知识转移的基本理论

第二组期末论文
第一部分
知识转移的基本理论
赵春宏
引言
随着知识经济的到来，知识成为最重要的生产要素。

知识转移作为知识管理的一部分，已成为企业取得竞争优势的基础,而知识转移的效果与效率直接影响一个组织的生存与发展。

因此,研究知识如何在不同的个体、团队和组织之间流动转移,成为当前知识管理研究领域的一个热点。

本文试从知识转移的概念、分类、过程和影响因素这四个方面,总结一些学者关于知识转移研究的主要观点,重点梳理一些学者在知识转移领域所取得的研究成果。

一、知识转移的概念
1977年Teece[1]提出了知识转移的思想, 认为企业通过技术的国际转移, 能积累起大量跨国界应用的知识。

在此后的研究中，知识转移逐渐成为了知识管理的一个热点，有许多学者都对知识转移做出了解释，并常常与知识共享、知识扩散等概念相关联。

Jensen和Meckling[2]解释知识转移时认为, 知识转移包括存储知识、处理知识的能力和知识输入、输出大脑的途径。

Szulanski[3]认为知识转移是指知识跨组织或个体边界的有目的、有计划的知识共享；这里，Szulanski 把知识转移视为一种特殊的知识共享机制。

Davenport和Prusak[4]认为知识转移包括知识传递(扩散)和知识吸收(应用)两个过程；其中，接收知识意味着对信息的充分理解并能够据此采取行动。

如果知识没有被吸收, 那么这一知识就不能说已经转移了; 提供知识并不代表转移知识。

Holtham[5]指出知识转移是一种沟通的过程, 知识不像商品可以自由传递, 学习知识的时候, 即知识转移时, 必须有重建的行为, 而且要具备应有知识, 才能完成转移。

由此, 可以看出, 知识转移涉及到知识发送方和知识接收方两个主体, 客体是知识, 客观条件是传输的途径, 目标是能够利用知识来指导行为。

从以上学者对知识转移(Knowledge Transfer)的理解,我们有必要对知识共享(Sharing)、知识转移(Transfer)、知识扩散(Dissemination)这三个概念做一区分：Davenport认为，知识转移=知识扩散+知识吸收；知识扩散只涉及到知识提供者发送知识，而未包括接收者对知识的吸收和应用。

另外，知识转移比较强调由组织主导、较正式、有明确知识目标，以及提供者与接受者有明确的流动方向类型的知识流动；而知识共享比较强调非正式、水平式、自由式和个人平等的
学习。

二、知识转移的分类
从所转移知识的类型，将知识划分为显性知识和隐性知识，知识转移可分为隐性转移和显性转移。

根据知识存在的层次,可以分为个体、团队和组织三个层次,知识转移就发生在个体与团队之间、个体与组织之间、团队与组织之间、组织与组织之间以及个体之间、团体之间、组织之间。

Nancy M. Dixon[6]对团队与团队之间的共有知识的转移做了分类。

Nancy M. Dixon首先对共有知识做了定义：即员工从完成公司的任务中学到的知识，共有知识是know-how的知识，而不是从学校学到“know what”知识，然后利用谁是预期的知识接受者、任务的性质、被转移知识的类型等标准提出了知识转移的五种类型：连续转移(Serial Transfer)、近转移(Near Transfer)、远转移(Far Transfer)、战略转移(Strategic Transfer)、专家转移(Expert Transfer)。

这五种类型的区分如表 1：
三、知识转移的过程
基于对知识转移过程的现实观察，许多学者提出了有关知识转移的模型，其中Hansen认为知识转移包括搜索和转移两阶段，较为著名的是Szulanski[7]在1996年提出的四阶段模型。

模型如图1，首先是初始阶段,主要是识别有价值的知识,并决定是否转移该知识;其次是实施阶段,双方建立起适合知识转移的渠道,提供方向接受方传递知识; 再次是调整阶段,主要是接受方对于被转移的知识进行调整,并能够在新的情境中应用。

