Journal of Knowledge Management

Actions to overcome knowledge transfer barriers in MNCs

Andreas 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 - 67
Permanent 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: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 4705 times since 2007*
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 478417 []

Downloaded by UFSC At 11:03 22 August 2014 (PT)

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

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than
290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional
customer 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.

Actions to overcome knowledge transfer

barriers in MNCs
Andreas Riege

Abstract

Downloaded by UFSC At 11:03 22 August 2014 (PT)

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).
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.

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

JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

VOL. 11 NO. 1 2007, pp. 48-67, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1367-3270

DOI 10.1108/13673270710728231

 Effective knowledge transfer is more than the movement of

useful knowledge from one location to another.

Downloaded by UFSC At 11:03 22 August 2014 (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

VOL. 11 NO. 1 2007 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 49

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).

Downloaded by UFSC At 11:03 22 August 2014 (PT)

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 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 11 NO. 1 2007

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.

Downloaded by UFSC At 11:03 22 August 2014 (PT)

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 to maintain a conversation. Most of the questions remained open-ended, so as

VOL. 11 NO. 1 2007 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 51

Downloaded by UFSC At 11:03 22 August 2014 (PT)

Table I Facts about MNCs

No. of employees
(approx.)

No. of executives interviewed

USA
USA
USA
Australia
Australia
Australia
USA
Australia
Australia
Australia
USA

30,000
30,000
10,000
1,000
30,000
30,000
10,000
20,000
30,000
2,000
1,000

4
3
3
4
3
3
2
3
3
4
3

Germany
UK
Australia
Australia
Australia
South Africa
Australia
USA
USA

30,000
20,000
1,000
1,000
10,000
30,000
2,000
3,000
3,000

3
3
3
4
3
3
3
3
4

Business sector

Country of origin

Services
Advisory services
Advisory services
Business service solutions
Business service solutions
Financial services
Financial services
Financial services
Health care
ITC
Retail
Retail
Manufacturing
Automotive
Construction
Fashion
Fashion
Mining
Mining
Paint & coating
Paint & coating
Publishing

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?

Acknowledge user time pressures and allocate purposeful slack time for knowledge
transfer, e.g. set aside one hour per week to facilitate sharing initiatives.

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.

PAGE 52 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 11 NO. 1 2007

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

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.

Offer work-related and social occasions to interact with stakeholders and customers
to enhance cross-functional thinking and gain external knowledge.

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

Stress the importance of transferring tacit knowledge over explicit knowledge for
individual and organisational learning.

Downloaded by UFSC At 11:03 22 August 2014 (PT)

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.

Keep work visible and within everybodys reach so everyone knows what is getting
done (or not).

Encourage natural sharing to achieve individual and unit objectives.

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

Get people involved in planning and development stages.

Get people involved in performance reviews and setting of key performance

indicators (KPIs).

Make knowledge transfer practices part of regular performance reviews.

Establish ownership and recognise individuals contributions.

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.

Ensure that people have detailed job descriptions, KPIs against their actions, and
generally know what is expected from them.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

VOL. 11 NO. 1 2007 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 53

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.

Recognise people who make contributions. If additional work will really be required,
incorporate that as part of the goal/reward processes.

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.

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

use it.

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.

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

Reduce chaotic storage and illogical memory systems etc. as they are all symptoms
of poor collaboration and connectivity.

Downloaded by UFSC At 11:03 22 August 2014 (PT)

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.

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

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.

Train managers/team leaders to guide users to tools and systems rather than
providing their own advice in all cases.

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

Ask people to be proactive. Solicit input and application, and remind them of key
supporting features and capabilities of diverse tools and systems.

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?

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

dialogue and interactive problem solving.

Support existing networks and communities of practice following existing common

interests.

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

experiences, war stories. and ideas.

Stress that not all knowledge needs to be transferred and that knowledge exchanges
have to be planned and purposeful.

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.

Provide time to share tacit knowledge face-to-face or, if possible, formalise tacit
knowledge into an explicit format available to others.

PAGE 54 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 11 NO. 1 2007

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.

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.

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.

Minimise or eliminate mentalities that people who have obtained a certain level of
expertise have nothing to gain from people with lower experience levels.

Provide better integration and socialisation processes between people.

Downloaded by UFSC At 11:03 22 August 2014 (PT)

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.

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

especially if team will be primarily in virtual mode.

Encourage external network opportunities between stakeholders and customers.

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.

Provide suitable training and development programs to enhance peoples

communication capabilities.

Support an open communication flow between all organisational levels.

Encourage people to be open, proactive, and forthcoming with ideas and opinions,
and recognise and reward such behaviour.

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.

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 international

businesses with foreign subsidiaries understand the large
potential benefits of value-creating knowledge exchanges.

