CONTINGENCY BETWEEN KNOWLEDGE CHARACTERISTICS

CONTINGENCY BETWEEN KNOWLEDGE CHARACTERISTICS AND KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER MECHANISM: AN INTEGRATIVE FRAMEWORK
ZIYE LI
School of Management, Xi’an Jiaotong University, 28 Xianning West Road,
Xi’an, 710049, China
E-mail:zyli@xjtu.edu.cn
YOUMIN XI
Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University
Suzhou, 215123, China y
E-mail: ymxi@xjtu.edu.cn
Drawing on the knowledge-based view of the firm, this paper investigates the effectiveness of different organizational mechanisms on knowledge transfer. In this study, we propose a paradigm for managing the complex process of knowledge transfer. Its central theme is that the effectiveness of knowledge transfer depends on the fit between knowledge characteristics and transfer mechanism. It is argued that different knowledge requires different organizational mechanisms to support its transfer. A theoretical framework is developed to provide an analytical perspective on this issue. Two categories of organizational mechanism for knowledge transfer are identified (i.e., formal and informal mechanism), the types, dimensions, and characteristics of knowledge are discussed, and the nature of this fit is examined.
1. Introduction
It is argued that in a fast-moving and increasingly competitive world, a firm's only enduring source of advantage is its knowledge—individual employees’ knowledge and the knowledge embedded in its structures and systems (Birkinshaw, 2001). As noted by Grant (1996a), “knowledge has emerged as the most strategically-significant resource of the firm”. “To put it somewhat more dramatically, there is evidence suggesting that the winners in tomorrow's market place will be the masters of knowledge management” (Bresman et al., 1999).
The increasing importance of knowledge has prompted the issue of managing knowledge to the organization's benefit—identifying and leveraging the collective knowledge in an organization to help it compete (von Krogh 1998). One of the most cited reasons for the importance of knowledge management is the increasing speed of competition (e.g. Hedlund, 1994; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). “Reinventing the wheel, it is argued, is a serious waste of time when the requisite knowledge is already contained in other parts of the organization (Bresman et al., 1999)”. In terms of this logic, the ability to transfer existing knowledge, not only between firms, but even more critically, within the firm (Grant, 1996b), is one of the most strategic capabilities which organization possesses, and a principal source of sustainable competitive advantage (Dixon, 2000; Galbraith, 1990; Teece et al., 1997). Knowledge transfer is defined here as the transfer of either expertise (skills and capabilities e.g., purchasing skills, product, process, and packaging designs, marketing know-how, and distribution expertise) or external market data of strategic value (e.g., key customers, competitors, or suppliers) (Gupta and Govindarajan, 1991), among individuals, groups, units, and departments. Kogut and Zander (1992) take the argument even further when they insist that a firm's ability to transfer knowledge is a reason for its very existence (Bresman et al., 1999).
2. Knowledge Characteristics and Transfer Mechanism: A Conceptual Model
If it is accepted that the interdependence between knowledge characteristics and organizational mechanism of knowledge transfer is one of the cornerstones of knowledge management and organizational theory, then clearly the explicit reconciliation of these two bodies of work is a valuable contribution. Giving the dimensions of knowledge being transferred and the multiple, complementary types of knowledge involved, it becomes clear that it is necessary to use multiple knowledge transfer mechanisms flexibly and simultaneously, offering the richness and diversity of organizational mechanisms that are available within firms, because different knowledge will require different corporate settings and approaches to transfer. The implication being that certain organizational arrangements may be more appropriate to specific knowledge types than others. Figure 1 shows a summary of these constricts in detail with an eye toward identifying the potential implications for the management of knowledge transfer.


