enhancing their sense of belonging to the firm

and sharing opportunities.

B Offer work-related and social occasions to interact with stakeholders and customers

to enhance cross-functional thinking and gain external knowledge.

B Gather and share success stories about how time can be saved or wasted.

B Stress the importance of transferring tacit knowledge over explicit knowledge for

individual and organisational learning.

2. What if your people show . . . apprehension or fear towards sharing their knowledge

because it may reduce or jeopardise their job security?

B Ensure high commitment to sharing efforts of entire senior and middle management

group.

B Keep work visible and within everybodys reach so everyone knows what is getting

done (or not).

B Encourage natural sharing to achieve individual and unit objectives.

B Introduce a real and tangible reward to people who transfer viable knowledge.

B Get people involved in planning and development stages.

B Get people involved in performance reviews and setting of key performance

indicators (KPIs).

B Make knowledge transfer practices part of regular performance reviews.

B Establish ownership and recognise individuals contributions.

B Clarify peoples role in the firm, highlight that the purpose of new initiatives is to support

people, and make sure to stress the importance of their contributions to others.

3. What if your people display . . . low awareness and realisation of the value and benefit of

their possessed knowledge to others?

B Provide training and information programs so that employees not only realise the

value of their possessed knowledge but also can identify to whom it may be

beneficial.

B Ensure that people have detailed job descriptions, KPIs against their actions, and

generally know what is expected from them.

B Rotate people so they get to know and learn from each other.

B Ensure that people know how they create value for their unit and profits for their

organisation.

B Gather and share success stories about how knowledge transfer practices have

assisted people in enhancing the performance of their jobs, e.g. provide recognition

to people who have successes with transferring or using transferred knowledge in

newsletters.

B Establish communities of interest/ practice and expert directories for continuous

assistance.

4. What if your people perceive . . . knowledge sharing as intrusive and extra work?

B Implement suitable transfer mechanisms to minimize work requirements, e.g. ensure

that processes and tools are consistent with work styles.

B If knowledge transfer activities require a small amount of additional work, provide

people with realistic expectations of this, e.g. estimate the required time

consumption per week, and demonstrate the value of their time commitment.


Dow

nloa

ded

by U

FSC

At 1

1:03

22

Aug

ust 2

014

(PT)

B Identify if any work, e.g. low value work or time wasters, can be eliminated or reduced

at the same time the transfer practice is introduced.

B Recognise people who make contributions. If additional work will really be required,

incorporate that as part of the goal/reward processes.

B Make participation on KM project teams a career-enhancing activity/event.

5. What if your people perceive . . . an already existing information overload?

B Brand any new knowledge transfer initiative as one that helps people create

knowledge out of information, e.g. explain how transfer practices are designed to

reduce information overload, not add to it, and demonstrate a tangible value.

B Identify information sources, and develop a matrix of whats available by when to

use it.

B Provide advice about which sources to use less frequently or how to focus on the

best information sources. Indicate when it is most appropriate to use the new

initiative.

B Identify which, if any, information sources the new initiative will substitute for.

B Reduce chaotic storage and illogical memory systems etc. as they are all symptoms

of poor collaboration and connectivity.

6. What if your people developed . . . a lack of natural sharing habit with time?

B Provide tips and real examples from current users about how to transfer knowledge

on a regular basis, e.g. summarise effective cases after a staff meeting or prompt

users through regular e-mails.

B Allocate times for people to use any modified or new system until habits are formed.

B Hold regular sessions, e.g. face-to-face conferences or online discussion forums,

where people come together to tackle problems and compare ideas and possible

solutions.

B Train managers/team leaders to guide users to tools and systems rather than

providing their own advice in all cases.

B Call or e-mail users and remind them about the importance of sharing their

knowledge.

B Ask people to be proactive. Solicit input and application, and remind them of key

supporting features and capabilities of diverse tools and systems.

B Distribute tangible objects that remind users to share their knowledge (e.g.

mouse-pads, desktop stickers, posters, etc.).

7. What if your people display . . . a dominance in sharing explicit over tacit knowledge?

B Encourage and promote hands-on learning through learning-by-doing, observation,

dialogue and interactive problem solving.

B Support existing networks and communities of practice following existing common

interests.

B Emphasise core reasons for transferring tacit knowledge, e.g. know-how,

experiences, war stories. and ideas.

B Stress that not all knowledge needs to be transferred and that knowledge exchanges

have to be planned and purposeful.

B Raise or increase awareness that tacit knowledge cannot be transferred easily but

that it is possible show real ways of how to do this depending on particular

users.

B Provide time to share tacit knowledge face-to-face or, if possible, formalise tacit

knowledge into an explicit format available to others.


Dow

nloa

ded

by U

FSC

At 1

1:03

22

Aug

ust 2

014

(PT)

8. What if managers generally show . . . no or low mistake tolerance levels?

B Capture and evaluate past honest mistakes without being too critical of them.

Highlight the learning aspect of this exercise to all people.

B Promote the notion that sharing mistakes of course there are varying degrees

rather than covering them up is an important element of individual and organisational

learning, as well as the discovery of new process efficiencies.

B Punish the hiding of mistakes or buck passing.

9. What if your people resist . . . to share knowledge because of differences in experience

levels?

B Provide mentoring and coaching programs whereby experienced people advise and

guide employees with less experience bridge the gap.

B Minimise or eliminate mentalities that people who have obtained a certain level of

expertise have nothing to gain from people with lower experience levels.

B Provide better integration and socialisation processes between people.

