Determinants of Successful Knowledge Transfers

  • Sandhya Shekhar
Part of the Management for Professionals book series (MANAGPROF)


The multi-dimensional diagnostic model for assessing knowledge transfer effectiveness developed in an earlier chapter can help assess how effectively transfers are happening across the organization and where are the bottlenecks, if any. Having identified this, managers will need to figure out how to fix the problem. This would entail identifying what are the factors that could either act as inhibitors or facilitators to such transfers. The identification of a probable set of factors is done through a survey of past studies, supplemented with conversations with experts from the industry and triangulated using exploratory research conducted on 30 organizations. The survey serves to provide industry inputs on the factors seen by them as being important. In this chapter, a set of hypotheses are formulated on some of the major factors associated with knowledge transfer success, which in turn have an impact on the overall performance and viability of Virtual Organizations. This chapter also evolves the research model based on which the detailed research is taken up.


Business Process Geographic Distance Knowledge Transfer Organizational Distance Knowledge Worker 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Galbraith CS (1990) Transferring core manufacturing technologies in high technology firms. Calif Manag Rev 32(4):56–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Griffith TL, Sawyer JE, Neale MA (2003) Virtualness and knowledge in teams: managing the love triangle of organizations, individuals and information technology. MIS Q 27(2):265–287Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Von Hippel E (1994) Sticky information and the locus of problem solving: implications for innovation. Manag Sci 40(4):429–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ghoshal S, Bartlett CA (1988) Creation, adoption and diffusion of innovations by subsidiaries. J Int Bus Stud 19(3):365–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rothwell R (1978) Some problems of technology transfer into industry: examples from the textile machinery sector. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 25:15–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cummings JL, Teng BS (2003) Transferring R&D knowledge: the key factors affecting knowledge transfer success. J Eng Technol Manag 20:39–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Darr E, Argoteand L, Epple D (1995) The acquisition, transfer, and depreciation of knowledge in service organizations: productivity in franchises. Manag Sci 41:1750–1762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Darr E, Kurtzberg T (2000) An investigation of partner similarity dimensions on knowledge transfer. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 82(1):28–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sabini J (1992) Social psychology. Norton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tajfel H, Billig MG, Bundy RP, Flament C (1971) Social categorization and intergroup behavior. Eur J Soc Psychol 1:149–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schein E (1990) Organizational culture. Am Psychol 45(2):109–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Churchill EF, Bly S (2000) Culture vultures: considering culture and communication in virtual environments. SIGGROUP Bull 21(1):6–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Samarah I, Paul S, Mykytyn P (2002) Exploring the links between cultural diversity, the collaborative conflict management style, and performance of global virtual teams. In: Proceedings of the eighth Americas conference on information systems, AMCIS, Dallas, Texas, pp 1129–1134Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Das TK, Teng BS (1998) Between trust and control: developing confidence in partner cooperation in alliance. Acad Manag Rev 23:491–512Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Handy C (1995) Trust and the virtual organisation. Harv Bus Rev. May-June: 42–50Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nonaka I (1991) The knowledge creating company. Harvard Business Review on Knowledge Management, Boston, pp 21–45Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Szulanski G (1996) Exploring internal stickiness: impediments to the transfer of best practices within the firm. Strateg Manag J 17(10):27–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Du Plessis M (2005) Drivers of knowledge management in the corporate environment. Int J Inf Manag 25(3):193–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    High attrition likely this year on upbeat job market, economy: Survey, The Economic Times, April 27, 2015. Accessed 26 Sept 2015
  20. 20.
    Grantham CE (1996) Design principles for the virtual workplace. SIGCPW SIGMIS, Denver, pp 12–21Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lau HCW, Wong ETT (2001) Partner selection and information infrastructure of a virtual enterprise network. Int J Comput Integr Manuf 14(2):186–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hammer M, Champy J (1998) Rethinking business process. In: Reengineering the corporation, a manifesto for business revolution. HarperCollins, New York, pp 50–64Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Campion MA, Papperand EM, Medsker GJ (1996) Relations between work team characteristics and effectiveness: a replication and extension. Pers Psychol 49(2):429–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Polanyi M (1966) The tacit dimension. Doubleday and Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zander U, Kogut B (1995) Knowledge and the speed of transfer and imitation of organizational capabilities: an empirical test. Organ Sci 6(1):76–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hamel G (1991) Competition for competence and inter-partner learning within international strategic alliances. Strateg Manag J 12:83–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cohen W, Levinthal D (1990) Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Adm Sci Q 35(1):128–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer India 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sandhya Shekhar
    • 1
  1. 1.Knowledge and Innovation StrategiesChennaiIndia

Personalised recommendations