2.1. Knowledge and Knowledge Characteristics: Theoretical Consideration
2.1.1. Knowledge Types
We adopt the typology of Griffith and his colleagues (2003) in constructing our theory, which focuses on the distinction between individual and social knowledge. They note that a major source of confusion about knowledge and knowledge management can be resolved if we recognize that there are at least three distinct types of knowledge: individual knowledge, social knowledge, and organizational knowledge. Individual knowledge is composed of the psychological components that reside within the individual, and usually comprises both explicit (e.g., architectural drawing) and tacit knowledge (e.g., insights gained from completed project, and individual's belief on cause-effect relationships). Social knowledge is a collective type of knowledge that is publicly available or embedded within the routines, culture, or norms of the team (Spender, 1996). Organizational knowledge is captured through the organization's technologies, structures, and routines (Leonard and Sensiper, 1998), and provides a basis and context for the development and transfer of individual and social knowledge. In the rest part of this paper, we shall detail the components of such knowledge to focus on how knowledge transfers among individuals and becomes available to the organization.
2.1.2. Knowledge Dimensions
Drawing on the work of Garud and Nayyar (1994), we suggest analyzing knowledge in terms of three dimensions of knowledge: simple versus complex, explicit versus tacit, and independent versus systemic. These dimensions, some researchers argued (Winter, 1987; Garud and Nayyar, 1994), are directly related to the ease of transfer of the knowledge asset in question: some knowledge are highly complex, tacit, and system dependent, therefore, is difficult to transfer; other knowledge is simple, explicit, and independent, and is relatively easy to transfer.
Using these dimensions, we can analyze these three types of knowledge in terms of the three dimensions. Individual knowledge can be conceptualized as either simple or complex, as tacit or explicit (or both), and, generally, as more independent or systemic. Social knowledge can be either simple or complex and is largely tacit and systemic in character (Bhaga et al., 2002). Organizational knowledge is either explicit or tacit, is usually more complex than simple, and is largely systemic in character. Garud and Nayyar (1994) note that the position of knowledge along each of the three dimensions affects the amount of information required to describe it and the amount of effort needed to transfer it. Therefore, if the type of knowledge (individual, social, or organizational) being transferred is complex, tacit, and systemic, then it is more difficult to transfer and to absorb.
2.2. Formal Transfer Mechanisms
2.2.1. Direction
Demsetz (1991) identifies direction as the principal means by which knowledge can be transferred at low cost between “specialists and the large number of other persons who either are non-specialists or who are specialists in other fields.” Directions refer to the specific set of rules, standards, procedures, and instructions (Demsetz, 1991), such as directives for hazardous waste disposal or airplane safety checks and maintenance. We suggest that some knowledge (explicit, simple, and independent) can be well captured through direction, its transfer relies more on formal manners such as direction, and the performance specification for the outcome of the transfer is more stringent. A crucial characteristic of the knowledge being transferred (i.e., the directives, policies, and procedures) is that it is highly explicit, simple, and system independent that ensures its possibility of being captured through direction. In contrast, if tacit knowledge is transferred by such mechanism, in the form of rules, instructions, directives, formulae, expert systems, it will inevitably involve substantial knowledge loss (Grant, 1996a).
2.2.2. Organization Structure
Organization structure provides a mechanism for knowledge transfer which is dependent upon the need for communication of knowledge in explicit form. The essence of organization structure is that individuals located in different divisions (marketing, product engineering, process engineering, etc.) develop sequential patterns of interaction which permit the transfer of their specialized knowledge without the need for communicating that knowledge. These patterns of interaction appear automatic and rely heavily upon formal procedures such as document exchange among divisions, problem solve meeting, cultural and technical training, etc, as a fixed response to a defined structure arrangement (Grant, 1996a).
2.3. Informal Transfer Mechanisms
2.3.1. Community of Practice
The essence of informal mechanism is to build informal networks among people so that knowledge can be transferred internally through experience. The community of practice is an effective means of accomplishing that transfer (Birkinshaw and Sheehan, 2002). Communities of practice develop when there are ample opportunities for informal contact. As pointed out by Roberston and his colleagues (1996), distant, informal, spontaneous contact between different organizational sub-units might be important for knowledge activities. Practically, many companies have adapted this idea by encouraging the establishment of informal communities. Computer-services company (CSC) has several hundred communities of professional employees, each one based on a particular competence or practice area. To be true communities of practice, as distinct from communities of users—informal, voluntary users' groups focus on sharing of relevant experiences that enable acquisition or transfer of tacit knowledge about technology applications (Nambisan et al. 1999), they should be kept informal and their size should be limited to a relatively small number of members who have existing expertise.