最后是整合阶段,接受方通过制度化将获得的新知识融合成为自身的规范或习惯。

在Szulanski研究的基础上，对Szulanski的模型进行了重新修改，Kwan and Cheung[8]在2006年提出了新的四阶段模型。

如图2所示模型间的转换对应关系、新的四阶段模型。

其中，将Szulanski的模型的开始阶段分为动机和匹配阶段；实施和调整阶段合并为实施阶段，因为这两个阶段的决定因素很大程度上是相似的；最后的阶段定义为保持阶段，是为了解释知识贬值( Argote，1999 )的现象并且反映通过知识转移来反映企业达到可持续绩效的重要性；另外，Kwan and Cheung认为动机与匹配是一个反复的过程(模型中用双箭头表示)，这样更好地描述了实践中的知识转移过程。

四、知识转移的影响因素
Szulanski从内部知识粘性入手细分了从提供方到接受方进行转移的四个阶
段，同时又鉴别了影响知识转移的四类因素:知识特性、知识发送方、知识接收方和转移环境。

知识特性：知识的模糊性程度会影响知识转移的方式和效果。

显性知识相对来说转移效率高；隐性知识更多的只能通过个人之间的面对面的沟通交流来实现，很难有效的提高转移效率。

知识发送方：知识转移的发生，首先要有一个愿意共享的知识源的存在。

知识发送发是否有动机与他人共享知识，是自发的愿意共享还是来自外力的驱动。

例如，跨国公司中分部与分部之间的知识转移包括分部与分部之间自发的知识转移，还有在总部调动下分部之间的知识转移。

知识接收方：从知识发送方获取知识的愿望和学习能力是影响知识转移效果的重要因素。

转移环境：包括企业的组织结构、企业文化和制度安排等方面。

有些组织结构形态支持某些知识的传播而另一些则妨碍知识的转移。

另外，知识转移中两主体的关系、两主体特征的相似度、知识的相容性等也会影响知识转移的效果。

五、结论和评述
知识经济凸显了知识的重要作用,而现代科技所表现出的高度分化和高度综合的特点,决定了任何单一组织都难以同时具备创新所需要的知识和能力。

同时,全球性市场竞争的高度不确定性,高技术研发的高投入和高风险特点,技术寿命周期的不断缩短,也促使企业寻找各种途径,与其他组织进行合作,获取知识,协同创新。

因而知识转移研究是当今知识管理领域的研究热点。

[1] Teece ,D. Technology transfer by multinational firms : the resource cost of transferring
technological know - how[J ] . The Economic Journal ,1977 ,(87) :242 - 261.
[2] Jensen MC, Meckling W H. Specific and general knowledge, and organizational structure[A]. In Paul S. Myers(Ed.), Knowledeg management and organizational design [C].Newton, MA: Butterworth- Heinemann,1996: 17- 37.
[3] Szulanski , G. Exploring internal stickiness : Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm[J ] . Strategic Management Journal (special issue) ,1996 , (17) :27 - 44.
[4] Thomas H Davenport. Working knowledge: how organizations manage what they know [M].
Harvard Business School Press ,1998.
[5] Holtham Clive, Courtney Nigel. Developing managerial learning styles in the context of the strategic application of information and communications technologies[J]. International Journal of Training & Development, 2001, 5(1):22- 34.
[6] Dixon N M. Common knowledge: how companies thrive by sharing what they know [M]. Harvard Business School Press,2000.
[7]Szulanski, G., Exploring Internal Stickiness: Impediments to the Transfer of Best Practice Within the Firm. Strategic Management Journal, 1996. 17: p. 27-43
[8] Kwan, M. M. and P.-K. Cheung (2006). "The Knowledge Transfer Process: From Field Studies to Technology Development." Journal of Database Management 17(1): 16-32.
第二部分
Knowledge Transfer in Multi-National Corporations
Weiting Chen 陈炜婷
Management Science 06 10628095
1. Introduction
Under the international dynamic competitive background, knowledge is considered the most valuable strategic resource which generates continuous competitive advantages. For enterprises, the development and maintenance of its competitive advantages depend on its capability to manage its knowledge, i.e. capability to create, transfer, use and protect its knowledge capital. Most researchers believe that the reason why Multi-national Corporations (MNCs) exist and develop is that MNCs themselves are effective mechanisms of creating and transferring knowledge among nations. Therefore, the knowledge management and knowledge transfer among MNCs have become subjects of ample international research recently [1].
2.Knowledge transfer and knowledge management
There are various kinds of knowledge transfer definition. To sum up, they can be divided into three categories.
The first category emphasizes the transfer of the knowledge content. For example, researchers abroad apply the simple transfer method to give the definition of the organizational knowledge transfer between the knowledge sources and recipients [2]. According to Garavelli etc.[3], codification and interpretation are the main cognitive processes involved in knowledge transfer, while codification and interpretation represent upstream and downstream of knowledge transfer respectively. Knowledge objects, constructed through codification, are explained to users by cognitive systems.
The second one highlights the profits of sources and recipients of knowledge transfer. Knowledge transfer in organizations is the process through which one unit (e.g., group, department, or division) is affected by the experience of another [4]. Darr and Kurtzberg [5], go further by arguing that knowledge transfer has occurred when a contributor shares knowledge that is used by adopter, which differs from others that equate knowledge transfer simply with sharing.
Xiaoying Dong [6] also points out that only when new changes occur in the transfer process can the organizational capability of recipients be enhanced actually.
The third one combines the above two points, which stresses not only the transfer process but also the application and profits. Knowledge transfer is not simply the transfer channels but indeed the innovation process through acquisition and assimilation. According to Dong-Gil Ko, Laurie J. Kirsch etc. [7], knowledge transfer is defined as the communication of knowledge from a source so that it is learned and applied by a recipient.