VOL. 11 NO. 1 2007 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 55

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.

Provide additional or introduce new formal and informal meeting spaces and meeting
areas to enhance business-related and social interactions between people, internally
and externally.

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.

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.

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.

Downloaded by UFSC At 11:03 22 August 2014 (PT)

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.

Remove the misperception 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.

Recognise and respond to peoples outgoing feedback.

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

Reward and give credit to owners and generators of knowledge in front of colleagues
and encourage others to do so also.

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?

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

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

Communicate whose expertise was tapped, how it was built into the system
supporting knowledge transfer practices, and record contributors credentials.

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

and informal settings.

Demonstrate the expertise and credibility of information sources, e.g. say that it
incorporates best practices and reflects the wisdom of experts like
yourselves.

Get senior management to encourage regular direct interaction within units.

Provide time for users to ask questions about transfer and sharing practices and
defuse any doubts.

Recognise and reward pro-activeness and open idea generation.

Ensure a non-bureaucratic communication flow between all levels.

PAGE 56 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 11 NO. 1 2007

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.

Ensure that shared knowledge is understood identically by sender and receiver

this also is key to any successful application of knowledge.

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.

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.

Ensure that all people in need of communicating in another language than their own
something very foreign to them feel comfortable doing this.

Provide language training where necessary.

Provide international job rotations.

Downloaded by UFSC At 11:03 22 August 2014 (PT)

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

B

Enhance awareness of gender-related tensions between people.

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

direct confrontation and communication with relevant parties.

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.

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

between people of different cultural backgrounds is required.

Introduce cross-cultural training and development programs.

Organise annual (or more frequent) meetings with managers from various units
attending to expose people to differences in national cultures.

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.

Cultivate and support an environment and culture where people should not have to
think twice about whether to voice themselves or not.

Create an environment and culture that encourages asking questions to, and seeking
answers from, superiors.

Ensure that people are not afraid of doing anything wrong, showing ignorance,
fearing embarrassment in front of superiors.

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.

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?

VOL. 11 NO. 1 2007 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 57

 It is 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.

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:

Downloaded by UFSC At 11:03 22 August 2014 (PT)

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.

Demonstrate how initiatives can support company goals and strategies in a clear and
transparent manner to all people to obtain their ongoing support.

Market any initiatives not as something that enhances your or the firms own glory but
because an otherwise valuable intangible resource may go unused.

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.

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.

Create a vision to direct any change efforts and communicate strategies via
appropriate vehicles for achieving it.

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.

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.

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.

PAGE 58 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 11 NO. 1 2007

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

vertically and horizontically.

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.

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

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

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

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.

Downloaded by UFSC At 11:03 22 August 2014 (PT)

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.

Weigh up intrinsic versus extrinsic rewards.

Introduce an incentive system that ensures that all people contribute to what and to
whom it matters.

Communicate reasonable and accountable practices that motivate people to

maximise purposeful sharing.

Use rewards and recognition to encourage people to spend time, invest in their
expertise and assume responsibility for using the system.

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

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

knowledge domain and convey whats in it for me.

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

Consider building a job certification program that includes transfer practices or

incorporate transfer use into an existing certification program.

Ensure that any reward and recognition system promotes individual and
organisational knowledge sharing rather than individual knowing (which is still too
common).

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.

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?).

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

Communicate knowledge policies clearly to all people, especially new ones, as part
of the firms training and development, and induction program.

VOL. 11 NO. 1 2007 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 59

Ensure individual and collective understanding of the purpose, value and benefits of
knowledge sharing.

Implement any cultural changes to support sharing practices slowly and

communicate them clearly.

People who resent necessary changes need to adapt or leave.

Downloaded by UFSC At 11:03 22 August 2014 (PT)

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.

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

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.

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.

Offer internal and external management training and development programs, and
ensure succession planning.

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.

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.

Implement processes that support the existing culture and work styles.

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.

Get senior management to assess financial commitment against sharing benefits.

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?

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

appropriate.

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

syndromes.

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

could impede on sharing practices.

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.

PAGE 60 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 11 NO. 1 2007

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

Eliminate information is power attitudes.

Introduce a reward/recognition scheme to maximise sharing practices.

Encourage or apply collective decision making processes, wherever and whenever

appropriate.

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

could impede on sharing practices.

Downloaded by UFSC At 11:03 22 August 2014 (PT)

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.

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

Encourage direct contact between knowledge sources and recipients to minimise

distortion of knowledge or information.

Provide methods, systems and tools that encourage and facilitate direct and indirect
communication flows.

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.

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.

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.

Monitor changes in the external environment closely and make necessary

adjustments or changes to the structure instantly.

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.

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

The transfer of knowledge is deeply rooted in personal and

organizational value systems, norms and practices.