2.3.2. Center of Excellence
Another informal mechanism that many companies use is the center of excellence, that is, a small group of experts in a single location with a mandate to spread their knowledge throughout the company. HP Canada has centers of excellence in R&D; Sara Lee has them in manufacturing and in support activities; and 3M Europe has them in corporate marketing. In the case of 3M Europe, the center for key account management was based in Stockholm, and the manager in charge of the group would travel to other 3M businesses in Europe to explain the center's recent work and how its new knowledge could be spread throughout the company.
2.3.3. Social Interaction
Social interactions are effective in fostering informal knowledge transfer within an organization. Social interaction allows individual units to accumulate social capital that can help them gain access to new knowledge. The flows of knowledge through interunit networks require social interaction to promote trust and to reduce perceived uncertainty about providing new knowledge to other units (or acquiring new knowledge from other units). Knowledge transfer involves a complex social process that demands collaborative efforts. Social interaction is indispensable in this process as it can create trust and foster cooperation.
2.3.4. Corporate Socialization
Socialization is important as a way of enhancing the organization’s information-processing capacity (Etzioni, 1961; Hedlund, 1986) and for building an underlying set of norms and values that can facilitate knowledge transfer. Van Maanen and Schein (1979) defined organizational socialization as the process by which "an individual is taught what behaviors and perspectives are customary and desirable within the work setting." As Buchanan (1974), Edstrom and Galbraith (1977), and Ouchi (1979) argued, socialization can be a powerful mechanism for building identification with and commitment to the organization as a whole. Some of the key processes through which such socialization occurs are job rotation across units and management development programs involving participants from several units (Edstrom & Galbraith, 1977). In the context of this article, corporate socialization for knowledge transfer can be defined as the processes through which a common set of values, norms, and beliefs among a group of individuals is developed to provide the preconditions for a management system in which employees’ willingness to share and transfer knowledge is high. Expressed in terms of knowledge transfer, we can argue that individuals will only participate willingly in knowledge exchange once they share a sense of identity or belonging with their colleagues ( Bresman et al., 1999). A summary of different organizational mechanisms of knowledge transfer is provided in Table 1.
Table 1. Comparison of Knowledge Transfer Mechanism: Formal Mechanism vs Informal Mechanism
Formal Mechanism Informal Mechanism
Specific contents Management policies and systems such as direction; organization structure; organizational design; IT support Social arrangements that aim to create an environment to encourage knowledge transfer, such as community of practice; center of excellence; social interaction; corporate socialization
Management processes Top management acts as monitor and allocator; leaders as commanders, dependent on information processing; chaos not allowed; emphasis on division and permanent structures Top management acts as catalyst, architect, protector; leaders as catalysts and sponsors; emphasis on combination and temporary constellations
Knowledge being transferred Knowledge residing in various component forms, including written documentation, structured information stored in electronic databases, codified human knowledge stored in expert systems, documented organizational procedures and processes
explicit, computerized/documented knowledge Knowledge embedded in organizational culture, transformations (production processes and work procedures), tacit knowledge in diverse forms
Adopted from Nonaka, 1994; Tan et al. 1999; Hedlund, 1994
3. Propositions Development
3.1. Transfer Individual Knowledge
In the second section, it is recognized that knowledge exists in individuals, social context, and the organization. Individual knowledge is conceptualized as a continuum from explicit to tacit (Griffith et al., 2003). Explicit individual knowledge may include explicit facts, axiomatic propositions, and symbols, can be codified or articulated in manuals, computer programs, training tools, etc., relatively simple and independent, and is proved to be transmittable in formal, systematic language (Kogut and Zander 1992). Tacit individual knowledge is highly context specific and has a personal quality, complex and systemic, which makes it more challenging to transfer (Nonaka 1991), difficult to formalize and communicate (Nonaka 1994). Formal mechanism like structured processes fail to transfer the tangible elements of tacit knowledge (Pfeffer and Sutton 1999) and significant information loss can be experienced when trying to use such mechanism, especially for some experientially derived forms of tacit knowledge. Consequently, tacit individual knowledge is best transferred by informal mechanisms that can provide rich communication media and a way in that tacit knowledge could be well captured. The above discussion leads to following propositions:
Proposition 1a: The effectiveness of knowledge transfer will be more likely to achieve when transfer individual knowledge that has an explicit quality by formal mechanism.