10. What if your people have . . . little time to establish contacts and foster relationships with

internal and external knowledge sources?

B Create frequent formal and informal meeting areas and opportunities to provide

regular contact for people working closely together or having a reason or need to

share knowledge.

B Support occasional face-to-face meetings before establishing new project teams,

especially if team will be primarily in virtual mode.

B Encourage external network opportunities between stakeholders and customers.

B Create superior physical and electronic environments that support sharing initiatives.

11. What if your people demonstrate . . . poor communication and interpersonal skills?

B Ensure the recruitment of the right people on all levels and try and get the best out

of the people you already have.

B Provide suitable training and development programs to enhance peoples

communication capabilities.

B Support an open communication flow between all organisational levels.

B Encourage people to be open, proactive, and forthcoming with ideas and opinions,

and recognise and reward such behaviour.

B Provide better feedback processes within and between units.

12. What if your people show little or no knowledge sharing due to . . . different age levels or

generations?

B Remove misperception that a higher age correlates to higher levels of experience

and knowledge.

B Managers need to be aware of diverse age groups responding in different ways to

knowledge transfer practices, often depending on technology.

It is of economic importance that particularly internationalbusinesses with foreign subsidiaries understand the largepotential benefits of value-creating knowledge exchanges.


Dow

nloa

ded

by U

FSC

At 1

1:03

22

Aug

ust 2

014

(PT)

B Provide additional training and development for older employees who may

experience, e.g. difficulties in adapting to sharing practices, particularly if they

need to access new software programs, or in reporting to younger superiors.

13. What if your people have . . . a lacking social network?

B Provide further training and development in techniques for interacting efficiently with

others, e.g. on networking and socialising.

B Provide additional or introduce new formal and informal meeting spaces andmeeting

areas to enhance business-related and social interactions between people, internally

and externally.

B Offer networking opportunities and professional memberships to managers and

those in need of such opportunities, e.g. expand on external networks to better

support internal networks.

B Run induction and training programs for people new to the organisation so they

can acclimatise and adapt quicker and better connect with other people on all

levels.

B Identify and clarify the role and position of every person within a unit, and most

importantly elucidate the knowledge necessary to perform in their roles.

14. What if your people show little or no knowledge sharing activities due to . . . different

levels of education?

B Remove misperception that higher levels of education correlate to higher levels of

experience and knowledge.

B Remove themisperception that people without formal education do not need to share

or have nothing to contribute and share.

15. What if your people fear . . . a loss of ownership over their intellectual property?

B Formally acknowledge peoples contributions.

B Recognise and respond to peoples outgoing feedback.

B Promote sharing advantages for people and the firm clearly and in all necessary

detail.

B Reward and give credit to owners and generators of knowledge in front of colleagues

and encourage others to do so also.

B Comply as strictly as possible with intellectual property rights.

16. What if your people display . . . low levels of trust in the accuracy and credibility of

people and their transferred knowledge?

B Identify key employees and internal knowledge and information drivers for each unit.

B Select credible content experts to help (re-)design the system.

B Communicate whose expertise was tapped, how it was built into the system

supporting knowledge transfer practices, and record contributors credentials.

B Extend trust between people through regular face-to-face communication in formal

and informal settings.

B Demonstrate the expertise and credibility of information sources, e.g. say that it

incorporates best practices and reflects the wisdom of experts like

yourselves.

B Get senior management to encourage regular direct interaction within units.

B Provide time for users to ask questions about transfer and sharing practices and

defuse any doubts.

B Recognise and reward pro-activeness and open idea generation.

B Ensure a non-bureaucratic communication flow between all levels.


Dow

nloa

ded

by U

FSC

At 1

1:03

22

Aug

ust 2

014

(PT)

17. What if your people communicate . . . in a number of different languages?

B Do not underestimate the difficulty and influence of language on the process of

knowledge transfers, particularly when it meant to occur in a foreign language.

B Ensure that shared knowledge is understood identically by sender and receiver

this also is key to any successful application of knowledge.

B Choose one common language as your formal corporate language and ensure

that, as much as this is possible, information is recorded and knowledge conversed

in this language.

B Support various units that do not perceive say English as a common corporate

language, if a variety of unit-specific languages are used for creating formal or

informal networks.

B Ensure that all people in need of communicating in another language than their own

something very foreign to them feel comfortable doing this.

B Provide language training where necessary.

B Provide international job rotations.

18. What if your people display . . . gender-related issues?

B Enhance awareness of gender-related tensions between people.

B Get managers or team leaders to minimise or eliminate gender-related differences in

direct confrontation and communication with relevant parties.

B Break down any cultural misunderstandings through training and development.

19. What if your people lack . . . an understanding of differences in national cultures?

B Recruit people that fit into the existing corporate and unit culture.

B Enhance understanding of cross-cultural differences, in particular where interaction

between people of different cultural backgrounds is required.

B Introduce cross-cultural training and development programs.

B Organise annual (or more frequent) meetings with managers from various units

attending to expose people to differences in national cultures.

B Organise exchange programs between managers in different countries and with

different cultural background to enhance cross-cultural understanding and

management styles.

20. What if your people regard their manager(s) as . . . power and status seeking

authorities?

B Ensure that all necessary display of authority is not equal to status-based power

plays.

B Cultivate and support an environment and culture where people should not have to

think twice about whether to voice themselves or not.

B Create an environment and culture that encourages asking questions to, and seeking

answers from, superiors.

B Ensure that people are not afraid of doing anything wrong, showing ignorance,

fearing embarrassment in front of superiors.

