Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Experience and Performance in Interunit Knowledge Transfer

  • Chapter
Resources, Efficiency and Globalization

Part of the book series: The Academy of International Business ((AIB))

  • 245 Accesses

Abstract

In the wake of the expansion of resource- and knowledge-based perspectives, knowledge has moved to the forefront as the strategically most important resource for organizations (Grant, 1996). From these perspectives, sustained competitive advantage is achieved by a superior organizational capability to coordinate heterogeneous knowledge resources in the firm (Grant, 1996; Kogut and Zander, 1992, 1996). This has directed a vast amount of research to deal with factors affecting the transfer of knowledge across subsidiaries, that is, how the gap between what is known and what is put to use in the organization is closed (Hansen and Levâs, 2004; McEvily et al. 2004; Pfeffer and Sutton, 2000).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Argote, L. (1999) Organizational Learning: Creating, Retaining and Transferring Knowledge (Norwell, Mass.: Kluwer Academic Publishers).

    Google Scholar 

  • Argote, L. and Ingram, P. (2000) ‘Knowledge transfer: a basis for competitive advantage’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 150–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986) ‘The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birkinshaw, J. (1996) ‘How multinational subsidiary mandates are gained and lost’, Journal of International Business Studies, 27(3), 467–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birkinshaw, J., Hood, N. and Young, S. (2005) ‘Subsidiary entrepreneurship, internal and external competitive forces, and subsidiary performance’, International Business Review, 14, 227–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birkinshaw, J. and Lingblad, M. (2005) ‘Intrafirm competition and charter evolution in the multibusiness firm’, Organization Science, 16(6), 674–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Björkman, I., Barner-Rasmussen, W. and Li, L. (2004) ‘Managing knowledge transfers in MNCs: the impact of headquarters control mechanisms’, Journal of International Business Studies, 35(5), 443–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W.M. and Levinthal, D.A. (1990) ‘Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cool, K.O., Dierickx, I. and Szulanski, G. (1997) ‘Diffusion of innovations within organi-zations: Electronic switching in the bell system, 1971–1982’, Organization Science, 8(5), 543–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L.J. (1987) ‘Statistical tests for moderator variables: Flaws in analyses recently proposed’, Psychological Bullentin, 102(3), 414–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cyert, R. and March, J.G. (1963) A Behavioural Theory of the Firm (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Daft, R.L. (1992) Organization theory and design, 4th ed. (St. Paul, Minn.: West Publishing Company).

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, W.H. and McFetridge, D.G. (1984) ‘International technology transactions and the theory of the firm’, The Journal of Industrial Economics, 32(3), 253–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denrell, J. (2003) ‘Vicarious learning, undersampling of failure, and the myths of man-agement’, Organization Science, 14(3), 227–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devinney, T.M. (1987) ‘Entry and learning’, Management Science, 33(6), 706–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dewar, R.D and Dutton, J.E. (1986) ‘The adoption of radical and incremental innova-tions: an empirical analysis’, Management Science, 32(11), 1422–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dougherty, D. (1992) ‘Interpretive barriers to successful product innovation in large firms’, Organization Science, 3(2), 179–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Downs, G.W.J. and Mohr, L.B. (1976) ‘Conceptual issues in the study of innovation’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(4), 700–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doz, Y., Santos, J. and Williamson, P. (2001) From Global to Metanational — How Companies Win in the Knowledge Economy (Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K.M. and Martin, J.A. (2000) ‘Dynamic capabilities: What are they?’, Strategic Management Journal, 21, 1105–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epple, D., Argote, L. and Rukmini, D. (1991) ‘Organizational learning curves: a method for investigating intra-plant transfer of knowledge acquired through learning by doing’, Organization Science, 2(1), 58–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ethiraj, S.K., Kale, P., Krishnan, M.S. and Singh, J.V. (2005) ‘Where do capabilities come from and how do they matter? A study in the software services industry’, Strategic Management Journal, 26, 25–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiol, C.M. and Lyles, M.A. (1985) ‘Organizational learning’, Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 803–813.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forsgren, M. (1990) ‘Managing the international multi-centre firm: Case studies from Sweden’, European Management Journal, 8(2), 261–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forsgren, M., Johanson, J. and Sharma, D. (2000) ‘Development of MNC centers of excellence’, in U. Holm and T. Pedersen (eds), The Emergence and Impact of MNC Centers of Excellence — a Subsidiary Pespective, 45–67 (London: Macmillan).

    Google Scholar 

  • Forsgren, M. and Pedersen, T. (2000) ‘Subsidiary influence and corporate learning-centres of excellence in Danish foreign-owned firms’, in U. Holm and T. Pedersen (eds), The Emergence and Impact of MNC Centers of Excellence — a Subsidiary Pespective, 68–78 (London: Macmillan).