Proposition 1b: The effectiveness of knowledge transfer will be more likely to achieve when transfer individual knowledge that has a tacit quality by informal mechanism.
3.2. Transfer Social Knowledge
Social knowledge can be either explicit or tacit and is mostly complex and systemic in character, composed of cultural norms that exist as a result of working together, and its salience is reflected in our ability to collaborate and develop transactional relationships. Nonaka (1994) suggested a "spiral of knowledge" in which individuals' explicit and tacit knowledge transform and build upon one another to form social and organizational knowledge. Explicit individual knowledge becomes objectified knowledge while tacit knowledge becomes collective knowledge at the social level of analysis (Spender 1996).
Objectified knowledge (e.g., the due date for a particular task) is highly observable and rule based, can exist independently of the individual knowers. The core argument here is that this kind of knowledge is explicit and independent, can be easily transferred or disseminated to another location by formal mechanisms (e.g., utilization of information technology), because when tacitness and system dependence is low, knowledge transfer is achieved more quickly, the level of interpersonal interaction between units can be much lower.
Proposition 2a: The effectiveness of knowledge transfer will be more likely to achieve when transfer objectified knowledge that is explicit and independent in nature by formal mechanism.
Collective knowledge is embedded in the team's routines, norms, and culture. Because mutual interaction is necessary for the combination of various elements of tacit individual knowledge into collective knowledge, anything that reduces the level of social interaction may impede the transfer of collective knowledge. Thus, collective knowledge has a tacit quality and requires informal mechanisms to facilitate its transfer.
Proposition 2b: The effectiveness of knowledge transfer will be more likely to achieve when transfer collective knowledge that is tacit in nature by informal mechanism.
The third type of social knowledge is shared understanding among team members (e.g., the identity of the emergent leader). Similar to the process whereby individuals form new tacit knowledge through experience, teams may form new tacit knowledge through collective action. This tacit knowledge forms the basis of shared understanding (Leonard and Sensiper 1998). Shared understanding is associated with high level of interdependence (Janz et al. 1997), systemic and complex in nature. Interdependence requires a high level of communication (Tschan and von Cranach 1996), while formal mechanism constrains the richness of communication (Griffith et al., 2003). Therefore, this kind of knowledge is best transferred through informal mechanisms that can provide enriched forms of media and communication. Taken together, social knowledge may be considered a continuum from objectified knowledge, through collective knowledge, to shared understanding in a manner similar to the continuum of individual knowledge, which suggests a formal-informal way to manage its transfer.
Proposition 2c: The effectiveness of knowledge transfer will be more likely to achieve when transfer shared understanding that is systemic and complex in nature by informal mechanism.
3.3. Transfer Organizational Knowledge
Organizational knowledge is captured through the organization's technologies, structures, and routines (Leonard and Sensiper, 1998). Technological knowledge, including such information as product specifications and safety guidelines, is found to be the least problematic to transfer and share (Child and Faulkner, 1998), because this kind of knowledge is explicit, independent, and relatively simple, can be codified and acquired with relative ease. The transfer of technological knowledge is normally less socially sensitive and formal transfer mechanisms will be appropriate (Child and Faulkner, 1998), because this solution supports the declarative nature of technological knowledge.
Proposition 3a: The effectiveness of knowledge transfer will be more likely to achieve when transfer technological knowledge that is simple, explicit, and independent by formal mechanism.
