Knowledge Management Processes and International Joint Ventures

Abstract

The management and processing of organizational knowledge are increasingly being viewed as critical to organizational success. By exploring how firms access and exploit alliance-based knowledge, the authors provide evidence to support the argument that the firm is a dynamic system of processes involving different types of knowledge. Using data from a longitudinal study of North American-based joint ventures (JVs) between North American and Japanese firms, they address three related research questions: (1) what processes do JV partners use to gain access to alliance knowledge; (2) what types of knowledge are associated with the different processes and how should that knowledge be classified; and (3) what is the relationship between organizational levels, knowledge types, and the transfer of knowledge? Although many generalizations have been drawn about the merits of knowledge-based resources and the creation of knowledge, few efforts have been made to establish systematically how firms acquire and manage new knowledge. Moreover, prior alliance research has not addressed in detail the nature of alliance knowledge and how knowledge is managed in the alliance context. The authors examine the processes used by alliance partners to transfer knowledge from an alliance context to a partner context. They identify four key processes—technology sharing, alliance-parent interaction, personnel transfers, and strategic integration—that share a conceptual underpinning and represent a knowledge connection between parent and alliance. Each of the four processes is shown to provide an avenue for managers to gain exposure to knowledge and ideas outside their traditional organizational boundaries and to create a connection for individual managers to communicate their alliance experiences to others. Although all of the knowledge management processes are potentially effective, the different processes involve different types of knowledge and different organizational levels. The primary types of knowledge associated with each process are identified and then linked with the organizational level affected by the transfer process. From those linkages, several propositions about organizational knowledge transfer and management are developed. The results suggest that although a variety of knowledge management strategies can be viable, some strategies lead to more effective knowledge transfer than others.

Organizational learning as a situated routine-based activity in international settings

“…For instance, the effects of hands-on, extensive training; and direct forms of control on learning and a strong skills base in the region in which to do this are conspicuous in Nissera's efforts to transfer continuous improvement practices of team structure and team culture that encourage change in routines at the UK site. This is in line with Inkpen and Dinur's (1998) finding that attempts to integrate subsidiaries strategically, such as personnel transfers, provide the means of interacting and exchanging knowledge that makes it easier to put knowledge into practice.…”

“…In comparison to those in Japan, work systems are considered to be of lower tacitness in the UK (Inkpen and Dinur, 1998). Furthermore, as loose associations, firms are unable to share risks, hence undertake mainly short-term and low-risk investments in fixed capital, R&D, and human resources development (Lane, 1998).…”

Beyond cross-functional teams: knowledge integration during organizational projects and the role of social capital

“…Nonaka and colleagues' (Nonaka, 1994;Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995) view the essence of knowledge creation as the conversion of tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge. From previous contributions (Grant, 1996;Huang & Newell, 2003;Inkpen & Dinur, 1998;Okhuysen & Eisenhardt, 2002;Tell, 2011), knowledge integration can be analyzed more broadly than the complementarity of tacit and explicit knowledge, reflecting more of an institutionalization process.…”

Empirical Investigation on the Effects of Inter-Firm Technology Transfer Characteristics on Degree of Inter-Firm Technology Transfer: A Holistic Model

“…Studies from knowledge-based view (KBV) perspective have acknowledged that MNCs tend to be more protective of their advance technology, knowledge and competencies embodied in products, processes and management because these strategic valuable resources and competencies are their main sources of competitive advantage (Porter, 1985;Barney, 1991;Peteraf, 1993;Wernerfelt, 1984;Pralahad and Hamel). On the other hand, organizational learning (OL) perspective studies have suggested that technology and knowledge tend to be protected by the supplier when the recipients are opportunistic in the collaborative relationship (Inkpen, 1998a;Inkpen and Dinur, 1998;Child and Faulkner, 1998).…”

“…Since many studies on inter-firm TT are theoretical (Hamel, 1991;Inkpen, 1998a;Inkpen and Dinur, 1998) and have exclusively focused on a single or few dimensions of TT determinants (Pak and Park, 2004;Yin and Bao, 2006;Hau and Evangelista, 2007) there is a need for more hypothesis development and testing (Huber, 1991;Fiol, 1994). Based on a literature review, studies have shown that possibly there are no empirical studies on inter-firm TT and KT that have simultaneously examined the four TT characteristics: knowledge (KCHAR), technology recipient (TRCHAR), technology supplier (TSCHAR), and relationship (RCHAR) characteristics in a single model.…”