B Design systems that reduce the necessity to ask questions or introduce ideas which

may be perceived as ignorant or dumb, e.g. introduce anonymous postings and

interactive authoring through Wikis and Blogs etc.

B Eliminate managers idea-killing attitude, e.g. Weve never done things that way. If

its that good, why hasnt someone else thought of it before? or Has it been done

somewhere else?


Dow

nloa

ded

by U

FSC

At 1

1:03

22

Aug

ust 2

014

(PT)

Overcoming organisational barriers

Whilst numerous previous studies identified a large number of potential organisational

barriers to transferring knowledge (e.g. Connelly and Kelloway, 2003; De Long and Fahey,

2000; Gold et al., 2001; Hansen, 1999; Knott, 2001; McDermott, 1999; McDermott and

ODell, 2001; Michailova and Husted, 2003; Nonaka and Konno, 1998; Nonaka and

Takeuchi, 1995; ODell and Grayson, 1998; Probst et al., 2000; Szulanski, 1996; Sveiby and

Simons, 2002; Sveiby, 1997), the following list suggests possible actions that managers can

utilise to overcome 14 organisational barriers:

1. What if your organisation overlooked . . . to align and integrate its knowledge

management strategy and transfer initiatives with its goals and strategic approach?

B Clearly link any initiatives to company goals and strategic direction.

B Demonstrate how initiatives can support company goals and strategies in a clear and

transparent manner to all people to obtain their ongoing support.

B Market any initiatives not as something that enhances your or the firms own glory but

because an otherwise valuable intangible resource may go unused.

B Explain how sharing practices can support people in the performance of their work,

e.g. during training, have people access the system to address issues that they will

face on the job, to illustrate how it can how it can help them.

B Show how people can save time and work more efficiently through collaboration,

thereby, e.g. benefiting individual learning, enhancing productivity, reducing

mistakes.

2. What if your organisation lacks . . . leadership and managerial direction in terms of

clearly communicating the benefits and values of knowledge sharing practices that are

required?

B Establish a sense of urgency in terms of sharing benefits to assess market and

competitive environments and opportunity spotting.

B Create a vision to direct any change efforts and communicate strategies via

appropriate vehicles for achieving it.

B Train managers/ team leaders to show people examples of how certain transfer

practices and the application of new knowledge can assist them in performing their

jobs more efficiently and serve stakeholders/ customer more effectively.

B Provide a clear direction and understanding of the firms goals and strategy on all

organisational levels so that they see what difference they can make by being part of

it.

B Ensure that senior managers clarify their expectations of and supportive role for their

unit in creating an open sharing culture and facilitating a trusting business

environment.

3. What if your organisation values or practices . . . a strong hierarchy with managers

thriving on position-based status and formal power?

B Eliminate formal power and rank pulling from all knowledge transfer practices.

It is important that senior and middle managers know how toovercome diverse barriers by encouraging and motivatingpeople in the internal and external value chain to share theirknowledge more openly.


Dow

nloa

ded

by U

FSC

At 1

1:03

22

Aug

ust 2

014

(PT)

B Ensure an organic structure supportive of open communication flows in all directions,

vertically and horizontically.

B Remove all power-driven people that do not fit into a collaborative people-centric

organisational culture.

4. What if your organisation offers . . . insufficient formal and informal spaces to

collaborate, reflect and generate (new) knowledge?

B Provide continuous support for sharing activities through formal mechanisms

focusing on selected, important projects or topics.

B Limit formal groups or team to a small size to maximise sharing activities and

benefits.

B Harbour informal group activities, e.g. communities of practices and mechanisms on

special topics of interest (groups should be unlimited in size).

B Provide formal and informal spaces giving people opportunities to share knowledge

in social situations, e.g. social events, company gymnasium, cafeteria, bar, lunch

room, community.

5. What if your organisation introduced . . . a reward and recognition system but it does not

work?

B Keep your system simple and transparent, and use the same parameters for

everyone.

B Weigh up intrinsic versus extrinsic rewards.

B Introduce an incentive system that ensures that all people contribute to what and to

whom it matters.

B Communicate reasonable and accountable practices that motivate people to

maximise purposeful sharing.

B Use rewards and recognition to encourage people to spend time, invest in their

expertise and assume responsibility for using the system.

B Offer incentives to unit efforts that individuals cannot achieve by themselves.

B Openly trumpet successes and recognise individuals or units as contributors to the

knowledge domain and convey whats in it for me.

B Make sharing practices part of internal staff development and performance reviews.

B Consider building a job certification program that includes transfer practices or

incorporate transfer use into an existing certification program.

B Ensure that any reward and recognition system promotes individual and

organisational knowledge sharing rather than individual knowing (which is still too

common).

B Ask yourself if any reward and recognition system creates any long-term benefits and

adds to the firms performance.

6. What if your organisation . . . needs a cultural change on one or more dimensions?

B Assess dimensions such as vision and mission, norms and customs, means to

achieve goals, management processes, focus on external environment, image and

reputation, etc, that impact on your corporate culture.

B Integrate sharing activities into existing corporate values and style of the company

rather than change your entire culture to suit sharing objectives (do one small step at

a time as nobody likes change do you?).

B Make your sharing culture a part of organisational policy and peoples individual

KPIs.

B Communicate knowledge policies clearly to all people, especially new ones, as part

of the firms training and development, and induction program.


Dow

nloa

ded

by U

FSC

At 1

1:03

22

Aug

ust 2

014

(PT)

B Ensure individual and collective understanding of the purpose, value and benefits of

knowledge sharing.

B Implement any cultural changes to support sharing practices slowly and

communicate them clearly.

B People who resent necessary changes need to adapt or leave.

7. What if your organisation shows . . . low knowledge retention rates of highly skilled and

experienced staff?

B Determine what it really is that motivates people to join and then stay with the

firm.

B Tell people what specific impact their knowledge makes/made and reward them

accordingly.

B Ensure that people are placed in positions in which their responsibilities match their

skill set and career aspirations, i.e. mismatches only create inefficiencies and people

working below their capacities.

B Involve, where possible and beneficial, retired and former long-time employees in

short-term projects or employ them as business advisors, mentors and/or

consultants thereby continuing to invest their knowledge into the organisations

further development.

B Offer internal and external management training and development programs, and

ensure succession planning.

B Provide corporate benefit programs to encourage peoples loyalty and on-going

commitment to the firm, e.g. award loyalty through either monetary and/or

non-monetary incentives.

B Give exit interviews to both outgoing employees and clients to better determine

where they may have experienced problems or challenges, and improve on

them.

8. What if your organisation has . . . insufficient resources and infrastructure to successfully

support transfer practices and opportunities?

B Conduct detailed knowledge audit and gap analysis.

B Implement processes that support the existing culture and work styles.

B Identify people in need of knowledge and clarify what kind of information and

knowledge they need to share, and the infrastructure and resources necessary to

provide better sharing.

B Get senior management to assess financial commitment against sharing benefits.

B Allocate adequate resources to undertake tasks for which people are given

responsibility, and support most effective forms of communication and

collaboration.

9. What if your organisation displays . . . a high level of external competitiveness within and

across business units?

B Encourage or apply collective decision-making processes, wherever and whenever

appropriate.

B Introduce a reward and recognition scheme to minimise not-invented-here

syndromes.

B Minimise or eliminate any position-based, hierarchical and personal differences that

could impede on sharing practices.

B Try to break down any barriers between employees and experts external to the firm,

e.g. many people do not like the idea of management consultants telling them how to

do their job better.


Dow

nloa

ded

by U

FSC

At 1

1:03

22

Aug

ust 2

014

(PT)

10. What if your organisation displays . . . a high level of internal competitiveness in business

units?

B Eliminate information is power attitudes.

B Introduce a reward/recognition scheme to maximise sharing practices.

B Encourage or apply collective decision making processes, wherever and whenever

appropriate.

B Minimise or eliminate any position-based, hierarchical and personal differences that

could impede on sharing practices.

11. What if your organisation suffers . . . from communication flows that are restricted into

certain directions?

B Create an open communication flow without restrictions between diverse

organisational levels.

B Establish a no limits environment between all existing hierarchies or levels.

B Encourage direct contact between knowledge sources and recipients to minimise

distortion of knowledge or information.

B Provide methods, systems and tools that encourage and facilitate direct and indirect

communication flows.

B Form small units or project teams to facilitate better direct communication flows and

enhance collaboration.

12. What if your organisation displays . . . a physical work environment and layout of work

areas that restrict knowledge transfers?

B Design layout and spatial arrangements of work areas in a way so that they assist the

timely sharing of knowledge.

B Position peoples workplaces according to who works together with whom and how

frequently, rather than along hierarchy, formal power, or status.

13. What if your organisation has . . . a hierarchical structure that inhibits knowledge flows?

B Design and implement a flat organisational structure without rigid vertical

hierarchies.

B Create a flexible and open structure that can adapt quicker to environmental and

necessary cultural chances, i.e. external environments and culture are dynamic and

therefore the structure should be too.

B Monitor changes in the external environment closely and make necessary

adjustments or changes to the structure instantly.

B Generate a spirit of belonging and teamwork thereby encouraging a consensus

through participation.

14. What if your business units are . . . too large and unmanageable to enhance contact,

better support relationship building, and facilitate ease of sharing?

B Conduct a knowledge audit across the organisation to establish effective unit and

team size.

B Identify who needs to share what, where, why, when and with whom.

The transfer of knowledge is deeply rooted in personal andorganizational value systems, norms and practices.


Dow

nloa

ded

by U

FSC

At 1

1:03

22

Aug

ust 2

014

(PT)

B Identify cross-functional/unit-specific sharing needs and provide means to support

them.

B Assign people to small self-managed project teams and get them to meet regularly.

B Give project teams collective responsibility for knowledge sharing, as they are not

necessarily selected from the same organisational level and functional area.

Overcoming technological barriers

The extant literature discusses a number of potential technological barriers to transferring

knowledge (e.g. Attewell, 1992; Erickson and Kellogg, 2000; Gold et al., 2001; Hendriks,

1999; Iansiti, 1998; ODell and Grayson, 1998; Sarvary, 1999). The following list highlights a

number of possible actions that managers can employ to overcome six technological

barriers:

1. What if your integrated IT systems and tools . . . fail to support peoples work processes

and actual communication flows?

B Integrate ITsystems and tools suitable to peoples way of doing their tasks on a daily

basis and communicating with each other (i.e. most information is locked in

electronic documents hence any KM solution requires a strong integration).

B Conduct a needs audit of the existing infrastructure to assess which tools can be built

upon and which new ones need to be implemented.

B Ensure that tools are consistent with the organisations culture and work styles.

B Explain to your people, clearly and carefully, how tools are to be used.

B Hold initial training and familiarisation sessions for newly introduced tools and

highlight any potential usability/ technology issues (depending on varying skills

levels and needs).