Knowledge embedded in organization structure(e.g., expertise pertaining to a firm’s logistics, IT design and processes, knowledge of major customers in a region, business frameworks, project experiences, engineering drawings, market reports) is mostly explicit and system dependent, that is, closely related to organizational systems, process, and rules, having dedicated physical infrastructure, and all relevant functional activities involved (i.e., research, development, engineering, manufacturing, etc.). Transfer of structure-embedded knowledge needs richer context and media, because such knowledge requires more than just codification. Even formal mechanisms with the most advanced technical support can dramatically fail to transfer the structure-embedded knowledge if those mechanisms are founded on a misunderstanding of the underlying system of such knowledge. Thus, we contend that transfer of structure-embedded knowledge will rely more on informal mechanisms such as through a small number of centers of excellence, each based on a history of success within a given technological area and each with a relatively high level of autonomy to develop that knowledge as it sees fit.
Proposition 3b: The effectiveness of knowledge transfer will be more likely to achieve when transfer structure-embedded knowledge that is explicit and system dependent by informal mechanism.
Organizational routines—multi-actor, interlocking, reciprocally-triggered sequences of actions (Cohen and Bacdayan, 1994)—are another major repository of organizational knowledge. Routine-based knowledge, including the processes for integrating across business units, is mainly tacit and complex, because routines themselves are hard to observe, analyze, and describe, and there are considerable causal ambiguity surrounding it. As proposed by Cohen and Bacdayan (1994), a pivotal characteristic of routines is that the underlying knowledge of the parts of routines is often partially inarticulate. Consequently, transfer of routine-based knowledge requires a process of informal mechanisms, i.e., the development of coordination patterns, social interaction, informal communication, learning by doing which typically involves considerable face-to-face interaction between the two parties to the transfer, so as to allow individuals to transfer and integrate their specialized knowledge without the need to articulate what they know to others.
Proposition 3c: The effectiveness of knowledge transfer will be more likely to achieve when transfer routine-based knowledge that is tacit and complex by informal mechanism.
4. Conclusions
In this paper, we began with the perspective that knowledge transfer is crucial to organizations’ competitive advantage, and have presented a discussion of knowledge types, dimensions, and characteristics, and transfer mechanisms based on a review, interpretation, and synthesis of a broad range of relevant literature. Two common modes of transfer mechanisms are identified to seek synergies by structuring dynamics of knowledge transfer in organizations, and to be more efficient in the transfer of different knowledge. Several general conclusions may be drawn from our work.
1. The literature review revealed the complexity and multi-faceted nature of knowledge and knowledge transfer. Different perspectives and taxonomies of knowledge were reviewed and discussed. For example, knowledge may be tacit or explicit; it may reside in individuals, groups, social systems or documents, computer repositories, physical settings, policies, and processes. Thus, no single or optimum approach to knowledge transfer and knowledge management can be developed. Various knowledge management approaches and systems are required to deal with the diversity of knowledge types and dimensions effectively (Alavi and Leidner, 2001).
2. Knowledge transfer involves distinct but interdependent processes of transfer activities. At any point in time, an organization and its members can be involved in multiple knowledge transfer activities. As such, knowledge transfer is not a monolithic but a dynamic and continuous organizational phenomenon. Furthermore, the complexity, resource requirements, and underlying tools and approaches of knowledge transfer vary according to the type, dimensions, and characteristics of knowledge being transferred.
3. Knowledge transfer can be formal or informal. Formal transfer mechanisms, such as direction, organization structure, organizational design, may ensure greater distribution of knowledge and legitimacy of the transfer but may inhibit initiative. Informal mechanisms, such as community of practice, center of excellence, social interaction, corporate socialization, may be effective in promoting socialization but may preclude wide dissemination.