VOL. 11 NO. 1 2007 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 61

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

them.

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

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:

Downloaded by UFSC At 11:03 22 August 2014 (PT)

1. What if your integrated IT systems and tools . . . fail to support peoples work processes
and actual communication flows?
B

Integrate IT systems 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).

Conduct a needs audit of the existing infrastructure to assess which tools can be built
upon and which new ones need to be implemented.

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

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

Hold initial training and familiarisation sessions for newly introduced tools and
highlight any potential usability/ technology issues (depending on varying skills
levels and needs).

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.

Define technological challenges and opportunities to match them as closely as

possible with existing resources.

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

those who do.

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.

Integrate new technology into current hardware and software programs, wherever
promising and economically viable.

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?

Gauge if the main reason is related to a lack of familiarity and experience with
systems and tools.

Tailor systems and tools to peoples needs without sacrificing compatibility of

programs.

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

PAGE 62 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 11 NO. 1 2007

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

complexity of new applications.

Provide support through appropriate communication channels.

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

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

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

Hold group working sessions to optimise the familiarity and use of systems and tools
and tackle joint problems.

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.

Clearly communicate and demonstrate advantages of new technology over existing

ones.

Downloaded by UFSC At 11:03 22 August 2014 (PT)

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.

Provide internal or external support services that are integrated into the system or
provided by people upon demand.

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

Highlight system improvements and new introductions.

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 no means complete, list of actions

VOL. 11 NO. 1 2007 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 63

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.

Downloaded by UFSC At 11:03 22 August 2014 (PT)

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).

PAGE 64 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 11 NO. 1 2007

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.

Downloaded by UFSC At 11:03 22 August 2014 (PT)

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.

VOL. 11 NO. 1 2007 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 65

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.

Downloaded by UFSC At 11:03 22 August 2014 (PT)

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.

PAGE 66 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 11 NO. 1 2007

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.

Downloaded by UFSC At 11:03 22 August 2014 (PT)

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 of
Bachelor of International Business and Master of International Business at Griffith University
in Brisbane, Australia. He holds a Bachelor and Masters of Business Administration from the
Friedrich-Alexander-University of Erlangen-Nurnberg, and received his PhD in international
marketing strategy from the Queensland University of Technology, Australia in 1997. He has
worked for more than ten years in diverse advertising, retail marketing, and market research
positions in Germany and Australia. As an active consultant he has developed and
presented specialised seminars and consulting projects to numerous private businesses
and public organisations. He has published his work in over 20 research articles. His current
research agenda concentrates on knowledge transfer barriers in MNCs and public services,
branding strategies, and direct marketing strategies. Andreas (Andi) Riege can be
contacted at: a.riege@griffith.edu.au
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

VOL. 11 NO. 1 2007 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 67

Downloaded by UFSC At 11:03 22 August 2014 (PT)

This article has been cited by:

1. Lupton Nathaniel Dr., Beamish Paul Dr., Chase RoryL Mr.. 2014. Organizational structure and knowledge-practice diffusion
in the MNC. Journal of Knowledge Management 18:4. . [Abstract] [PDF]
2. SARAH MAHDJOUR, SEBASTIAN FISCHER. 2014. INTERNATIONAL CORPORATE ENTREPRENEURSHIP
WITH BORN GLOBAL SPIN-ALONG VENTURES A CROSS-CASE ANALYSIS OF TELEKOM INNOVATION
LABORATORIES' 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 knowledge
generation, storage, distribution and application that impede learning in gas and petroleum companies. Journal of Knowledge
Management 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 of
Knowledge Management 17:5, 709-723. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
7. Karim Moustaghfir, Giovanni Schiuma, Matteo Mura, Emanuele Lettieri, Giovanni Radaelli, Nicola Spiller. 2013. Promoting
professionals' innovative behaviour through knowledge sharing: the moderating role of social capital. Journal of Knowledge
Management 17:4, 527-544. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
8. Francisco Lara, Daniel Palacios-Marques, Carlos Alberto Devece. 2012. How to improve organisational results through
knowledge 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 Planning
Case 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 of
Knowledge 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. International
Journal 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 shipping
industry. Maritime Policy & Management 38, 347-367. [CrossRef]
13. Sharmila Jayasingam, Mahfooz A. Ansari, Muhamad Jantan. 2010. Influencing knowledge workers: the power of top
management. 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 on
knowledge 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 Knowledge
Management 13:4, 52-63. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
16. M. du Plessis. 2008. What bars organisations from managing knowledge successfully?. International Journal of Information
Management 28, 285-292. [CrossRef]
17. Nick Bontis, Christopher K. Bart, Alexander Serenko, Nick Bontis, Timothy Hardie. 2007. Organizational size and knowledge
flow: 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]