    Google Scholar 

  • Foss, N.J. and Pedersen, T. (2002) ‘Transferring knowledge in MNC’s: The role of sources of subsidiary knowledge and organizational context’, Journal of International Management, 8(1), 49–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frost, T.S., Birkinshaw, J. and Ensign, P.C. (2002) ‘Centers of excellence in multinational corporations’, Strategic Management Journal, 23, 997–1018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galbraith, J. (1973) Designing Complex Organizations (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company).

    Google Scholar 

  • Galunic, C.D. and Rodan, S. (1998) ‘Resource recombinations in the firm: Knowledge structures and the potential for schumpeterian innovation’, Strategic Management Journal, 19, 1193–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghoshal, S., Korine, H. and Szulanski, G. (1994) ‘Interunit communication in multinational corporations’, Management Science, 40, 96–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gold, A.H., Malhotra, A. and Segars, A.H. (2001) ‘Knowledge management: An organizational capabilities perspective’, Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1), 185–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant, R.M. (1996) ‘Towards a knowledge-based theory of the firm’, Strategic Management Journal, 17, 109–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, A.K. and Govindarajan, V. (1991) ‘Knowledge flows and the structure of control within multinational corporations’, Academy of Management Review, 16(4), 768–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, A.K. and Govindarajan, V. (1994) ‘Organizing for knowledge flows within MNCs’, International Business Review, 3(4), 443–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, A.K. and Govindarajan, V. (2000) ‘Knowledge flows within the multinational corporation’, Strategic Management Journal, 21, 473–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haas, M.R. and Hansen, M.T. (2005) ‘When using knowledge can hurt performance: the value of organizational capabilities in a management consulting company’, Strategic Management Journal, 26, 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1998) Multivariate data analysis, 5th edn (Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall).

    Google Scholar 

  • Haleblian, J. and Finkelstein, S. (1999) ‘The influence of organizational acquisition expe-rience on acquisition performance: A behavioral learning perspective’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 29–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, M.T. and Levâs, B. (2004) ‘How do multinational companies leverage techno-logical competencies? Moving from single to interdependent explanations’, Strategic Management Journal, 25, 801–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helfat, C.E. (2000) ‘The Evolution of Firm Capabilities’, Strategic Management Journal, 21, 955–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, R.M. and Clark, K.B. (1990) ‘Architectural innovation: the reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of leading firms’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 9–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holm, U. and Pedersen, T. (2002) The Emergence and Impact of MNC Centres of Excellence. A Subsidiary Perspective (London: Macmillan Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Huber, G.P. (1991) ‘Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the litera-tures’, Organization Science, 2(1), 88–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaccard, J., Turrisi, R. and Wan, C.K. (1990a) Interaction Effects in Multiple Regression (London: SAGE Publications).

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaccard, J., Wan, C.K. and Turrisi, R. (1990b) ‘The detection and interpretation of inter-action effects between continuous variables in multiple regression’, Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25(4), 467–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kogut, B. and Zander, U. (1992) ‘Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology’, Organization Science, 3, 383–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kogut, B. and Zander, U. (1993) ‘Knowledge of the firm and the evolutionary theory of the multinational corporation’, Journal of International Business Studies, 24(4), 625–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kogut, B. and Zander, U. (1996) ‘What firms do? Coordination, identity, and learning’, Organization Science, 7(5), 502–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kostova, T. (1999) ‘Transnational transfer of strategic organizational practices: A contex-tual perspective’, Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 308–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kostova, T. and Roth, K. (2002) ‘Adoption of an organizational practice by subsidiaries of multinational corporations: institutional and relational effects’, Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 215–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lane, P.J. and Lubatkin, M. (1998) ‘Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational Learning’, Strategic Management Journal, 19, 461–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leonard-Barton, D. (1988) ‘Implementation as mutual adaptation of technology and organization’, Research Policy, 17(5), 251–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levinthal, D.A. and March, J.G. (1993) ‘The Myopia of Learning’, Strategic Management Journal, 14, 95–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levitt, B. and March, J.G. (1988) ‘Organizational learning’, Annual Review of Sociology, 14, 319–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lippman, S. and Rumelt, R. (1982) ‘Uncertain imitability; an analysis of interfirm differences in efficiency under uncertainty’, Bell Journal of Economics, 13(2), 418–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marquardt, D.W. (1970) ‘Generalized inverses, ridge regression and biased linear estimation’, Technometrics, 12(3), 591–612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marquardt, D. W. (1980) ‘A critique of some ridge regression methods: Comment’, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 75(369), 87–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • McEvily, S.K., Eisenhardt, K.M. and Prescott, J.E. (2004) ‘The global acquisition, lever-age, and protection of technological competencies’, Strategic Management Journal, 25, 713–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mudambi, R. (2002) ‘Knowledge management in multinational firms,’ Journal of International Management, 8(1), 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R.R. and Winter, S.G. (1982) An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change (Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearce, R. (1999) ‘The evolution of technology in multinational enterprises: The role of creative subsidiaries’, International Business Review, 8(2), 125–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J. and Salancik, G.R. (1978) The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective (New York: Harper & Row).