B Certify people on their ability to navigate tools, if appropriate.

2. What if your organisation identifies . . . a mismatch between peoples need requirements

and your integrated IT systems and processes?

B Focus primarily on people, not technology, i.e. look at who needs which tools to

support and facilitate the way things are done.

B Define technological challenges and opportunities to match them as closely as

possible with existing resources.

B Encourage people to provide feedback on content and usability, and acknowledge

those who do.

B Inform people of resolution or changes that have occurred based on their feedback

and thank them for their assistance.

3. What if your IT systems and tools . . . lack compatibility?

B Perform a compatibility audit to justify expenses of any upgrades or changes to the

existing system and tools.

B Integrate new technology into current hardware and software programs, wherever

promising and economically viable.

B Ensure compatibility of system and programs across those parts of the organisation

that are in need of seamless communication flows and collaboration.

4. What if your people show . . . a reluctance to use integrated IT systems and tools?

B Gauge if the main reason is related to a lack of familiarity and experience with

systems and tools.

B Tailor systems and tools to peoples needs without sacrificing compatibility of

programs.

B Anticipate user problems and build the system to be as user friendly as possible.


Dow

nloa

ded

by U

FSC

At 1

1:03

22

Aug

ust 2

014

(PT)

B Provide training on new technology to reduce peoples fear of change and

complexity of new applications.

B Provide support through appropriate communication channels.

B Ensure that all users are aware of the available support and know how to access it.

B If a significant technological problem has been identified, fix it, and re-market the

application.

B Pair weaker users with more technologically-savvy users or establish peer coaches.

B Hold group working sessions to optimise the familiarity and use of systems and tools

and tackle joint problems.

B Give people adequate time to familiarise themselves with and adjust to new

applications.

5. What if your people set . . . unrealistic expectations as to what technology can do or

cannot do?

B Involve most regular users in designing new and modifying existing technology.

B Clearly communicate and demonstrate advantages of new technology over existing

ones.

6. What if your organisation lacks . . . technical support (internal or external) and immediate

maintenance of integrated technology?

B Assess in how far it obstructs work routines and communication flows.

B Provide internal or external support services that are integrated into the system or

provided by people upon demand.

B Ensure that people are capable and confident of using and contributing to the

system.

B Highlight system improvements and new introductions.

B Offer timely solutions for any kind of technology-based problem.

Conclusions

For knowledge sharing initiatives to be effective, they need to be introduced by senior and

middle managers whom not only understand and support the strategic and operational need

to align business and KM strategy but also recognise the human, organisational, and

technological challenges of newly introduced actions. In particular, it seems important that

senior and middle managers know how to overcome diverse barriers by encouraging and

motivating people in the internal and external value chain to share their knowledge more

openly. Competitive advantages are determined in various ways, by: people (e.g. software,

law, and accounting firms), structure and internal processes (e.g. mining and agricultural

companies), memory systems (e.g. business advisories and consultancies), stakeholder

relationships (e.g. manufacturing firms, fashion houses, and government), and/or business

environment (e.g. finance and investment firms).

Knowledge transfer practices between individual people as well as organisational units

often form a key component of KM programs and can create significant short- and long-term

operational and learning benefits. Further, there is evidence that organisations that

effectively manage and transfer their knowledge are more innovative and perform better.

This paper extends on the current body of knowledge as it provides some specific

suggestions for senior and middle managers on how to overcome a large number of

potential knowledge transfer barriers. Thus far, neither the wider management literature nor

the knowledge management literature offered explicit evidence as to which actions may be

appropriate or most effective. Most suggestions are based on specific cases or gut feeling,

and that serves some purpose. However, there is a need for empirical evidence to

substantiate the suitability of actions and add richness to the discussion of effective

knowledge transfer. This paper presents a detailed, yet by nomeans complete, list of actions


Dow

nloa

ded

by U

FSC

At 1

1:03

22

Aug

ust 2

014

(PT)

to overcome intra-organisational knowledge transfer barriers, as suggested in the extant

literature, which was confirmed and further developed through in-depth discussions with

over 60 senior and middle managers of MNCs located in Australia.

The result is the first empirically tested comprehensive set of guidelines which offers

executives and middle managers a number of likely solutions to their sharing problems,

thereby assisting them to overcome barriers more successfully. The proposed course of

action serves as a starter kit for managerial decision making and for organisations facing

various barriers upon introducing, maintaining, or seeking to improve their integrated

knowledge-sharing strategy and practices. As most researchers and managers would

expect, there is no cookbook approach in that specific managerial actions would suit all

people and organisation and therefore organisations approaches and managers actions

are likely to show diverse levels of success and effectiveness. Indeed, there is no general

formula for a knowledge management strategy that will work best for an organisation, and

there probably also is no shortcut to introducing common actions that would ensure better

knowledge transfers.

Finally, there are some limitations and opportunities for further research. While most recent

studies have focused on the conceptualisation, processes and mechanisms of knowledge

transfer in MNCs, further research needs to extend on those studies by examining what

managerial actions best support knowledge transfers and how those actions need to be

implemented to optimise knowledge transfer efficiency and effectiveness between

individual people and diverse organisational units, often supported by technology. In view

of little past empirical research, the premise of this paper was based on mostly academic

literatures which also have a wide practitioner-based readership. The generalisability of the

results is limited and the MNC sample was not strictly representative of industry sectors.