The most interesting finding in this study is that the separation of organizational mechanisms on knowledge transfer has great importance both in reality and research ease. Drawing on knowledge management literature, we identified two different types of knowledge transfer mechanisms, formal and informal mechanisms, viz. those focused on structural arrangement, normalization, and control, and those focused on the social process of knowledge transfer. Each is important in affecting knowledge transfer outcomes. The central issue of formal mechanism is 'calculative' design and control, which is defined as "regulating the transfer activities within an organization so that they are in accord with the expectations established in policies, plans and targets" (Child, 1973). Under the formal mechanism, control is primarily 'bureaucratic' and 'normative' (Baliga and Jaeger, 1984), individuals’ performance and behavior is monitored to preclude opportunistic behavior. The informal mechanism proposes a system of primarily 'social' or cultural connection, whereby individuals are imbued with the values and goals of the organization and thus act in accordance with them (Hedlund, 1986; White and Poynter, 1990).
At the same time, we get to a contribution of knowledge approaches to organizational theories by providing a new “contingency” factor (contingency between knowledge characteristics and transfer approaches) for understanding organizational mechanisms. As indicated earlier, the nature of the knowledge being transferred will have an important impact on the transfer process. If the relevant knowledge is tacit, complex, and system dependent, it is a continuous activity of knowing and thus not readily communicated in written or symbolic form. Such transfers can be facilitated by informal mechanisms, through high level of communication, social interaction, and corporate socialization. By contrast, explicit, simple, and independent knowledge is discrete or "digital", usually captured in records of the past such as libraries, archives, patents, blueprints, and databases. This kind of knowledge can be effectively transferred by formal mechanisms, because it does not rely on a strong social bond between the parties (Bresman et al., 1999). Establishing tight links to knowledge characteristics and transfer mechanisms should help us to unlock the dynamics of knowledge transfer. This will shed new light on the interactions with organizational mechanism and knowledge transfer.
5. Acknowledgments
We gratefully acknowledge the financial support from the National Nature Science Foundation of China under the grant number 70121001 & 70571062.

References
Alavi, M., and Leidner, D. E. (2001) “Review: Knowledge Management and Knowledge Management Systems: Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues”, MIS Quarterly, 25(1): 107-136 .
Baliga, B.R., and Alfred M. J. (1984) “Multinational corporations: Control systems and delegation issues”. Journal of International Business Studies, 15(2): 25-39.
Bartlett, C. A., and Ghoshal, S. (1989) Managing across borders: The transnational solution. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Bhagat, R.S., Kedia, B.L., Harveston, P.D., and Triandis, H.C. (2002) “Cultural Variations in the Cross-Border Transfer of Organizational Knowledge: An Integrative Framework”, The Academy of Management Review, 27(2): 204-221.
Birkinshaw, J. (2001) “Why is Knowledge Management So Difficult?” Preview By Birkinshaw, J. Business Strategy Review, 12: 11-18.
Birkinshaw, J., and Sheehan, T. (2002) “Managing the Knowledge Life Cycle” MIT Sloan Management Review, 44(1): 75-84.
Bresman, H., Birkinshaw, J.M., and Nobel, R. (1999) “Knowledge transfer in international acquisitions”. Journal of International Business Studies, 30(3): 439-462.
Buchanan, B. (1974) “Building organizational commitment: The socialization of managers in work organizations”. Administrative Science Quarterly. 19: 533-546.
Child, J. (1973) “Strategies of control and organizational behavior”. Administrative Science Quarterly, 3: 1-17.
Child, J., and Faulkner, D. (1998) Strategies of cooperation: Managing alliances, networks, and joint ventures, New York: Oxford University Press.
Cohen, M. D., and Bacdayan, P. (1994) “Organizational Routines Are Stored As Procedural Memory: Evidence from a Laboratory Study”, Organization Science, 5(4): 554-568.
Demsetz, H. (1991) “The Theory of the Firm Revisited”, in O. E. Williamson and S. Winter (Eds.), The Nature of the Firm, New York: Oxford University Press, 159-178.
Dixon, N.M. (2000) Common Knowledge: How Companies Thrive by Sharing What They Know, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Doz, Y. L., and Prahalad, C. K. (1981) “Headquarters' influence and strategic control in MNCs”. Sloan Management Review, 23(1): 15-29.
Edstrom, A., and Galbraith, J. R. (1977) “Transfer of managers as a coordination and control strategy in multinational organizations”. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22: 248-263.
Etzioni, A. (1961) A Comparative Analysis of complex Organizations. Free Press, New York.
Hedlund, G. (1986) “The hypermodern MNC-A heterarchy?” Human Resource Management, 25(1): 9-35.
Hedlund, G. (1994) “A model of knowledge management and the N-form corporation”. Strategic Management Journal, 15: 73-90.
Janz, B, D,, Colquitt, J. A., and Noe, R. A, (1997) "Knowledge Worker Team Effectiveness: The Role of Autonomy, Interdependence, Team Development and Contextual Support Variables," Personnel Psychology, 50(4): 877-904.
Kogut, B., and Zander, U. (1992) “Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology”. Organization Science, 4: 383-397.
Gakbraith, C. S. (1990) “Transferring Core Manufacturing Technologies in High Technology Firms”, California Management Review, 32(4): 56-70.
Garud, R. and Nayyar, P.R (1994) “Transformative capacity: continual structuring by intertemporal technology transfer”. Strategic Management Journal, 15:, 365-385.
Grant, R.M. (1996a). “Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments: Organizational capability as knowledge integration”. Organization Science, 7(4): 375-387.
Grant, R.M. (1996b). “Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm”. Strategic Management Journal, 17 Special Issue: Knowledge and the Firm (Winter, 1996): 109-122.
Griffith, T.L., Sawyer, J.E., Neale, M.A. (2003) “Virtualness and knowledge in teams: managing the love triangle of organizations, individuals, and information technology”. MIS Quarterly, 27(2): 265-287.
Gupta, A.K. and Govindarajan, V. (1991) “Knowledge flows and the structure of control within multinational corporations”. Academy of Management Review, 16(4):, 768-792.
Leonard, D., and Sensiper, S. (1998). “The Role of Tacit Knowledge in Group Innovation”. California Management Review, 40(3): 112-132.
Nambisan, S., Agarwal, R,, and Tanniru, M. (1999) "Organizational Mechanisms for Enhancing User Innovativeness in Information Technology," MIS Ouarterly 2(3): 365-395.
Nonaka, I. (1991) “The knowledge-creating company”. Harvard Bus.Rev. 69: 96-104.
Nonaka, I. (1994). “A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation”. Organization Science, 5(1): 14-37.
Nonaka, I., and Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company. Oxford University Press, New York.
Ouchi, W. G. (1979) “A conceptual framework for the design of organizational control mechanisms”. Management Science. 25: 833-848.
Pfeffer, J., and Sutton, R. I. (1999) "The Smart-Talk Trap," Harvard Business Review 77(3): 143-142.
Prahalad, C. K, and Doz, Y. L. (1981). “An approach to strategic control in MNCs”. Sloan Management Review. 22(4): 5-13.
Robertson. M,, Swan, J., and Newell, S. (1996) "The Role of Networks in the Diffusion of Technological Innovation," Journal of Management Studies (33): 335-361.
Spender, J.C. 1996. “Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm”. Strategic Management Journal, 17 (Special Issue): 45-62.
Teece, D.J., Pisano, G., and Shuen, A. (1997) “Dynamic capabilities and strategic management”. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7): 509-533.
Tschan, F., and von Cranach, M, (1996) "Group Structure, Process and Outcome," in Handbook of Work Group Psychology, M, E, West (ed.), John Wiiey & Sons, New York: 95-121.Sons.
White, R. E., and Poynter, T. A.. (1984) “Strategies for foreign-owned subsidiaries in Canada”. Business Quarterly, Summer: 59-69.
Winter, S.G. (1987). Knowledge and competence as strategic assets. D. Teece, ed. The competitive challenge: Strategies for industrial innovation and renewal. Ballinger, Cambridge, MA, 159-184.
Van Maanen, J., and Schein, E. H. (1979) “Toward a theory of organizational socialization”. In B. M. Staw (Ed.), Research in Organizational Behavior, 1: 209-264. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
von Krogh. G. (1998) “Care in Knowledge Creation”, California Management Review, 40(3): 133-153.