In comparison, the third category is more comprehensive. Knowledge transfer is accompanied by both the value transfer and the corresponding profits.
Knowledge management is a wider concept, which means a systematic method to create, store, transfer and use knowledge. Knowledge transfer and knowledge management is interconnected. In the knowledge competition, the contradiction between the infinite knowledge and limited knowledge storage of units highlights the importance of knowledge transfer in the overall knowledge management system. As literature and empirical evidence suggests, knowledge transfer is considered a key process in knowledge management especially at international level.
3．Micro-perspective: Knowledge flows in MNCs
Knowledge flows are the vectors of knowledge transfer. From the micro-perspective, it is investigated through two ways: knowledge flow networks and knowledge flow channels [1].
3.1 Knowledge flow networks
The headquarters and subsidiaries of MNCs are interconnected as network systems, with each being a node. There are several types of knowledge flow in terms of geographic characteristics: first, flows among subsidiaries due to the difference in knowledge stock between each subsidiary. This can happen because of self-organized activities among subsidiaries, or intentional control from headquarters. Second, flows among subsidiaries and headquarters. Knowledge transferred from headquarters to subsidiaries is more synthesized, while the reverse transfer from high-level subsidiaries to headquarters may propel headquarters to develop knowledge creation and integration. Third, flows among units of MNCs (including headquarters and subsidiaries) and host countries, which are affected by units’capability of learning, exploring and exploiting local recourses Fourth, flows among units of MNCs and other countries.
Moreover, it is important to note that the extent of knowledge transfer in terms of output and input within a MNC also depends on the different roles of its affiliated company [8]. The main characteristics of these roles are the following: First, role of global innovator generates high output flow, low input flow. The affiliated company acts as a source of knowledge for other units. Second, role of integrated player generates high output flow and high input flow. Its role is similar to that of the global innovator, but is also implies a responsibility to create knowledge capable of being used by other affiliated companies. It differs in that it is not self-sufficient in the satisfaction of its own knowledge necessities. Third, role of implementer generates low output flow and high input flow. It relies on input flows coming from headquarter or the affiliated companies. For this reason, it creates little knowledge by itself. Fourth, role of local innovator generates low output flow and low input flow. The affiliated company takes total responsibility for the creation of a relevant know-how. Nevertheless, this knowledge is considered to idiosyncratic to have a competitive use out of the country where the affiliated company is located.
From other point of views [1], knowledge transfer is interwoven with competitive flows and
co-operative flows, where integration, substitution and transplant exist together under the guidance of intentional planning and coordination supplemented with unintentional self-organized operation. Moreover, the knowledge flows within MNCs contain multilateral relation among affiliated individuals and organizations.
3.2 Knowledge flow channels
The process of knowledge transfer is realized through channels, which affect the quality and quantity of knowledge transferred [1].
The effect of knowledge transfer should be analyzed comprehensively in terms of aspects such as sphere, depth, speed, cost and profits of knowledge transfer etc. These depend on the following factors [1]:
First, the characteristics of knowledge. Explicit and tacit knowledge have huge difference in aspects of transfer media, method, and cost etc. As tacit knowledge character increases, this knowledge becomes less teachable, less codifying, and then less transferable. This knowledge transference is complex and difficult for several reasons, among which the following stand out [8]: complex nature; acquisition by means of experience, test and error method; teaching and learning, if possible, is developed by demonstration, observation, imitation and feedback—these activities need close personal contact for a long period of time; organizational learning generates tacit knowledge that is collective and even more difficult to transfer; and although expatriate staff can serve as a substitute for tacit knowledge transference, it becomes a costly process, because this knowledge might be collective and needs the transference of a large amount of individuals from the headquarter, which might not be practical or even possible.
Second, sources and recipients in knowledge transfer. The effectiveness of knowledge transfer depends to some extent on the strength of the tie between the source and recipient, which is reflected in the ease of communication and in the “intimacy” of their overall relationship [9]. An arduous relationship might increase the effort needed to resolve transfer-related problems. The eventfulness of the knowledge transfer is also likely to depend on the dispositions and abilities of the source and recipient. The motivation of the source may be affected by an incentive to compete or collaborate with the recipient and by the effort required to support the transfer. Furthermore, the source may not be perceived as reliable. A capable and trustworthy source is more likely to influence the behavior of the recipient. Likewise, the recipient may be more or less motivated to seek or accept knowledge from the outside. Lack of motivation may result in procrastination, passivity, feigned acceptance, sabotage, or outright rejection in the implementation and use of new knowledge. Recipients may also vary in their absorptive capacity—their ability to exploit outside sources of knowledge. Furthermore, to reap the rewards of a transfer, recipients must be able to discard old practices and sustain new ones. Evidence from studies of innovation, planned organizational change, and organizational learning suggests that the challenge of abandoning old ways of doing things and of preserving new ones can be significant [9].
Finally, the organizational context where the transfer is embedded may affect the eventfulness of the transfer. Ultimately, the organizational context affects the willingness and ability of organizational subunits to complete transfer related tasks. Its influence occurs through norm and value setting, through fiat or incentives, and through counsel and support. An organizational context that facilitates the inception and development of transfers is frequently referred to as fertile. In contrast, a context that hinders the gestation and evolution of transfers is said to be barren. In a barren organizational context,
transfer related problems are more difficult to resolve [9].
3．Macro-perspective: Environment of MNCs
The very existence of a MNC lies in its ability to internalize externalities by putting together local and international resources and activities at a more efficient rate than markets do. Therefore, the characteristics of host countries (including natural resources, labor resources, geographic environment, technologic level, political and economic policies, market size, infrastructure, policies of import, export and tax, etc) have great impact on knowledge transfer in MNCs.
Followed are the main factors that have been widely discussed in research [1].
First, social capital is considered the lubricant during the knowledge transfer, which provides development platform for knowledge communication network. Knowledge exists in social relations among cooperating units of a community without fixed boundaries. The close social ties build confidence and trust among units, propelling them to construct knowledge alliances.
Second, industry cluster is defined as the geographic cluster gathered by the interconnection network of different sizes of co-operative enterprises and organizations. Most MNCs which have intensified R&D are based on industry cluster.
Third, cross-culture management is very important. Cultural differences may create bottlenecks that either impede or eliminate the potential for successful knowledge transfer. Lack of culture integration or even contradiction of cultures will make the subsidiaries deviate from their headquarters, which gives great discount on the effectiveness of internal knowledge transfer. Using Hofstede’s cultural distance of power distance, individualism/collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, and masculinity/femininity, it is argued that the location of subsidiaries along each of these cultural dimensions will significantly impact the possibility of knowledge transfer between subsidiaries [10].
Individualism/collectivism (IC) is the degree to which self-interest. It reflects the concerns of individuals with their own well-being versus the well-being of others.
Power distance (PD) is based on people’s perception of inequality. It reflects the non-symmetrical nature of relationships that may exist between subsidiaries.
Uncertainty avoidance (UA) is the reluctance to deal with ambiguity and is directly related to the willingness to embrace change.
Masculinity/femininity (MF) is the willingness to promote societal values. In masculine cultures, there is a preference for assertiveness. Priority is given to results and rewards which are based on ambition and competitiveness. In feminine cultures, assertiveness is downplayed and differences are resolved through compromise and negotiation.
What should be taken into account is that countries and their cultures evolve over time [10]. Anecdotal evidence suggests that many MNCs are locating their subsidiaries in areas where there are a significant number of individuals with prior exposure to other cultures. Therefore, changes in the society’s culture will affect how knowledge transfer goals are achieved.
4．Intra-MNC knowledge transfer
Based on the previous analysis, the knowledge transfer within MNCs’subsidiaries can be investigated through the following model, which includes factors of operational structure, integrative mechanisms and subsidiary control mechanisms [11]. According to the empirical research [11], these factors are significant under the significant level of 0.05.
4.1 Operational structure
Subsidiaries operate within an operational structure of relationships and links to other units. This operational structure is constituted by the actual physical and transactional flow between subunits that is not always represented by the formal structure of the organization. Flows of products, parts and components between parts of the organization have frequently been used and argued for as the most important indicator of multinational integration, usually because other resources are either considered embodied in products or a corollary thereof. Physical and transactional flows will by their nature require coordination and communication across subsidiaries. Therefore, there is a positive relation between product flows from the subsidiary to other MNC subsidiaries, and the extent to which knowledge is transferred from the subsidiary to other MNC subsidiaries.
4.2 Integrative mechanisms
Organizations can significantly affect the probability for successful transfers by selecting and adopting appropriate mechanisms. Three forms of mechanisms---liaison roles, temporary teams, and permanent teams---demonstrate a positive relation between lateral integrative mechanisms and inter-subsidiary knowledge transfer.
Liaison mechanisms are the least costly and most simple of the three, and arguable the one with the lowest amount of interaction among the involved parties due to its specialized function and narrow bandwidth of communication. Temporary team structures, sometimes referred to as task forces, are naturally occurring teams brought together for specific projects during a limited period of time—come second in terms of cost, providing greater means for multidisciplinary interaction between the participants and are thus a more dynamic form of communication, and are considered to be of medium complexity. Finally, permanent team structures are the most costly and complex. These are teams that are officially recognized and built into the organizational structure, having formal responsibility and accountability for their assigned tasks.
It has been tested [11] that the subsidiary usage of liaison mechanisms, temporary team structures, permanent team structures all have positive effect on the extent to which knowledge is transferred from the subsidiary to other MNC subsidiaries, and that temporary team structures have a greater positive influence than permanent team structures.
4.3 Subsidiary control mechanisms
Each headquarter-subsidiary relationship presents a unique control problem, and the control systems in this relationship must be adapted to the particular circumstances of the subsidiary. Because knowledge transfer is likely to involve substantial costs and best people, and knowledge can be an important source of power inside the organization, the knowledge transfer can be reluctant and even rejected. By adapting control mechanisms headquarters can attempt to alter the motivational disposition of subsidiaries towards knowledge transfer. Research have pointed out the importance of both formal control mechanisms in the headquarter-subsidiary relationship, as well as ‘‘soft’’ control mechanisms such as socialization and shared values
It has been tested [11] that headquarters’use of incentives for subsidiary outbound knowledge transfer, and subsidiary socialization both have positive effect on the extent to which knowledge is transferred from the subsidiary to other MNC subsidiaries.
5．Reverse knowledge transfer
Within MNCs, the traditional role of headquarters as prime source of knowledge and competencies is changing. Increasingly, headquarters act as a receiver of knowledge from their internationally dispersed subsidiaries. Drawing on an empirical sample of 294 MNC knowledge transfers [12], key variables are identified in terms of impacting an headquarters’ ability to benefit from reverse knowledge transfer. Taken collectively, the efficiency of the MNC as a knowledge integration institution is being driven by changes in both, the subsidiary’s context and its capabilities to process knowledge. Specifically, five factors, which are source countries’competitive strength, subsidiary role (integrated players, global innovators, implementers and local innovators), context similarities (organizational and culture distance), absorptive capacity, industry and knowledge type (as control variables), are included to analyze the benefits from subsidiary knowledge.
It has been tested [12] that h eadquarters’ benefits from reverse knowledge transfer are positively related to their absorptive capacity and the competitive strength of the host country, and that such benefits also depend on the strategic role of the source unit (subsidiary). The findings are well in line with the view of social capital, as units which are deeply integrated in the MNC network contribute significantly more to headquarters’ benefits. The lack of integration in the MNC network could explain why global innovators do not contribute significantly to headquarters’ pared to local innovators and implementers, the benefits of reverse knowledge transfers are expected to be highest for integrated players and global innovators. There is, however, no significant effect of organizational and cultural distance on headquarters’ benefits of reverse knowledge transfer. It is important to note that the MNCs industry does not seem to have an impact on the benefits of knowledge transfer. Thus, the drivers determining the benefits headquarters perceive from reverse knowledge transfers appear to be independent of the type of industry involved.
In conclusion, building the competitive advantage on knowledge as a primary resource is a delicate issue. Focusing on headquarters’ benefits from reverse transfers is an important step to deepen the understanding. The analysis above has important implications for practitioners and further scholarly research alike. For managers who have to shape the global knowledge management processes of their firms, it might be worth noting that more knowledge inflow does not necessarily lead to more benefits. Incoming knowledge is filtered according to certain criteria. Thus, a contingency approach, which treats different sources of knowledge differently, might be warranted. In this respect, managers may find it most convenient to focus on strategic lead units, as it is their knowledge that is rated as most beneficial. Headquarters managers should ensure that this type of knowledge inflow receives the organizational attention necessary to extract all valuable information. In addition, the empirical results confirm the importance of headquarters’ own (prior) knowledge in the field. In other words, while local knowledge might be potentially beneficial, firms trying to fully rely on subsidiary knowledge are bound to fail as a result of their inability to utilize this knowledge properly. Without a capability to absorb offshore knowledge, strategies attempting to acquire knowledge ‘on the market’ are also likely to fail.
6．Cases about knowledge transfer
Following are some famous MNCs’application in knowledge transfer, based on Sveiby’s survey [13].
6．References
1. 张伟and 王宏伟, 跨国公司知识转移研究, in Science Technology and Industry. 2006.
2. Szulanski, G., Exploring Internal Stickiness: Impediments to the Transfer of Best Practice
Within the Firm. Strategic Management Journal, 1996. 17: p. 27-43.
3. Garavelli, A.C., M. Gorgoglione, and B. Scozzi, Managing knowledge transfer by knowledge
technologies. Technovation, 2002. 22(5): p. 269-279.
4. Argote, L. and P. Ingram, Knowledge Transfer: A Basis for Competitive Advantage in Firms.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2000. 82(1): p. 150-169.
5. Darr, E.D. and T.R. Kurtzberg, An Investigation of Partner Similarity Dimensions on
Knowledge Transfer. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2000. 82(1): p.
28-44.
6. 董小英, 企业信息化过程中的知识转移:联想集团案例分析. 2002.
7. Dong-Gil, K., J.K. Laurie, and R.K. William, ANTECEDENTS OF KNOWLEDGE
TRANSFER FROM CONSULTANTS TO CLIENTS IN ENTERPRISE SYSTEM IMPLEMENTATIONS1. MIS Quarterly, 2005. 29(1): p. 59.
8. Patricia Ordonez de, P., Knowledge flow transfers in multinational corporations: knowledge
properties and implications for management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 2004. 8(6): p. 105.
9. Gabriel, S., The Process of Knowledge Transfer: A Diachronic Analysis of Stickiness.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2000. 82(1): p. 18.
10. Leyland, M.L., The role of culture on knowledge transfer: the case of the multinational
corporation. The Learning Organization, 2006. 13(2/3): p. 257.
11. Persson, M., The impact of operational structure, lateral integrative mechanisms and control
mechanisms on intra-MNE knowledge transfer. International Business Review, 2006. 15(5): p.
547-569.
12. Ambos, T.C., B. Ambos, and B.B. Schlegelmilch, Learning from foreign subsidiaries: An
empirical investigation of headquarters' benefits from reverse knowledge transfers.
International Business Review, 2006. 15(3): p. 294-312.。