However, the main purpose was to provide an action toolkit for managers and researcher

alike, based on a rigorous case study methodology and examination of suitable courses of

actions as they are currently noted in the extant literature. Also, there is little evidence on the

effects of industry sectors, organisation size, and complexity of knowledge on knowledge

transfers.

Limitations and future research

Further research is required to address some limitations of this research as well as

substantiate its results. Future studies may address several shortcomings of this paper:

First, the focus was on compiling and listing a wide range of possible actions to encourage

better knowledge transfer within a multinational firm. Of course, many firms competitive

advantage lies outside the firm, for instance in relationships with external stakeholders and

better sharing with them. As such, different suite of managerial actions may be more suitable

to enhance sharing within the external supply chain. Second, the unit of analysis was the

firm. Differences in knowledge sharing behaviour can be expected in different functional

areas, national and organisational cultures. Indeed, this study confirms this view and

obtained some evidence about such differences. However, due to the limited scope of this

paper those results were not reported. Furthermore, until now there is no evidence about the

success of various managerial actions in encouraging and motivate people to transfer their

knowledge more effectively and purposefully. Third, this research included predominantly

large MNCs from well-established industry sectors situated in Australia. Hence it may be

difficult to apply the results to particular niche organisations. Also, the results may have

limited applicability to public sector organisations. Fourth, whilst this paper offers some initial

insights based on rigorous case study research, more large-scale explanatory research

could firmly establish its findings and offer new insights by controlling more specifically for

several variables which have been suggested to influence the success of knowledge

transfer such as industry sector, country of origin, geographic proximity to other units, share

of expatriates, size and structure of organisations, characteristics of knowledge,

preferences and use of information mechanisms, competitive pressures, market

distinctiveness, foreign entry mode and strategic mission (Appleyard, 1996; Bjorkman

et al., 2004; Haunschild and Miner, 1997; Minbaeva et al., 2003; Kogut and Zander; 1995).


Dow

nloa

ded

by U

FSC

At 1

1:03

22

Aug

ust 2

014

(PT)

References

Alavi, M. and Leidner, D.E. (2001), Review: knowledge management and knowledge management

systems: conceptual foundations and research issues, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 107-32.

Appleyard, M.M. (1996), How does knowledge flow? Interfirm patterns in the semiconductor industry,

Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 17, Winter, pp. 137-54.

Argote, L. (1999), Organizational Learning: Creating, Retaining and Transferring Knowledge, Kluwer,

Boston, MA.

Argote, L. and Ingram, P. (2000), Knowledge transfer: a basis for competitive advantage in firms,

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 82 No. 1, pp. 150-69.

Argote, L., Beckman, S.L. and Epple, D. (1990), The persistence and transfer of learning in industrial

settings, Management Science, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 140-54.

Attewell, P. (1992), Technology diffusion and organizational learning: the case of business computing,

Organization Science, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 1-19.

Baron, R.A. and Markman, G.D. (2000), Beyond social capital: how social skills can enhance

entrepreneurs, The Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 106-16.

Bartlett, C. and Ghoshal, S. (1989), Managing across Borders: The Transnational Solution, Harvard

Business School Press, Boston, MA.

Bjorkman, I., Barner-Rasmussen, W. and Li, L. (2004), Managing knowledge transfer in MNCs:

the impact of headquarters control mechanisms, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 35

No. 5, pp. 443-55.

Cohen, W.M. and Levinthal, D. (1990), Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and

innovation, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 128-52.

Connelly, C.E. and Kelloway, E.K. (2003), Predictors of employees perceptions of knowledge sharing

culture, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 24 No. 5 6, pp. 294-305.Davenport, T.H. and Prusak, L. (1998), Working Knowledge: How Organisations Manage What They

Know, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.

De Long, D.W. and Fahey, L. (2000), Diagnosing cultural barriers to knowledge management,

The Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 113-27.

Earl, M. (2001), Knowledge management strategies: toward a taxonomy, Journal of Management

Information Systems, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 215-33.

Epple, D., Argote, L. and Murphy, K. (1996), An empirical investigation of the microstructure of knowledge

acquisition and transfer through learning by doing, Operations Research, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 77-86.

Erickson, T. and Kellogg, W.A. (2000), Social translucence: an approach to designing systems that

support social processes, ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interactions, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 59-83.

Fai, F. and Marschan-Piekkari, R. (2003), Language issues in cross-border strategic alliances: an

investigation of technological knowledge transfers, Proceedings of the 29th Annual Conference of the

European International Business Academy,, Copenhagen, Denmark, December.

Ford, D.P. and Chan, Y.E. (2003), Knowledge sharing in a multi-cultural setting: a case study,

Knowledge Management Research & Practice, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 11-27.

Gold, A.H., Malhotra, A. and Segars, A.H. (2001), Knowledge management: an organizational

capabilities perspective, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 185-214.

Gupta, A.K. and Govindarajan, V. (2000), Knowledge flows within multinational corporations, Strategic

Management Journal, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 473-96.

Gupta, A.K. and Govindarajan, V. (2001), Converting global presence into global competitive

advantage, The Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 45-58.

Hansen, M. (1999), The search-transfer problem: the role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across

organization subunits, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 82-111.

Haunschild, P.R. and Miner, A.S. (1997), Modes of interorganizational imitation: the effects of outcome

salience and uncertainty, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 472-500.


Dow

nloa

ded

by U

FSC

At 1

1:03

22

Aug

ust 2

014

(PT)

Hedlund, G. (1986), The hypermodern MNC: a heterarchy?, Human Resource Management, Vol. 25

No. 1, pp. 9-35.

Hendriks, P. (1999), Why share knowledge? The influence of ICT on the motivation for knowledge

sharing, Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 91-100.

Holm, U.I.F. and Pedersen, T. (2000), The Emergence and Impact of MNC Centres of Excellence,

Macmillan Publishing, London.

Husted, K. and Michailova, S. (2002), Knowledge sharing in Russian companies with western

participation, Management International, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 17-28.

Iansiti, M. (1998), Technology Integration: Making Critical Choices in a Dynamic World, Harvard

Business School Press, Boston, MA.

Jarvenpaa, S.L. and Staples, D.S. (2001), Exploring perceptions of organisational ownership of

information and expertise, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 151-84.

Kim, L. (2001), Absorptive capacity, co-operation, and knowledge creation: Samsungs leapfrogging in

semiconductors, in Nonaka, I. and Nishiguchi, T. (Eds), Knowledge Emergence: Social, Technical, and

Evolutionary Dimensions of Knowledge Creation, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 270-86.

Knott, A.M. (2001), The dynamic value of hierarchy, Management Science, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 430-48.

Kogut, B. and Zander, U. (1995), Knowledge market failure and the multinational enterprise: a reply,

Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 417-26.

Kogut, B. and Zander, U. (1996), What do firms do?, Coordination, Identity and Learning.

Organizational Science, Vol. 7 No. 5, pp. 502-18.

Kotabe, M., Martin, X. and Domoto, H. (2003), Gaining from vertical partnerships: knowledge transfer,

relationship duration and supplier performance improvement in the US and Japanese automotive

industries, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 293-316.

Lane, P., Salk, J.E. and Lyles, M.A. (2001), Absorptive capacity, learning and performance in

international joint ventures, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 22, pp. 1139-61.

McDermott, R. (1999), Why information technology inspired but cannot deliver knowledge

management, California Management Review, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 103-17.

McDermott, R. and ODell, C. (2001), Overcoming culture barriers to sharing knowledge, Journal of

Knowledge Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 76-85.

McKeough, A. (1995), Teaching for Transfer: Fostering Generalization in Learning, Lawrence Erlbaum,

Mahwah, NJ.

Marschan-Piekkari, R., Welch, D.E. and Welch, L.S. (1999), Adopting a common corporate language:

IHRM implications, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 10 No. 3,

pp. 377-90.

Martin, X. and Salomon, R. (2003), Knowledge transfer capacity and its implications for the theory of the

multinational corporation, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 34, pp. 356-73.

Michailova, S. and Husted, K. (2003), Knowledge-sharing hostility in Russian firms, California

Management Review, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 59-77.

Minbaeva, D., Pedersen, T., Bjorkman, I., Fey, C.F. and Park, H.J. (2003), MNC knowledge transfer,

subsidiary absorptive capacity, and HRM, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 34 No. 6,

pp. 586-99.

Moeller, K. and Svahn, S. (2004), Crossing east-west boundaries: knowledge sharing in intellectual

business networks, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 219-28.

Nahapiet, J. and Ghoshal, S. (1998), Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational

advantage, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 242-66.

Nelson, R.R. and Winter, S.G. (1982), An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, Harvard Business

School Press, Boston, MA.

Nonaka, I. (1994), A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation, Organizational Science,

Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 14-37.


Dow

nloa

ded

by U

FSC

At 1

1:03

22

Aug

ust 2

014

(PT)

Nonaka, I. and Konno, N. (1998), The concept of Ba: building a foundation for knowledge creation,

California Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 40-54.

Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge Creating Company, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

ODell, C. and Grayson, C.J. (1998), If only we knew what we know: identification and transfer of internal

best practices, California Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 154-74.

Probst, G., Raub, S. and Rombhardt, K. (2000), Managing Knowledge, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.

Riege, A. (2005), Three dozen knowledge sharing barriers managers must consider, Journal of

Knowledge Management, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 18-35.

Riege, A. and Zulpo, M. (2005), Knowledge discovery by factory floor workers and its transfer to

management, Conference Proceedings of the 31st Annual Meeting of the European International

Business Academy, BI Norwegian School of Management, Oslo, Norway, 10-13 December.

Sarvary, M. (1999), Knowledge management and competition in the consulting industry, California

Management Review, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 95-107.

Senge, P. (1990), The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization,

Currency/Doubleday, New York, NY.

Sveiby, K.-E. (1997), The New Organisational Wealth, Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, CA.

Sveiby, K.-E. and Simons, R. (2002), Collaborative climate and effectiveness of knowledge work,

Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 6 No. 5, pp. 420-33.

Szulanski, G. (1996), Exploring internal stickiness: impediments to the transfer of best practice within

the firm, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 17, Winter, pp. 27-43.

Tannenbaum, S.I. and Alliger, G.M. (2000), Knowledge Management: Clarifying the Key Issues, ch. 7,

Duncan & Associates, Austin, TX.

Teece, D.J. (1998), Capturing value from knowledge assets, California Management Review, Vol. 40

No. 3, pp. 55-79.

Tiwana, A. (2002), The Knowledge Management Toolkit, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Zahra, S.A. and George, G. (2002), Absorptive capacity: a review, reconceptualization, and

extension, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 185-203.

Further reading

Kogut, B. and Zander, U. (1993), Knowledge of the firm and the evolutionary theory of the multinational

corporation, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 625-45.

Sveiby, K-E. (1999), Building the knowledge economy, available at: www.sveiby.com/articles/Twotier.

htm (accessed 30 April 2005).

About the author

Andreas Riege is currently a Senior Lecturer and Director of the degree programs ofBachelor of International Business and Master of International Business at Griffith Universityin Brisbane, Australia. He holds a Bachelor and Masters of Business Administration from theFriedrich-Alexander-University of Erlangen-Nurnberg, and received his PhD in internationalmarketing strategy from the Queensland University of Technology, Australia in 1997. He hasworked for more than ten years in diverse advertising, retail marketing, and market researchpositions in Germany and Australia. As an active consultant he has developed andpresented specialised seminars and consulting projects to numerous private businessesand public organisations. He has published his work in over 20 research articles. His currentresearch agenda concentrates on knowledge transfer barriers in MNCs and public services,branding strategies, and direct marketing strategies. Andreas (Andi) Riege can becontacted at: [email protected]


To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

FSC

At 1

1:03

22

Aug

ust 2

014

(PT)

This article has been cited by:

1. Lupton Nathaniel Dr., Beamish Paul Dr., Chase RoryL Mr.. 2014. Organizational structure and knowledge-practice diffusionin the MNC. Journal of Knowledge Management 18:4. . [Abstract] [PDF]

2. SARAH MAHDJOUR, SEBASTIAN FISCHER. 2014. INTERNATIONAL CORPORATE ENTREPRENEURSHIPWITH BORN GLOBAL SPIN-ALONG VENTURES A CROSS-CASE ANALYSIS OF TELEKOM INNOVATIONLABORATORIES' VENTURE PORTFOLIO. International Journal of Innovation Management 18, 1440007. [CrossRef]

3. Wei Chong Chin, Yen Yuen Yee, Chew Gan Geok. 2014. Knowledge sharing of academic staff. Library Review 63:3, 203-223.[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

4. Ranjbarfard Mina, Aghdasi Mohammad, Lpez-Sez Pedro, Emilio Navas Lpez Jos. 2014. The barriers of knowledgegeneration, storage, distribution and application that impede learning in gas and petroleum companies. Journal of KnowledgeManagement 18:3, 494-522. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

5. Harri Laihonen. 2014. A managerial view of the knowledge flows of a health-care system. Knowledge Management Research& Practice . [CrossRef]

6. Kang Minhyung, Kim Byoungsoo. 2013. Embedded resources and knowledge transfer among R&D employees. Journal ofKnowledge Management 17:5, 709-723. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

7. Karim Moustaghfir, Giovanni Schiuma, Matteo Mura, Emanuele Lettieri, Giovanni Radaelli, Nicola Spiller. 2013. Promotingprofessionals' innovative behaviour through knowledge sharing: the moderating role of social capital. Journal of KnowledgeManagement 17:4, 527-544. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

8. Francisco Lara, Daniel Palacios-Marques, Carlos Alberto Devece. 2012. How to improve organisational results throughknowledge management in knowledge-intensive business services. The Service Industries Journal 32, 1853-1863. [CrossRef]

9. Ulrich Remus. 2012. Exploring the Dynamics behind Knowledge Management ChallengesAn Enterprise Resource PlanningCase Study. Information Systems Management 29, 188-200. [CrossRef]

10. Gian Casimir, Yong Ngee Keith Ng, Chai Liou Paul Cheng. 2012. Using IT to share knowledge and the TRA. Journal ofKnowledge Management 16:3, 461-479. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

11. Morteza Dehaghi. 2012. Reverse Engineering: A Way of Technology Transfer in Developing Countries like Iran. InternationalJournal of e-Education, e-Business, e-Management and e-Learning . [CrossRef]

12. Jiangang Fei. 2011. An empirical study of the role of information technology in effective knowledge transfer in the shippingindustry. Maritime Policy & Management 38, 347-367. [CrossRef]

13. Sharmila Jayasingam, Mahfooz A. Ansari, Muhamad Jantan. 2010. Influencing knowledge workers: the power of topmanagement. Industrial Management & Data Systems 110:1, 134-151. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

14. Rudi Kaufmann, Shlomo Tarba, Dolores Snchez Bengoa, Hans Rdiger Kaufmann, Graham Orange. 2009. Reflection onknowledge transfer methodologies in Eastern/Western European cooperations. EuroMed Journal of Business 4:2, 127-142.[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

15. Sotirios Paroutis, Alya Al Saleh. 2009. Determinants of knowledge sharing using Web 2.0 technologies. Journal of KnowledgeManagement 13:4, 52-63. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

16. M. du Plessis. 2008. What bars organisations from managing knowledge successfully?. International Journal of InformationManagement 28, 285-292. [CrossRef]

17. Nick Bontis, Christopher K. Bart, Alexander Serenko, Nick Bontis, Timothy Hardie. 2007. Organizational size and knowledgeflow: a proposed theoretical link. Journal of Intellectual Capital 8:4, 610-627. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

18. Sharmila Jayasingham, Mahfooz A. AnsariLeading in a Knowledge Era 28-45. [CrossRef]19. Sharmila Jayasingam, Mahfooz A. AnsariLeading in a Knowledge Era 2038-2055. [CrossRef]20. Eric ViardotTaxonomy of Marketing Core Competencies for Innovation 491-507. [CrossRef]21. Emil Ivanov, Jay LiebowitzCommentary 177-184. [CrossRef]

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

FSC

At 1

1:03

22

Aug

ust 2

014

(PT)

Actions to Overcome Knowledge Transfer Barriers in MNCs

Documents

Transcript of Actions to Overcome Knowledge Transfer Barriers in MNCs