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J. and Sutton, R. I. (2000) The Knowing-Doing Gap: How Smart Companies Turn Knowledge into Action (Boston: Harvard Business School Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P.M. and Organ, D. (1986) ‘Self-Reports in organizational research: Problems and Prospects’, Journal of Management 12(4), 531–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ray, G., Barney, J.B. and Muhanna, W.A. (2004) ‘Capabilities, business processes, and competitive advantage: Choosing the dependent variable in empirical tests of the resource-based view’, Strategic Management Journal, 25, 23–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reed, R. and Defillippi, R.J. (1990) ‘Causal ambiguity, barriers to imitation, and sustain-able competitive advantage’, Academy of Management Review, 15(1), 88–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Repenning, N.P. (2002) ‘A simulation-based approach to understanding the dynamics of innovation implementation’, Organization Science, 13(2), 109–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roth, K. and Morrison, A.J. (1992) ‘Implementing global strategy: Characteristics of global Subsidiary Mandates’, Journal of International Business Studies, 23(4), 715–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roth, K. and O’Donnell, S. (1996) ‘Foreign subsidiary compensation strategy: an agency theory perspective’, Academy of Management Journal, 39(3), 678–703.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sampson, R. (2005) ‘Experience effects and collaborative returns in R&D alliances’, Strategic Management Journal, 26, 1009–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schulz, M. (2001) ‘The uncertain relevance of newness: Organizational learning and knowledge flows’, Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 661–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schulz, M. (2003) ‘Pathways of relevance: Exploring inflow of knowledge into subunits of multinational corporations’. Organization Science, 14(4), 440–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, S., Durand, R.M. and Gur-Arie, O. (1981) ‘Identification and analysis of modera-tor variables’, Journal of Marketing Research, 18(August), 291–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spender, J.-C. (1994) ‘Organizational knowledge, collective practice and Penrose rents’, International Business Review, 3(4), 353–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Subramaniam, M. and Venkatarman, N. (2001) ‘Determinants of transnational new product development capability: Testing the influence of transferring and deploying tacit overseas knowledge’, Strategic Management Journal, 22, 359–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szulanski, G. (1996) ‘Exploring internal stickiness: impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm’, Strategic Management Journal, 17, 27–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szulanski, G., Cappetta, R. and Jensen, R.J. (2004) ‘When and how trustworthiness mat-ters: knowledge transfer and the moderating effect of causal ambiguity’, Organization Science, 15(5), 600–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D.J. (1977) ‘Technology transfer by multinational firms: the resource cost of transferring technological know-how’, Economic Journal, 87(346), 242–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D.J. (1986) ‘Profiting from technological innovation: implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy’, Research Policy, 15(6), 285–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsai, W. (2002) ‘Social structure of “coopetition” within a multiunit organization: coordination, competition, and intraorganizational knowledge sharing’, Organization Science, 13(2), 179–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsai, W. (2004) ‘Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks: Effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance’, Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 996–1004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tushman, M.L. and Scanlan, T.J. (1981) ‘Boundary spanning individuals: Their role in information transfer and their antecedents’, The Academy of Management Journal, 24(2), 289–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilcox King, A. and Zeithaml, C.P. (2001) ‘Competencies and firm performance: exam-ining the casual ambiguity paradox’, Strategic Management Journal, 22, 75–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winter, S.G. (2003) ‘Understanding dynamic capabilities’, Strategic Management Journal, 24, 991–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yelle, L. (1979) ‘The learning curve: Historical review and comprehensive survey’. Decision Science, 10(2), 302–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zander, U. and Kogut, B. (1995) ‘Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation of organizational capabilities: an empirical test’, Organization Science, 6, 76–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zollo, M. and Singh, H. (2004) ‘Deliberate learning in corporate acquisitions: Post-acquisition strategies and integration capability in U.S. bank mergers’, Strategic Management Journal, 25, 1233–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zollo, M. and Winter, S.G. (2002) ‘Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities’, Organization Science, 13(3), 339–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Ulf Andersson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Magnus Persson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Athens University of Economics and Business, UK

    Pavlos Dimitratos (Assistant Professor) (Assistant Professor)

  2. University of Glasgow, UK

    Marian V. Jones (Professor of Internationalisation and Entrepreneurship) (Professor of Internationalisation and Entrepreneurship)

Copyright information

© 2010 Ulf Andersson and Magnus Persson

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Andersson, U., Persson, M. (2010). Experience and Performance in Interunit Knowledge Transfer. In: Dimitratos, P., Jones, M.V. (eds) Resources, Efficiency and Globalization. The Academy of International Business. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230278028_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation