Assign 8

Knowledge transfer to partners: a firm level perspective

Thomas Hutzschenreuter and Julian Horstkotte

Abstract

Purpose – Firms at the center of an organizational network may benefit from educating and building up competencies of their partners. For that reason, centers often seek to transfer knowledge from the center to partner firms. They even set up systems of inter-organizational knowledge transfer to plan, to

coordinate, and to control such transfers on a firm level instead of managing single knowledge transfer projects individually. However, little systematic attention has yet been paid to such systems on a firm

level. This paper seeks to analyze the managerial mechanism to decide what knowledge to transfer to what partners.

Design/methodology/approach – To address this gap, data were gathered on nine leading multinational center firms. An explorative approach was adopted using case study research to look at the

characteristics of network centers, network partners, knowledge, transfer channels, and programmes.

Findings – It was found that center firms offered knowledge transfer products to partners and set up portfolios of knowledge transfer programmes targeted at specific partner groups. There is further elaboration on fundamental decisions on the programmes’ design, communication, access, and

pricing.

Originality/value – The research contributes to shed light on how center firms manage knowledge transfer activities from the center to partners on the firm level and how they structure it in the form of programmes. Therefore, the paper does not focus on the management of knowledge transfer in

particular partnerships or networks, but also considers interdependencies between individual knowledge transfer initiatives.

Keywords Knowledge management, Knowledge transfer, Multinational companies, Partnerhip

Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction

Building and strengthening relationships to partner firms strongly influences a firm’s

performance (Dyer and Singh, 1998). Particularly firms with a central position in an

organizational network may profit (Spencer, 2003). They can reinforce their position and

achieve their business objectives by creating value for partners and thus attract and

strengthen partners to compete with firms in rival networks. As knowledge can be

considered the dominant resource to create competitive advantage (Grant and

Baden-Fuller, 1995), network centers create value by actively transferring knowledge from

the center firm to partner firms. As a result, they attract new partners and enable them to

collaborate as well as strengthen existing partners by developing their skills and

competencies (Lorenzoni and Baden-Fuller, 1995).

However, partners are heterogeneous. Partnerships may cover vertical and horizontal

collaborations along the entire value chain. Their importance for achieving center firms’

business objectives and their demand concerning knowledge provided by centers may vary

widely. Characteristics of partners differ, as can their motivations and the roles they play

within a network (Inkpen, 1998). However, as knowledge is of little value if not supplied to the

PAGE 428 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 14 NO. 3 2010, pp. 428-448, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1367-3270 DOI 10.1108/13673271011050148

Thomas Hutzschenreuter is

Professor of Corporate

Strategy and Julian

Horstkotte is a PhD

Candidate, both at WHU –

Otto Beisheim School of

Management, Vallendar,

Germany.

Received 3 November 2009 Accepted 26 January 2010

right partners (Teece, 2000), a fit between knowledge, transfer channel, and partner characteristics is required. With many diverse partners, this is very complex. Thus,

managers of network centers need to establish a mechanism that supplies the right knowledge to the right partner via the right channel. However, knowledge transfer is not free

of costs. Thus it should be carefully planned and controlled considering both its benefits and its costs.

Managing and integrating inter-organizational knowledge transfer on a firm level has advantages compared to managing knowledge transfer projects independently from each

other. Knowledge can be transferred at lower costs or higher quality compared to transfer in independent projects. Advantages result from systematically managing knowledge transfer

in the relationship to partners across functional or organizational barriers of a center. Network centers use facilities, e.g. classrooms, specifically designed to carry out

inter-organizational knowledge transfer that are shared across knowledge transfer projects. Common technologies are used across transfer projects, e.g. online learning

platforms. Furthermore, skills in integrating knowledge into transferrable products, e.g.

lectures, can be leveraged. Experience gained in one knowledge transfer project may be used in subsequent transfers. For these reasons a network center needs to design and

implement a system of inter-organizational knowledge transfer that integrates, coordinates, and structures knowledge transfer initiatives on a firm level.

Prior empirical research on inter-organizational knowledge transfer has mainly investigated

two-way knowledge exchanges between firms or the way how one focal firm may learn from

its partners (Van Wijk et al., 2008). For example, Mowery et al. showed how the participation in an alliance affects capabilities of focal firms (Mowery et al., 1996). Yet, only few empirical

studies have focused on focal firms that deliberately transfer knowledge to partner firms. For example, Dyer and Hatch demonstrated that firms can achieve competitive advantage as a

result of knowledge transfer to their suppliers (Dyer and Hatch, 2006). While prior studies have focused on management of knowledge transfer in single projects or in particular

alliances or networks, they did not look at the management of interdependencies between knowledge transfer initiatives of a firm. Consequently, little is known about the phenomenon

of network centers setting up knowledge transfer systems. These systems serve to integrate

and coordinate planned knowledge transfer to partners on a firm level and help to structure knowledge transfer in programmes that are targeted towards specific partner groups.

The approach to structure knowledge transfer in programmes can be compared to business

schools. These have set up multiple programmes for different groups of students, among others MBA, PhD, or executive education programmes. Each programme needs to be

planned and controlled and varies in the knowledge content and teaching approach, i.e. the

knowledge transfer products. They further comprise rules that specify admission requirements or whether courses are required or elective, among others. While

participation in programmes of business schools is limited in time, this is not necessarily the case for partner firms enrolled in programmes of centers firms where participation may

be indefinite.

Since systems of knowledge transfer to partners on a firm level and programmes with

predefined rules to configure such knowledge transfer have, to the authors’ knowledge, not been investigated before, the purpose of this paper is to describe and structure the

phenomenon. To do so, the authors investigate inter-organizational knowledge transfer systems of nine case firms by studying center, knowledge, transfer, partner, and programme

characteristics. They explore approaches to the configuration of transfers and to the structure of programmes. Further, they identify context factors that influence decisions on

knowledge transfer systems.

2. Theoretical background

It has been shown that the structure of inter-organizational partnerships influences

knowledge transfer. In a network structure, central firms have a positive impact on knowledge transfer. Network centers are well connected with other network members and

have considerable effect on the overall network (Iyer et al., 2006). Most importantly, centers

VOL. 14 NO. 3 2010 jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTj PAGE 429

enjoy a knowledge advantage, for example in terms of knowledge about network partners and the design and management of the networks themselves. This puts centers in a unique position that allows them to further strengthen the network through the transfer of knowledge from the center to partners, and to eventually benefit from the ability of network partners to compete against firms in other networks. Therefore, center firms that are actively planning and fostering the transfer of knowledge with a predefined offering to all partners, in contrast

to unplanned knowledge transfer that emerges in the course of a partnership, are in the focus of the authors’ research.

Knowledge transfer can be described with numerous characteristics. Based on elements of a knowledge transfer system, the authors structure these along five categories. In this study, the characteristics of the center as the sender, the body of knowledge itself, transfer channels, and partners as receivers are detailed. Moreover, a sender’s managerial

mechanism to configure and coordinate knowledge transfer can also be described by characteristics. They constitute an additional category of characteristics and are a particular focus of this research (see Figure 1).

Center characteristics

When considering network center characteristics, managers should keep uppermost in their minds the business objectives of the center itself. Firms have many different objectives with varying time horizons when entering and participating in networks (Koza and Lewin, 1998). One elemental objective is to align firm business strategy with network strategy (Koza and

Lewin, 2000). Likewise, knowledge transfer strategy must also be aligned with network strategy. Thus, centers are characterised by their business and network objectives and their efforts to plan and control transfer from the center to network partners. The part that knowledge transfer can play in achieving these objectives differs according to the knowledge intensity of the industry that the center is active in. Apart from these characteristics, number and diversity of partners that the center transfers knowledge to, i.e.

receivers, is an important characteristic as it influences which learning technologies the center should use (Bates, 2005) or how to best communicate with partners. Though declining in importance in today’s wired world, the geographic distance between the center and partners still has an impact, notably in that it limits teachability of knowledge and increases the time needed for the transfer (Zander and Kogut, 1995).

Knowledge characteristics

Knowledge is tacit or explicit. The degree of tacitness, and how quickly the body of knowledge is changing, determine which modes of collaboration are most suitable,

knowledge transfer effectiveness (Khamseh and Jolly, 2008) as well as the speed at which knowledge transfer can be carried out (Chen, 2004a). For example, it may be well worthwhile spending time and effort on developing a sophisticated e-learning module if the

Figure 1 Characteristics of knowledge transfer in large networks

Knowledge characteristics

Transfer characteristics

Programme characteristics

Managerial mechanism

of sender

Knowledge transfer system

Centre characteristics

Sender

Partner characteristics

Receiver

Characteristics influencing knowledge transfer to partner firms

Knowledge

Channel

PAGE 430jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTj VOL. 14 NO. 3 2010

knowledge is stable over time. As highly personal tacit knowledge is hard to formalize, it is best transferred via long term visits, personnel transfers, or personal communications (Inkpen and Dinur, 1998). This poses specific challenges to transfers in an inter-organizational context. Moreover, the content that is to be transferred, i.e. whether knowledge differs in that it relates to products, markets, or processes, influences decisions on knowledge transfer.

Transfer characteristics

With regard to knowledge transfer from the center to its partners, managers must also consider the design of the channels over which knowledge is to be provided. When is knowledge best provided over a computer network and when is it preferable to transfer it in a traditional way, i.e. not via a computer network (Changchit, 2003)? Particularly, transfer channels vary in the possibility to interact with participants during knowledge transfer. Further, the ease to individualize knowledge transfer, i.e. customization of knowledge transfer to partners, and to track the learning progress differs across channels. However, when centers simultaneously provide multiple transfer channels, managers need to decide on the degree of integration between these channels.

Partner characteristics

While primarily trying to meet the objectives of their own firms, center managers also attempt to address the needs of network partner firms (Chen et al., 2006). The resources center managers devote for doing so may depend on the relative size and strength of partner firms and the scope of value chain activities involved in the collaboration with the center. Managerial decisions are also strongly influenced by the duration and stage of development of a partnership. Research has shown that more knowledge is transferred in partnerships where the partner is perceived to be trustworthy (Dirks and Ferrin, 2001). Firms are more willing to transfer valuable and sensitive knowledge to partners they trust (Andrews and Delahaye, 2000). Particularly, the transfer of tacit knowledge requires a high trust context (Inkpen and Dinur, 1998; Becerra et al. 2008). Managers also consider the level of a partner’s related expertise, degree of motivation, and flexibility. For instance, scheduling transfer times and meeting deadlines is important to the partner (Markus, 2001). In addition to characteristics of the partner firms, center managers look at the particular job functions of individuals or positions they hold within a partner firm.

Programme characteristics

Based on its situation, the center firm needs to decide what knowledge should be transferred over what channels to what partners. To do so, a managerial mechanism needs to be in place to configure inter-organizational knowledge transfer. Prior research has shown that the configuration of these characteristics should fit the context in which knowledge is transferred (Hutzschenreuter and Listner, 2007). For centers with a number of different network partners, those contexts can be highly diverse. In order to achieve the crucial fit between configuration and context, the center might carry out individual transfer projects designed specifically for each partner contingent on their particular characteristics and needs. Since the knowledge transfer is designed specifically to fulfil the exact requirements of each partner, thus to contribute to the partner’s business processes, the benefits are usually greater (Chen, 2004b).

In contrast, the center might choose to standardise knowledge transfer to a certain degree, i.e. to configure certain knowledge transfer characteristics in advance. A knowledge transfer product is an offering to transfer certain knowledge over a predefined channel. In the case of standardised knowledge transfer products, such as new product information that is taught in classroom training, text books, course material, or cases, particular knowledge and transfer characteristics are fixed without knowing the exact transfer context. Standardised delivery can be carried out at lower cost as the center can make savings both in planning and in knowledge transfer efficiency (Levin and Cross, 2004). The downside is that standardised knowledge transfer neglects differences in the context, e.g. in the situation of partners and in the value they create for the center. The challenge for center managers in large networks is to strike a balance between potential savings on the side of standardisation against the value

VOL. 14 NO. 3 2010 jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTj PAGE 431

knowledge transfer can create for the center, value that could be augmented by

individualized training.

Managing the configuration of knowledge transfer can be done in the form of a programme.

A knowledge transfer programme predetermines a set of rules according to which

knowledge transfer is configured for all partners enrolled in that programme. Based on

specific characteristics, like partner size, these rules may specify how knowledge transfer is

configured, in an entirely individualized or partly standardised way. If these rules are known

to partners, they also know what knowledge transfer they will receive before joining the

programme. Programme rules also may define dependencies between knowledge transfer

characteristics. For example, whether particular knowledge content is offered to partners

may be dependent on certain partner characteristics, like the present duration of the

partnership.

3. Method and data

As the authors’ research question is explanatory in nature and focuses on contemporary

events, and as managerial decision-making, the object of their investigation, cannot be

manipulated, case study research is highly appropriate (Yin, 2003). Furthermore, as far as

the authors know, their research question represents a topic previously untouched in the

literature. Therefore, they decided to employ case study research, following the process

outlined by Eisenhardt (1989), to investigate what approaches network center managers

follow when deciding on what knowledge to transfer, to whom, and how, for the benefit of

researchers and practitioners alike.

Sample

To select the case firms and not to be overwhelmed by firms that potentially might be worth

investigating, the authors first defined their research question and derived criteria for the

selection of case firms (Mintzberg, 1979). First and foremost, they considered only firms

positioned in the center of a network and that consider management of network partners as a

key to achieving competitive advantage. The authors concentrated on firms that had been

particularly successful in developing their networks as indicated by their market leadership

and their large partner network which often comprises several hundreds of partner firms.

These partners are usually smaller and asymmetric to the focal firm. In particular the authors

included focal firms in knowledge-intensive industries to provide cases of firms for which

knowledge transfer is particularly important. Firms were selected from various industries in

order to control for environmental factors and to incorporate a range of industry practices.

Partners of the case firms may be very diverse and areas of collaboration may cover

research, joint development, operations, sales, marketing, service, and development of

complementary products. To control for size differences the authors limited the target

population to large multinational corporations and to firms headquartered in Europe or the

USA. Further details about the authors’ approach to selecting case firms are presented in the

Appendix.

Analysing too many cases can become unwieldy because it increases complexity. The

number of cases of this study also had to be limited given its rich research setting and the

number of characteristics under investigation. As random sampling of cases is rather

uncommon, the authors deliberately chose cases representing ‘‘extreme situations’’ and

‘‘polar types’’ (Pettigrew, 1990). The selected firms represent polar types as they have a

particularly large number of partner firms and considered knowledge transfer programmes

to be a key factor in their network strategy. The authors conducted a preliminary review of the

knowledge transfer programmes of selected firms using the information given on their

websites. At the end of this process, the authors contacted the firms that seemed particularly

promising. Nine agreed to participate, to make a considerable time commitment, promised

access to documentation, named a firm contact, and to provide ready access to a

designated interviewee.

PAGE 432jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTj VOL. 14 NO. 3 2010

Data gathering

When conducting interviews and analysing documents, the authors used multiple sources to

increase the validity and reliability of the data. First the authors collected definite data on the

knowledge transfer of the firms by reading the information that these provided their partners

with. As programmes must be explained to partners in detail, the authors were able to gather

extensive material on the knowledge transfer of centers. A contact person in each firm

provided the internal documentation they needed. In case of a firm having more than one

knowledge transfer programme, they focused particularly on that programme with the

largest number of registered partners.

The authors analysed knowledge transfer products, like trainings, knowledge certifications,

or learning communities, which are offered to partners for sale or for free and the rules of the

programmes, including requirements and incentives. They studied these in terms of center,

knowledge, transfer, partner, and programme characteristics.

The authors complemented their analysis of documents with two interviews per case,

totalling 18 semi-structured interviews each of which lasted an hour or more. Following a key

informant approach, they interviewed nine managers, one from each case firm, who were

responsible for knowledge transfer activities of the firm. They were especially interested in

eliciting from the interviewees the purpose and rationale behind their knowledge transfer

programmes. They also used the interviews in part to confirm the early findings from the

analysis of secondary material and sources. In addition to these nine interviews, in order to

have a better understanding of knowledge transfer programmes from the perspective of

network partners, the authors also conducted interviews with the managing directors of

three network partner firms and, in the six partner firms where this was not possible, with the

center firm managers responsible for partner support. The goal in these interviews was to

identify and clarify the requirements, expectations, and pay-offs to partner firms of

participating in knowledge transfer programmes. Finally, in order to ensure the correctness

of the data, the authors asked the interviewees to review the data and findings of the single

case studies of their respective firms. Further information about the data gathering is

presented in the Appendix.

4. Analysis of cases

While the two phases were not totally separate, in general, the authors first gathered the data

and then analysed the cases. In a similar vein, they looked at the inter-organizational

knowledge transfer of each firm individually, gaining familiarity with the data and developing

an understanding of the relationships between the characteristics under investigation. This

within-case analysis comprised a detailed narrative description for each case firm. This was

central to the generation of insights (Pettigrew, 1990) as it helped to structure the extensive

data that were gathered.

Based on the collected data, the researchers first evaluated the cases individually on the

knowledge transfer characteristics. It was not until they had a thorough understanding of

each firm’s transfer that they further condensed the core data into a common format for each

case. This was required for data of knowledge transfer characteristics that could not easily

be compared across cases. For example, a high, medium, and low classification was used

to code the data on the diversity of knowledge content of the firms’ programmes.

Programmes were classified as ‘‘Low’’ when the knowledge transfer products focused on

one type of knowledge content only. This was the case for the programme of case firm

Euro-3 that focuses on transferring product knowledge only. ‘‘Medium’’ means a focus on

two types of knowledge content as it is the case for the programme of firm US-4. ‘‘High’’

cases are those in which the programme focuses on 3 types of knowledge content as does

the programme of case firm US-1.

Subsequently, the authors created a series of matrices to structure the data. This allowed for

a case-oriented as well as variable-oriented analysis (Miles and Huberman, 1994). In these

data displays, the researchers searched for patterns across firms and variables to identify

relationships and common structures, issues, and approaches to the management of

VOL. 14 NO. 3 2010 jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTj PAGE 433

knowledge transfer. To increase the validity of the findings and to avoid coming to premature

conclusions, the researchers put great emphasis on case-to-case comparisons and

identifying and explaining similarities and dissimilarities across cases and on thinking about

rival explanations (Yin, 2003). The authors describe in the following sections their cross-case

analysis findings, regularly referring to single cases and quoting interviewees when

appropriate.

Knowledge transfer systems of all center firms that participated in this study are structured in

the form of programmes. Centers have a management system in place to define a portfolio of

programmes and plan and control each programme. Such programmes are targeted to

meet the particular demands of specific groups of partners concerning knowledge transfer.

For each programme, a set of knowledge transfer products is defined that is offered to the

enlisted partners. A programme further comprises rules that specify conditions under which

knowledge is transferred to partners. The basic structure of the knowledge transfer systems

of the case firms is shown in Figure 2.

4.1 Management system of knowledge transfer to partners

Defining a portfolio of programmes. When defining a portfolio of programmes centers need

to determine how many programmes to provide, what criteria to use to distinguish

programmes, how to manage programme overlaps, and which partners to admit to the

programme. The authors detail each of these characteristics in Table I.

A fundamental decision center managers make is on the number of knowledge transfer

programmes to offer to partners. Centers may collaborate with a set of highly diverse

partners. The partners in the networks differ with respect to their characteristics, their

knowledge requirements, and the benefits they expect from knowledge transfer. For this

reason, it is essential that center managers understand the needs and expectations of

partners in the network if they are to determine if, and when, there should be a separate

knowledge transfer programme. Just as customer segmentation is common practice in

marketing, center firms can thus segment partners based on their characteristics. Multiple

knowledge transfer programmes can be set up to address particular segments, be it in

terms of the number and type of partners for which they are designed, or the number and

type of standardised knowledge transfer products offered. Specific programmes can also

Figure 2 Structure of knowledge transfer systems

Firm

KT programme

i

KT programme

…

KT programme

n

KT productjn

KT productmn

…

KT productji

KT productmi

…

Defining a portfolio of programmesManagement

system of KT to partners Planning and controlling

programmes

…

…

…

Note: KT: Knowledge Transfer

PAGE 434jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTj VOL. 14 NO. 3 2010

T a b le

I E x tr a c t o f c a s e d a ta

o n m a n a g e m e n t s y s te m

o f k n o w le d g e tr a n s fe rs

to p a rt n e rs

C a te

g o ry

o f

c h a ra

c te

ri s ti c s

C h a ra

c te

ri s ti c s

D a ta

s o u rc

e s

U S

-1 U

S -2

U S

-3 U

S -4

E u ro

-1 E

u ro

-2 E

u ro

-3 E

u ro

-4 E

u ro

-5

D e fi n in

g p

o rt

fo lio

o f

p ro

g ra

m m

e s

P ro g ra m m e

N u m b e r o f

p ro g ra m m e s

In te rv ie w s

1 3

5 1

1 2 1

1 1

3

P ro g ra m m e

C ri te ri o n to

d if fe re n ti a te

p ro g ra m m e s

P ro g ra m m e

d o c u m e n ta ti o n

N o n e

P a rt n e r’ s b u s in e s s

m o d e l

V a lu e c h a in

a c ti v it y o f

p a rt n e rs h ip

N o n e

N o n e

V a lu e c h a in

a c ti v it y o f

p a rt n e rs h ip ,

re g io n , p ro d u c t

N o n e

N o n e

V a lu e c h a in

a c ti v it y o f

p a rt n e rs h ip

P ro g ra m m e

P ro g ra m m e

o v e rl a p s

P ro g ra m m e

d o c u m e n ta ti o n ,

in te rv ie w s

N o

in c o n s is te n c ie s

M in o r

in c o n s is te n c ie s

N o

in c o n s is te n c ie s

N o

in c o n s is te n c ie s

In c o n s is te n c ie s

M in o r

in c o n s is te n c ie s

N o

in c o n s is te n c ie s

M in o r

in c o n s is te n c ie s

N o

in c o n s is te n c ie s

P ro g ra m m e

P ro g ra m m e

a d m is s io n

P ro g ra m m e

d o c u m e n ta ti o n

A v a ila b le

fo r a ll

p a rt n e rs

A v a ila b le

fo r a ll

p a rt n e rs

A v a ila b le

fo r a ll

p a rt n e rs

M a n d a to ry

fo r a ll

p a rt n e rs

A v a ila b le

fo r a ll

p a rt n e rs

A v a ila b le

fo r a ll

p a rt n e rs

A v a ila b le

fo r a ll

p a rt n e rs

A v a ila b le

fo r a ll

p a rt n e rs

A v a ila b le

fo r a ll

p a rt n e rs

P la

n n in

g a n d

c o n tr

o lli

n g

p ro

g ra

m m

e s

C e n te r

D e g re e o f

c e n tr a lis a ti o n

O rg a n is a ti o n a l

c h a rt ,

d o c u m e n ta ti o n o n

o rg a n is a ti o n a l

u n it s , in te rv ie w s

H ig h (o n e

o rg a n is a ti o n a lu n it

re s p o n s ib le )

H ig h (o n e

o rg a n is a ti o n a lu n it

re s p o n s ib le )

H ig h (o n e

o rg a n is a ti o n a lu n it

re s p o n s ib le )

H ig h (o n e

o rg a n is a ti o n a lu n it

re s p o n s ib le )

L o w

H ig h

(m u lt ip le

o rg a n is a ti o n a lu n it

re s p o n s ib le )

H ig h (o n e

o rg a n is a ti o n a lu n it

re s p o n s ib le )

L o w

H ig h

(m u lt ip le

o rg a n is a ti o n a lu n it

re s p o n s ib le )

H ig h (o n e

o rg a n is a ti o n a lu n it

re s p o n s ib le )

H ig h (o n e

o rg a n is a ti o n a lu n it

re s p o n s ib le )

C e n te r

T im

e h o ri z o n o f

o b je c ti v e s

W ri tt e n c o m p a n y

d o c u m e n ts

o n

ta rg e ts

M id - a n d

s h o rt -t e rm

L o n g - a n d

m id -t e rm

M id - a n d

s h o rt -t e rm

M id - a n d

s h o rt -t e rm

L o n g - a n d

m id -t e rm

M id - a n d

s h o rt -t e rm

M id - a n d

s h o rt -t e rm

M id - a n d

s h o rt -t e rm

L o n g - a n d

m id -t e rm

C e n te r

P e rf o rm

a n c e

m e a s u re

In te rv ie w s ,

c o m p a n y re p o rt s

o n p a rt n e rs ,

tr a c k in g o p ti o n s in

k n o w le d g e

tr a n s fe r p ro d u c ts

K n o w le d g e

tr a n s fe r u s a g e

a n d o u tc o m e

K n o w le d g e

tr a n s fe r u s a g e

a n d o u tc o m e

K n o w le d g e

tr a n s fe r u s a g e

a n d o u tc o m e , a n d

p a rt n e r

p e rf o rm

a n c e

K n o w le d g e

tr a n s fe r u s a g e

a n d p a rt n e r

p e rf o rm

a n c e

K n o w le d g e

tr a n s fe r u s a g e

K n o w le d g e

tr a n s fe r u s a g e

a n d o u tc o m e

K n o w le d g e

tr a n s fe r u s a g e

a n d p a rt n e r

p e rf o rm

a n c e

K n o w le d g e

tr a n s fe r u s a g e

a n d o u tc o m e

K n o w le d g e

tr a n s fe r u s a g e

a n d o u tc o m e

C e n te r

O b je c ts

o f

a n a ly s is

In te rv ie w s ,

c o m p a n y ’s

re p o rt s o n

p a rt n e rs

N e tw o rk

a n d

p a rt n e r fi rm

N e tw o rk

a n d

p a rt n e r fi rm

N e tw o rk , p a rt n e r

fi rm

, a n d

in d iv id u a l

N e tw o rk , p a rt n e r

fi rm

, a n d

in d iv id u a l

In d iv id u a l

N e tw o rk , p a rt n e r

fi rm

, a n d

in d iv id u a l

N e tw o rk

a n d

p a rt n e r fi rm

N e tw o rk

a n d

p a rt n e r fi rm

N e tw o rk

a n d

p a rt n e r fi rm

VOL. 14 NO. 3 2010 jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTj PAGE 435

be designed to account for differences that exist across countries or regions. Case firm US-2

differentiates its three programmes based on the business model of partners. It collaborates

with independent software vendors, original equipment manufacturers, and IT services

companies and designed separate programmes for each type of partners. In contrast,

Euro-2 uses more than one criterion to differentiate its programmes. It offers product and

region specific programmes as well as programmes that are specific to the value chain

activity of the collaboration with partners, like development, sales, or service programmes.

In either case, a fit between configuration of knowledge transfer and context is not achieved

through coordination by the center, but by partners choosing which programme to join and

which knowledge transfer products to select based on their specific context. However,

multiple programmes also have a downside. They increase complexity and require

coordination between them to avoid inconsistencies and unwanted redundancies. US-1, for

example, had had an unsatisfactory proliferation of its knowledge transfer programmes after

which it decided to integrate its activities into one single programme. Considerable effort

went into designing a structure flexible enough to serve all its different partners. Euro-2, on

the other hand, has more than 20 programmes.

Especially when knowledge transfer involves separate organizational units, achieving

consistency is a significant challenge. As the senior vice president of Euro-1 put it, ‘‘Again

and again, it happens that other departments produce their own knowledge transfer

products and distribute them to partners on their own. That is highly problematic for us. First

of all, it confuses partners to receive content from different sources and to different

conditions. That does not make a professional impression. Also, partners are not familiar with

the format of the products. What’s more, we [a organizational unit dealing with knowledge

transfer on a firm level] are hampered in identifying needs for knowledge transfer and

planning it because often we do not get noticed about transfer from other departments in

time or even at all.’’

Programmes are usually available to all partners and these are free to join programmes.

They choose to join a programme if they expect its benefit to be higher than the costs that

arise. This is the case if partner characteristics, prominently the functional focus of the

partnership with the center, fit with the knowledge, transfer, and programme characteristics.

Case firm US-4 is an exception as its partner firms must either engage in the complete

knowledge transfer programme, or leave the network or are not allowed to join the network in

the first place respectively. Before they begin work, every partner employee must

successfully complete a specific educational programme that includes knowledge about the

products, but most importantly detailed and highly codified knowledge about how business

processes have to be executed. US-4 also gives training material to its partners so that they

can continuously educate their own employees, and so that training is uniform across the

board. As the managing director of one the partner firms of US-4 explained, ‘‘To get new

hires up to speed it takes about two weeks. And we continue to train our employees

constantly. Attention to detail is really important because that’s what really makes the

difference. A lot of training is done on the job but we also use training material and

instructional videos.’’.

US-4 is able to follow such an inflexible approach as it is in a very powerful position vis-à-vis

its partners. US-4 chooses this approach precisely because it wants to control partner

behaviour, to ensure the quality of partners’ products or services or to guarantee consistent

communication of the center’s brand. By prescribing a broad range of knowledge transfer,

the knowledge bases of network centers and of their partners partially converge. Since

partners are required to take part in the entire set of knowledge transfer products, they are

not able to specialize in specific knowledge areas or to differentiate themselves through their

knowledge. Hence, they are severely restricted in their ability to build or sustain a

competitive advantage over other partners. Therefore, such an approach can only be

followed successfully if there is no competition between partners.

Planning and controlling programmes. A system to plan and control programmes can be

described by characteristics including its degree of centralisation and time horizon, the

used measures, and the range of objects that are analysed. When planning knowledge

PAGE 436jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTj VOL. 14 NO. 3 2010

transfer activities, center managers link knowledge transfer products to specific business

targets of the center, and to network targets that may further center interests. The

interviewees clearly saw it as beneficial to plan and control an integrated system of

knowledge transfer on a firm level instead of planning and controlling knowledge transfer

initiatives individually by separate organizational units, e.g. business divisions or

departments. The interviewee at US-1 describes the central planning process this way:

‘‘We have a clearly defined strategy answering how the market is essentially divided with

partners and with clear targets on where we want partners to move. Here is the market, here

is the industry and the micro verticals, and here are the key solutions within those micro

verticals. Next, we look for white spaces and partners with skills to fill these white spaces and

then offer these partners a lot of market and product information to support them.’’

The authors also found that having a central organizational unit in the center firm that is

responsible for the production and direct supply of all of the knowledge products has a

positive effect. This way, centers can bundle expertise and create synergies, e.g. by sharing

a technology platform to transfer knowledge products, and can also ensure a consistent

product ‘‘look and feel’’. Thus, compared to single knowledge transfer projects, cost savings

can be realized through centrally carrying out knowledge transfer to partners on a firm level.

While the managers that were interviewed agreed that having a central unit does have

considerable advantages, they also pointed out that it is quite challenging to gain

acceptance for one by already established, and sometimes powerful, units.

Building and developing a network of partners is a long-term strategy. Immediate

performance effects on centers of providing knowledge transfer to partners are rather

difficult to determine. Center firms charge for certain knowledge transfer products and thus

generate direct revenues, yet the interviews revealed that center managers do not have a

definite understanding of the indirect effect of knowledge transfer to partners on the financial

performance of their firm. It is all the more important for centers to plan knowledge transfer

and control its effect on partners on a very detailed level to get a better understanding of the

underlying cause and effect chains. The cases show that the time horizon of knowledge

transfer targets is often short or mid-term. Managers even look for quick returns from their

investments in knowledge transfer to partners, and there is often a premium placed on

immediate performance improvement. US-3, for example, provides special sales skills

training that can directly affect partners’ sales performance and US-1 transfers knowledge

aimed at improving the management of marketing campaigns.

Useful performance measures of knowledge transfer systems entail examination of

programme use and outcomes, e.g. measured by the number of certified partners, their

frequency and duration of programme use, and assessment of partner performance, e.g.

specialization, profitability, survival rate, or the rate of innovation of partners. The measures

may refer to different objects that are to be planned or controlled. Very detailed analysis is

performed by case firm US-3 that sets targets and controls knowledge transfer on an

individual level, on a partner firm level and on the level of the entire network. For example,

US-3 explicitly controls for partner firm profitability. It undertook an initiative with the specific

aim of increasing profitability of partner firms which included knowledge-related measures

that led to an average increase in profits of 12 percent of the partners. This initiative

demonstrated to current and prospective partners that US-3 is highly committed to the

development of the members of its network. The head of its global education effort explains

further, ‘‘Our programme does a good job by keeping track of technical knowledge our

partners have on an individual level. For example, we do know how many and what kind of

trainings partners have attended in terms of courses and volume. The company then moves

up or down the levels based on whether the people still work there or have moved to a

different company. The advantage in tracking this is huge for us, our ecosystem, and also the

individuals.’’

4.2 Knowledge transfer programmes

While a case firm may offer multiple programmes to its partners, the authors examined the

programme of each case firm in detail that had the largest number of registered partner

firms. In the cross-case analysis, the authors found that managers are not able to focus on all

VOL. 14 NO. 3 2010 jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTj PAGE 437

possible knowledge transfer characteristics when deciding on the design of a programme.

Instead, they learned from the interviewees that selected characteristics remain central to

managerial decision-making. These characteristics deal with the programme design, its

communication, the access to the programme and its pricing. The case data of the

investigated characteristics of the largest programme are shown in Table II. The authors

detail each of these characteristics below.

Programme design. Transferring knowledge to partners can be very costly. These costs are

supposed to be offset by the value that partners create in return. However, partners differ

and so does the value that they are expected to create in the course of the partnership.

Partner commitment to the center and the network or the duration of partnerships varies. The

degree of trust that has built up over time between a center and its partners, which has been

identified as an important factor for partnership success (Uzzi, 1997), varies as well. To

equally provide all knowledge transfer products to all partners would possibly lead to

opportunistic behaviour on the part of partners. Some partners would receive knowledge

that is not in due proportion to their importance for the center. For these reasons, the most

costly products should only be provided to the most valuable partners. Differences of

partner characteristics, like their perceived commitment to the partnership, their partnership

performance and demonstrated trustworthiness, can be taken into account by providing

access to exclusive knowledge transfer products. The design of a knowledge transfer

programme should consequently differentiate knowledge transfer products according to

their exclusivity, i.e. whether they are available to all network partners or only to a limited

number of them, and whether their availability is open-ended or for a limited time.

By providing exclusive knowledge transfer products, network center managers offer

incentives for desirable partner characteristics and usage of knowledge transfer products

by partners. For instance, the center might require that a partner has a given number of

trained or certified employees in order to get access to exclusive knowledge transfer

products. This way a center can influence a partner’s selection of knowledge transfer

products by encouraging behaviour that is in alignment with center targets. The exclusive

knowledge transfer products are often organized in discrete levels and requirements are put

in place to attain a certain level. As the vice president at Euro-2 responsible for knowledge

management put it, ‘‘Through the programme, we have very clear requirements for partners

to achieve a level. And they in turn get very clear benefits based on what level they are. We

have a business model that says, we expect a certain amount of return from those levels and

that associates costs accordingly, thereby creating a win-win situation for us and our

partners. Determination of what we get back from each level is based on both historical data

and current business planning.’’

Over time, the knowledge that is transferred affects partners’ characteristics, e.g. the

closeness of the partnership can be influenced by how frequently and regularly a partner

uses knowledge transfer products. Thus, partners are able to gain access to more exclusive

products over the course of the partnership with the center. The programme design can be

characterised by its degree of flexibility for partners, i.e. the number of distinct levels of

partnership that might be attained and their range of requirements, how widely spaced

these levels are, the range of rewards offered, and the degree of freedom partners have in

choosing content.

In essence, a programme is more flexible when requirements are not prescribed by the

center, but rather when partners are involved in setting the criteria. An often used approach

is a point-based design in which partners earn points for fulfilling different requirements and

the number of accumulated points determines the partner level. Partners determine what

type of knowledge is transferred, the timing, and choose incentives from a selection by

themselves. For example, partners might choose to receive more knowledge transfers, or

they might look for marketing support as incentive. This kind of approach is described well

by the US-3 manager who oversees global education, ‘‘You have to let our partners decide

themselves what they want to learn, and also how they want to learn. So we offer flexibility

with regard to the transfer mode and to time constraints of our partners.’’ Further, such an

approach has the benefit that centers can precisely determine the demand for certain

knowledge transfer products by analysing their usage.

PAGE 438jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTj VOL. 14 NO. 3 2010

T a b le

II E x tr a c t o f c a s e d a ta

o n la rg e s t p ro g ra m m e

C a te

g o ry

o f

c h a ra

c te

ri s ti c s

C h a ra

c te

ri s ti c s

D a ta

s o u rc

e s

U S

-1 U

S -2

U S

-3 U

S -4

E u ro

-1 E

u ro

-2 E

u ro

-3 E

u ro

-4 E

u ro

-5

P ro

g ra

m m

e

d e s ig

n P ro g ra m m e

N u m b e r o f

p ro g ra m m e le v e ls

S tr u c tu re

o f

p a rt n e r p o rt a l,

p ro g ra m m e

d o c u m e n ta ti o n

3 4

4 1

1 3

1 3

4

P ro g ra m m e

R a n g e o f le v e l

s p e c ifi c

re q u ir e m e n ts

In te rv ie w s ,

d o c u m e n ta ti o n o f

p ro g ra m m e

re q u ir e m e n ts

H ig h (n u m b e r o f

d is ti n c t

re q u ir e m e n ts )

H ig h (n u m b e r o f

d is ti n c t

re q u ir e m e n ts )

H ig h (n u m b e r o f

d is ti n c t

re q u ir e m e n ts )

L o w

(n u m b e r o f

d is ti n c t

re q u ir e m e n ts )

H ig h (n u m b e r o f

d is ti n c t

re q u ir e m e n ts )

H ig h (n u m b e r o f

d is ti n c t

re q u ir e m e n ts )

L o w

(n u m b e r o f

d is ti n c t

re q u ir e m e n ts )

H ig h (n u m b e r o f

d is ti n c t

re q u ir e m e n ts )

H ig h (n u m b e r o f

d is ti n c t

re q u ir e m e n ts )

P ro g ra m m e

R a n g e o f le v e l

s p e c ifi c

in c e n ti v e s

In te rv ie w s ,

d o c u m e n ta ti o n o f

p ro g ra m m e

in c e n ti v e s

H ig h (n u m b e r o f

d is ti n c t

in c e n ti v e s )

H ig h (n u m b e r o f

d is ti n c t

in c e n ti v e s )

H ig h (n u m b e r o f

d is ti n c t

in c e n ti v e s )

L o w

(n u m b e r o f

d is ti n c t

in c e n ti v e s )

H ig h (n u m b e r o f

d is ti n c t

in c e n ti v e s )

H ig h (n u m b e r o f

d is ti n c t

in c e n ti v e s )

L o w

(n u m b e r o f

d is ti n c t

in c e n ti v e s )

H ig h (n u m b e r o f

d is ti n c t

in c e n ti v e s )

H ig h (n u m b e r o f

d is ti n c t

in c e n ti v e s )

P a rt n e r

F o c u s o n p a rt n e r

fi rm

s o r

in d iv id u a ls

D o c u m e n ta ti o n o f

p ro g ra m m e

re q u ir e m e n ts

a n d

in c e n ti v e s

O rg a n is a ti o n a l

a n d in d iv id u a l

fo c u s

O rg a n is a ti o n a l

a n d in d iv id u a l

fo c u s

O rg a n is a ti o n a l

fo c u s

O rg a n is a ti o n a l

a n d in d iv id u a l

fo c u s

In d iv id u a l fo c u s

O rg a n is a ti o n a l

a n d in d iv id u a l

fo c u s

O rg a n is a ti o n a l

fo c u s

O rg a n is a ti o n a l

fo c u s

O rg a n is a ti o n a l

fo c u s

P a rt n e r

D iv e rs it y o f

ta rg e te d v a lu e

c h a in

a c ti v it ie s

F u n c ti o n s o f

p a rt n e rs ,

k n o w le d g e

tr a n s fe r p ro d u c t

d e s c ri p ti o n

M e d iu m

(d e v e lo p e r, s a le s ,

m a rk e ti n g )

M e d iu m

(d e v e lo p e r,

a d m in is tr a to rs ,

s a le s )

H ig h

(m a n a g e m e n t,

te c h n o lo g y

d e s ig n , s a le s ,

s u p p o rt ,

c o n s u lt in g )

H ig h

(m a n a g e m e n t,

fo o d p re p a ra ti o n ,

s a le s , s e rv ic e )

L o w

(d e v e lo p e r)

H ig h (t e c h n ic a l

a rc h it e c t,

d e v e lo p e r,

a d m in is tr a to rs ,

s a le s , c o n s u lt in g )

M e d iu m

(s a le s ,

c o n s u lt a n ts )

M e d iu m

m a n a g e m e n t

(a c c o u n ti n g a n d

le g a l, R & D )

H ig h (e n g in e e rs ,

s a le s , s e rv ic e ,

c o n s u lt in g )

K n o w le d g e

D iv e rs it y o f

k n o w le d g e

c o n te n t

K n o w le d g e

tr a n s fe r p ro d u c t

d o c u m e n ta ti o n

H ig h (p ro d u c t,

p ro c e s s , m a rk e t

k n o w le d g e )

H ig h (p ro d u c t,

p ro c e s s , m a rk e t

k n o w le d g e )

H ig h (p ro d u c t,

p ro c e s s , m a rk e t

k n o w le d g e )

M e d iu m

(p ro d u c t,

p ro c e s s

k n o w le d g e )

M e d iu m

(p ro d u c t,

p ro c e s s

k n o w le d g e )

H ig h (p ro d u c t,

p ro c e s s , m a rk e t

k n o w le d g e )

L o w

(p ro d u c t

k n o w le d g e )

M e d iu m

(p ro d u c t,

m a rk e t

k n o w le d g e )

M e d iu m

(p ro d u c t,

m a rk e t

k n o w le d g e )

C o m

m u n ic

a ti o n

C e n te r

D e s ig n o f p a rt n e r

in te rf a c e

In te rv ie w s ,

tr a n s fe r c h a n n e ls

O n e in te rf a c e

M u lt ip le

in te rf a c e s

O n e in te rf a c e

O n e in te rf a c e

M u lt ip le

in te rf a c e s

O n e in te rf a c e

M u lt ip le

in te rf a c e s

M u lt ip le

in te rf a c e s

O n e in te rf a c e

K n o w le d g e

In fo rm

a ti o n a b o u t

p ro g ra m m e

s tr u c tu re

P a rt n e r p o rt a l,

w e b s it e

E x te n s iv e n u m b e r

a n d c o n te n t o f

d o c u m e n ts

E x te n s iv e n u m b e r

a n d c o n te n t o f

d o c u m e n ts

L im

it e d n u m b e r

a n d c o n te n t o f

d o c u m e n ts

E x te n s iv e n u m b e r

a n d c o n te n t o f

d o c u m e n ts

E x te n s iv e n u m b e r

a n d c o n te n t o f

d o c u m e n ts

E x te n s iv e n u m b e r

a n d c o n te n t o f

d o c u m e n ts

E x te n s iv e n u m b e r

a n d c o n te n t o f

d o c u m e n ts

L im

it e d n u m b e r

a n d c o n te n t o f

d o c u m e n ts

E x te n s iv e n u m b e r

a n d c o n te n t o f

d o c u m e n ts

P a rt n e r

P a rt n e r fe e d b a c k

In te rv ie w s ,

fe e d b a c k

p o s s ib ili ti e s

H ig h ly

e n c o u ra g e d

N o

N o

N o

H ig h ly

e n c o u ra g e d

B a re ly

e n c o u ra g e d

N o

N o

B a re ly

e n c o u ra g e d

A c c e s s

T ra n s fe r

T ra n s fe r c h a n n e ls

K n o w le d g e

tr a n s fe r p ro d u c t

d e s c ri p ti o n

V ia

n e tw o rk s

(w e b -b a s e d

tr a in in g , o n lin e

re s o u rc e s ,

le a rn in g

c o m m u n it y ), n o t

v ia

n e tw o rk s

(c la s s ro o m ,

b o o k s )

V ia

n e tw o rk s

(w e b -b a s e d

tr a in in g , v ir tu a l

c la s s ro o m ), n o t

v ia

n e tw o rk s

(c la s s ro o m ,

c o m p u te r- b a s e d

tr a in in g )

V ia

n e tw o rk

(w e b -b a s e d

tr a in in g , v ir tu a l

c la s s ro o m ), n o t

v ia

n e tw o rk

(c la s s ro o m )

N o t v ia

n e tw o rk s

(v id e o , m a n u a ls ,

s e lf -p a c e d

w o rk b o o k s ,

c la s s ro o m

tr a in in g , tr a in in g

o n th e jo b )

V ia

n e tw o rk s

(s o u rc e c o d e ,

m a ili n g lis ts

o r

d is c u s s io n

fo ru m s , lin k s b u ilt

in to

d e v e lo p m e n t

to o ls )

V ia

n e tw o rk s

(w e b -b a s e d

tr a in in g ,

d is c u s s io n

fo ru m s , b lo g s ,

a rt ic le s ,

w h it e p a p e r,

n e w s le tt e r, w ik is ),

n o t v ia

n e tw o rk s

(c la s s ro o m ,

e v e n ts , in fo rm

a l

m e e ti n g s )

V ia

n e tw o rk s

(o n lin e re s o u rc e s )

N o t v ia

n e tw o rk s

(c la s s ro o m ,

e v e n ts , m e e ti n g s )

V ia

n e tw o rk s

(w e b -b a s e d

tr a in in g , v ir tu a l

c la s s ro o m ), n o t

v ia

n e tw o rk s

(c la s s ro o m ,

c o m p u te r- b a s e d

tr a in in g )

T ra n s fe r

In te g ra ti o n o f

c h a n n e ls

K n o w le d g e

tr a n s fe r p ro d u c t

d e s c ri p ti o n

H ig h in te g ra ti o n

H ig h in te g ra ti o n

H ig h in te g ra ti o n

H ig h in te g ra ti o n

L o w

in te g ra ti o n

H ig h in te g ra ti o n

L o w

in te g ra ti o n

H ig h in te g ra ti o n

H ig h in te g ra ti o n

P ri c in

g P ro g ra m m e

P ri c in g m e th o d

In te rv ie w s , w ri tt e n

c o m p a n y

d o c u m e n ts

o n

in c e n ti v e s

P ri c in g m a in ly

b a s e d o n c e n te r’ s

a n d p a rt n e rs ’

p e rc e iv e d v a lu e s

P ri c in g m a in ly

b a s e d o n c e n te r’ s

a n d p a rt n e rs ’

p e rc e iv e d v a lu e s

P ri c in g m a in ly

b a s e d o n c e n te r’ s

a n d p a rt n e rs ’

p e rc e iv e d v a lu e s

P ri c in g m a in ly

b a s e d o n c o s ts

o r

o n p e rc e iv e d

v a lu e s

M a rk -u p p ri c in g

P ri c in g m a in ly

b a s e d o n c e n te r’ s

a n d p a rt n e rs ’

p e rc e iv e d v a lu e s

P ri c in g m a in ly

b a s e d o n c o s ts

o r

o n p e rc e iv e d

v a lu e s

P ri c in g m a in ly

b a s e d o n c o s ts

o r

o n p e rc e iv e d

v a lu e s

P ri c in g m a in ly

b a s e d o n c e n te r’ s

a n d p a rt n e rs ’

p e rc e iv e d

v a lu e s

VOL. 14 NO. 3 2010 jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTj PAGE 439

Yet, a flexible programme design is not always necessary. When partners are similar, their

knowledge transfer needs are likely to be similar. For example, financial services firm Euro-3

generates more than 70 percent of its new business via self-employed and part-time sales

staff. As a consequence its knowledge transfer programme is confined for the most part to

targeting their partners’ sales personnel. The partners themselves are homogenous in their

characteristics and essentially differ only in the geographic area they cover. Hence, Euro-3

cannot meaningfully apply different partnership levels. It transfers product and financial

market knowledge to support the sales force. But there is another dimension that can come

into play and that is a partner’s power compared to that of the center. Partners that are

relatively powerful are less likely to accept a rigid programme that may not fully fulfil their

individual needs.

Managers report that the effectiveness of such an incentive structure is heavily influenced by

whether it is focused on both partners as firms and individual employees. Status levels and

the associated requirements and incentives should be targeted not only at the partner firms

but also their employees as individuals in order to encourage them to learn. It is further

crucial that products, incentives, and requirements are in alignment at both the

inter-organizational and interpersonal level. Most interviewees reported that their

programme focuses on partner firm level. Four case firms’ programmes offer incentives

for the use of knowledge transfer products on an organizational level only and they have not

considered rewarding individuals for their learning.

Programmes can further be characterised by the diversity of targeted value chain activities.

Knowledge transfer products themselves are targeted towards individuals and to specific

roles played by partner employees along the industry’s value chain. Programmes differ in

how well knowledge transfer covers those roles. When partners are relatively small in

comparison to the center, training their managers to focus on industry problems and on

products and activities which are expected to be highly profitable is vital. Also tracking and

reporting expertise and status of training progress of partner’s employees becomes more

important. Case firm Euro-1 is an example of a center with a knowledge transfer programme

with no diversity in its targeted value chain activities. It actively transfers knowledge to

developers only. In contrast, US-3’s programme targets partners involved in technology

design, sales, support, consulting, and even the management of the partner firm.

A diverse programme has a broad range of knowledge content that depends on whether the

transferred knowledge deals with products, markets, or processes. The center manager

determines the extent of knowledge included in transfer products based on the business

model of the center firm, the type of network partners, and the knowledge to be transferred.

The cases show that the range of knowledge content is broad when the knowledge

advantage of the center is high compared to that of the partners because the center’s

knowledge advantage offers more possibilities for knowledge transfer and the potential

impact of the knowledge transfer is greater. While US-1 transfers product and development

process knowledge, US-2 goes beyond that adding knowledge about technology, sales and

marketing processes, and also about tools that support those business processes.

Furthermore, US-2 transfers market knowledge about existing and potential customers, the

competition, and also about other partners. A managing director of one of the partners of

US-2 details why such a broad range of knowledge is so valuable, ‘‘Most of the transferred

knowledge is about products and processes. Given the poor survival rate of partner firms in

our industry, it is vital that partners are increasingly supported in management aspects to

ensure that we are successful in the long-term. Knowledge about markets is extremely

interesting and important for us. It helps us to focus on promising business areas.’’

Communication. A knowledge transfer programme and its structure need to be

communicated to partners. For partners to decide themselves which programmes to join

and what knowledge transfer products to choose, they must be aware of what is actually

offered. And the case firms provide extensive information about their programmes and

structure, either in written documentation or via interactive partner portals and websites. Yet,

it sometimes is difficult for partners to understand and determine the value and quality

before the knowledge is transferred. When it comes to deciding on communication, centers

need to decide on how to increase transparency and help the partner to understand the

PAGE 440jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTj VOL. 14 NO. 3 2010

products while concurrently preserving the value of exclusive knowledge. Case firm Euro-4

from the pharma industry has implemented a stepwise process to gradually increase

transparency of particularly complex and valuable knowledge transfer products for

partners. It initially provides information on the respective products on a very high level, only.

Partners accordingly have to sign agreements after each process step in order to receive

information on the respective products in greater detail.

Centers try to make it as transparent as possible, which knowledge transfer products are

available under what condition. Interviewees confirm that it is particularly important for

partners to know who is responsible for the respective knowledge transfer products and can

be contacted in case of inquiries and requests. The authors found that it is beneficial for the

center to provide partner type specific or even individualized communication, if it can

provide a single interface to partners. Managers face internal challenges when they attempt

to implement such an interface as it requires coordinating the efforts of departments

involved in knowledge transfer and in partner management. Also, for this to be possible the

interface needs a system to systematically collect and access detailed information about

partners and track their knowledge needs. Continuous feedback from partners to centers is

crucial. Centers can encourage this by providing a communication platform. US-1 is a good

example. It has built a large and active community of developers and partner firms, the

advantage of which is an enhanced understanding of partner needs, more opportunities to

meet them, and partner specific communication.

Access. Easy access to transfer products and ease of exchange largely affects usage. If

access is unsatisfactory, partners tend to get frustrated and this diminishes their motivation

to learn and actually use the knowledge transfer products offered. This is underlined by the

vice president of Euro-5, ‘‘First of all, we try to make it as easy as possible for partners. They

all have limited time and every time they take away from their business to get trained cost

them money. That is why we try to [...] avoid complex structures and access procedures.’’

The managers of the case firms put emphasis on the transfer method itself and in particular

on whether to provide knowledge over a variety of transfer channels. With the exception of

just one of them, they provide knowledge over a broad range of channels. They do so to

address differences in characteristics of the knowledge that is being transferred, e.g. its

tacitness and dynamism. Also a range of channels may suit differences in the characteristics

of the receiver, their particular needs and level of seniority for instance. Yet, offering multiple

channels also requires centers to integrate them in order to avoid inconsistencies in

knowledge transferred over different channels. Computer services industry firm Euro-1

provides access to its knowledge via networks only. Its programme focuses exclusively on

individuals working in software development. Developers who have obtained the highest

partnership level are given complete access to the source code in every development stage

and may directly contact center employees to request information and ask questions.

Pricing. Receiving knowledge from a center is valuable for partners and they are willing to

pay for such knowledge transfer. On the part of the center, transferring knowledge to

partners can be seen as an investment in the network with uncertain returns. And centers are

anxious to quickly recover these investments, at least in part, by charging a price for the

transferred knowledge. To this end, case firms charge the usage of single knowledge

transfer products while there is no membership fee for the entire programme. The pricing is

often influenced by the costs that incur for producing and disseminating knowledge transfer

products, the perceived value of the products by partners, and the expected value of

transferring knowledge for the center. As network centers strive to increase the transfer of

knowledge that is particularly valuable for them, they advertise selected activities or offer

them at preferred conditions, and partners seem to be influenced by such incentives.

5. Discussion

Apart from the research stream focussing on inter-organizational knowledge transfer,

another stream has focused on knowledge transfer and knowledge management systems

within the firm boundaries. In their study, the authors focused on the linkages between

inter-organizational knowledge transfer activities and how these are managed on a

VOL. 14 NO. 3 2010 jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTj PAGE 441

firm-level. However, linkages may also exist between inter- and intra-organizational

knowledge transfer activities. The authors believe further research on these linkages would

be worthwhile as by managing and integrating all knowledge transfer activities of a firm,

economies of scope may be realized.

The authors’ research has identified that communication in knowledge transfer programmes

is an important aspect, and found that managers attempt to achieve high transparency in

their programmes. To the best of the authors’ knowledge this finding is new. The authors

believe one explanation for this may be differences in the context of prior studies and

particularly in the motivations of the sample firms for entering and participating in

partnerships and knowledge transfer. In the context of this study, centers strive for high

transparency since the costs of partners to search and use knowledge transfer products can

thus be decreased. Almost all of the existing empirical studies on inter-organizational

knowledge transfer to date either do not distinguish between the motivations of firms or they

consider only the motivations for acquiring knowledge. Nonetheless these are decisive

issues. Accordingly, further empirical research on firms that actively plan and offer

knowledge transfer to partners is clearly needed.

In their research, the authors have analysed network centers as these usually have a

knowledge advantage over other network partners. They believe that further research from

the perspective of firms in other specific positions within networks, especially in a dynamic

context, is a fruitful endeavour. This is especially true when it comes to adaptation of

partnerships over time, a topic which has been investigated very little up to now (Contractor,

2005). How do positions change over time, and how does knowledge transfer programmes

change and develop as the partnerships change over time, are promising questions for

future research. Whereas the authors’ research has been limited to knowledge transfer from

network centers to partners, they propose further research on other knowledge transfer, i.e.

from partners to the center and from partner to partner.

The authors followed Eisenhardt’s recommendation and selected the firms for their case

study research deliberately, rather than randomly, in order to provide examples that highlight

the phenomenon in which they are interested. The authors focused on center firms that have

achieved building up a large number of partnerships and that have considered knowledge

transfer programmes to be an important part of their strategy. While beyond the scope of this

paper, the authors believe that identifying precisely what role knowledge transfer

programmes play in the success or failure of centers’ attempts to manage

inter-organizational partnerships is a topic well worth examining. They believe that it

would be also worthwhile to further investigate how the enrolment in a knowledge transfer

programme affects competitive advantage and success of partners and whether the effect

varies with different approaches that centers follow.

In this study, the authors have recognized a selected set of contextual variables to be

particularly important for the management of knowledge transfer to partners. For example, if

partner firms are very homogenous in their characteristics, the programme design does not

need to be very flexible and, for example, distinguish between different partner levels.

However, the context of managing knowledge transfer has yet received little theoretical

attention. Hence, the authors think that further research on contextual factors and

particularly tensions that exist within the contextual locus of center firms is needed. An

analysis of the contextual locus should include factors in the macrocosm, like industry

volatility, technological uncertainty, or causal ambiguity, factors in organizations, like the

objectives, strategies, cultures, or decision making processes, and factors concerning

individuals that are involved in knowledge transfer processes. Moreover, it should include

both the context of center firms as senders of knowledge as well as of partner firms as

receivers. A promising approach to investigating the context of knowledge transfer in the

dynamic relationship between center firms and partners is to analyse the forces that may

generate tensions (English, 2001). The authors think that a deeper understanding of the

tension construct within a focal firm as well as of tensions between the center firm and

partners is needed.

PAGE 442jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTj VOL. 14 NO. 3 2010

Finally, one limitation of the methodology applied in this study is that it is difficult for

researchers that are external to a firm to fully understand the complex dynamics and politics

of large center firms and their relationships with partners. Researchers might be influenced

by elite respondents or the vividness of interviewees (Miles and Huberman, 1994). In order

to increase its reliability and validity, this study builds on data that was collected from

multiple data sources for each case firm. Furthermore, we put great emphasis on thinking

about rival explanations when interpreting our findings. Nevertheless, a method that may

complement further research on contextual variables of knowledge transfer to partners is the

process of tension analysis as outlined by English (2001).

6. Conclusions

The authors investigated the inter-organizational knowledge transfer of nine case firms, each

of which is positioned in the center of its network. Knowledge transfer systems, including

their programmes, were analysed. The analysis of the case firms revealed that centers have

set up portfolios of knowledge transfer programmes each targeted at a specific partner

group and that are planned and controlled. The authors found that center firms offered

knowledge transfer in the form of products to partners. They further identified the aspects

relevant to managers’ decisions on programmes’ design, communication, access, and

pricing. Performance measures that are used when planning and controlling these

programmes include knowledge transfer usage and direct outcome or partner performance.

However, effects of different aspects of knowledge transfer programmes on center firms’

financial performance are insufficiently understood by managers. These are long-term, and

often indirect, effects on the key performance indicators of centers. Yet, today’s managers

often face increasing pressure to show short-term results. As in so many other dimensions,

managers must resist the temptation to increase the short-term at the expense of long-term

prospects. Further research on this highly relevant issue is much-needed as it would help to

control investments into inter-organizational knowledge transfer and to communicate its

rationale to stakeholder groups, partners, shareholders, and employees alike.

Developing and managing a partner network from the center and offering knowledge

transfer programmes are typically overarching efforts that touch on a wide range of

functions, product and business lines, and regions. Managers need to coordinate different

internal departments, bring together diverging interests, and win the support of the top

management team. As the cases illustrate, a discrete staff position for partner management

and the creation of knowledge transfer products provides much-needed strength. This

would also provide partners with a single interface, essential for benefiting from synergies

and for avoiding the confusion that can result from inconsistent messages from changing

contact persons. The implementation of such an interface requires a technological support

infrastructure and tools in order to support communications with the partners and to create,

store, and access knowledge transfer products.

A central approach also poses specific challenges to the development of human resources.

A crucial issue with managing knowledge transfer to partners centrally is that

communication barriers and tensions may arise between those responsible for

inter-organizational knowledge transfer and other involved departments. This is

particularly true when the focal firm crosses over multiple countries or industries. In such

a case, the central unit managing knowledge transfer partners may need to deal with

organizational units with diverging mindsets and a lack of cross-understanding may exist.

Communication barriers and tensions may be reduced through trainings that create

awareness and understanding of differences in the institutional, cultural, and economic

context (English, 2001).

Developing trust is a key management issue. Centers need to be convinced that they can

accomplish their targets more thoroughly and efficiently by partnering than they can on their

own, and moreover that partners can be trusted with highly valuable, sometimes sensitive,

resources. Hence, managers must carefully shape and adapt the corporate culture at the

center. At the same time, partners need to be convinced to trust the center firm not to abuse

its power to realize short-term gains or to expand into the business areas of partners.

VOL. 14 NO. 3 2010 jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTj PAGE 443

Especially, changes in the requirements for partners to enter the network and changes in the

partnership benefits should thus be handled with highest attention and care.

References

Andrews, K. and Delahaye, B. (2000), ‘‘Influences on knowledge transfer processes in organizational

learning: the psychological filter’’, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 37 No. 6, pp. 797-810.

Bates, A.W. (2005), Technology, E-learning and Distance Education, Routledge, London.

Becerra, M., Lunnan, R. and Huemer, L. (2008), ‘‘Trustworthiness, risk, and the transfer of tacit and

explicit knowledge between alliance partners’’, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 45 No. 4,

pp. 691-713.

Changchit, C. (2003), ‘‘An investigation into the feasibility of using an internet-based intelligent system to

facilitate knowledge transfer’’, Journal of Computer Information Systems, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 91-9.

Chen, C.-J. (2004a), ‘‘The determinants of knowledge transfer through strategic alliances’’, Academy of

Management Proceedings, pp. H1-H6.

Chen, C.-J. (2004b), ‘‘The effects of knowledge attributes, alliance characteristics, and absorptive

capacity on knowledge transfer performance’’, R&D Management, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 311-21.

Chen, S., Duan, Y., Edwards, J.S. and Lehaney, B. (2006), ‘‘Toward understanding inter-organizational

knowledge transfer needs in SMEs: insight from a UK investigation’’, Journal of Knowledge

Management, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 6-23.

Contractor, F.J. (2005), ‘‘Alliance structure and process: will the two research streams ever meet in

alliance research?’’, European Management Review, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 123-9.

Dirks, K. and Ferrin, D. (2001), ‘‘The role of trust in organizational settings’’, Organization Science, Vol. 12

No. 4, pp. 450-67.

Dyer, J.H. and Hatch, N.W. (2006), ‘‘Relation-specific capabilities and barriers to knowledge transfers:

creating advantage through network relationships’’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 27 No. 8,

pp. 701-19.

Dyer, J.H. and Singh, H. (1998), ‘‘The relational view: cooperative strategy and sources of

interorganizational competitive advantage’’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 660-79.

Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), ‘‘Building theories from case study research’’, Academy of Management

Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 532-50.

English, T. (2001), ‘‘Tension analysis in international organizations: a tool for breaking down

communication barriers’’, International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 58-83.

Grant, R.M. and Baden-Fuller, C. (1995), ‘‘A knowledge-based theory of inter-firm collaboration’’,

Academy of Management Proceedings, pp. 17-21.

Hutzschenreuter, T. and Listner, F. (2007), ‘‘A contingency view on knowledge transfer: empirical

evidence from the software industry’’, Knowledge Management Research & Practice, Vol. 5 No. 2,

pp. 136-50.

Inkpen, A.C. (1998), ‘‘Learning and knowledge acquisition through international strategic alliances’’,

Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 69-80.

Inkpen, A.C. and Dinur, A. (1998), ‘‘Knowledge management processes and international joint

ventures’’, Organization Science, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 454-68.

Iyer, B., Lee, C.-H. and Venkatraman, N. (2006), ‘‘Managing in a ‘small world ecosystem’: lessons from

the software sector’’, California Management Review, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 27-47.

Khamseh, H.M. and Jolly, D.R. (2008), ‘‘Knowledge transfer in alliances: determinant factors’’, Journal of

Knowledge Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 37-50.

Koza, M. and Lewin, A. (1998), ‘‘The co-evolution of strategic alliances’’, Organization Science, Vol. 9

No. 3, pp. 255-64.

Koza, M. and Lewin, A. (2000), ‘‘Managing partnerships and strategic alliances: raising the odds of

success’’, European Management Journal, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 146-51.

PAGE 444jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTj VOL. 14 NO. 3 2010

Levin, D.Z. and Cross, R. (2004), ‘‘The strength of weak ties you can trust: the mediating role of trust in

effective knowledge transfer’’, Management Science, Vol. 50 No. 11, pp. 1477-90.

Lorenzoni, G. and Baden-Fuller, C. (1995), ‘‘Creating a strategic center to manage a web of partners’’,

California Management Review, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 146-63.

Markus, M.L. (2001), ‘‘Toward a theory of knowledge reuse: types of knowledge reuse situations and

factors in reuse success’’, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 57-93.

Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, Sage

Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Mintzberg, H. (1979), ‘‘An emerging strategy of ‘direct’ research’’, Administrative Science Quarterly,

Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 582-9.

Mowery, D.C., Oxley, J.E. and Silverman, B.S. (1996), ‘‘Strategic alliances and interfirm knowledge

transfer’’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 17, special issue, pp. 77-91.

Pettigrew, A.M. (1990), ‘‘Longitudinal field research on change: theory and practice’’, Organization

Science, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 267-92.

Spencer, J. (2003), ‘‘Firms’ knowledge-sharing strategies in the global innovation system: empirical

evidence from the flat panel display industry’’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 217-33.

Teece, D. (2000), ‘‘Strategies for managing knowledge assets: the role of firm structure and industrial

context’’, Long Range Planning, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 35-54.

Uzzi, B. (1997), ‘‘Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: the paradox of embeddedness’’,

Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 35-67.

Van Wijk, R., Jansen, J.J.P. and Lyles, M.A. (2008), ‘‘Inter- and intra-organizational knowledge transfer:

a meta-analytic review and assessment of its antecedents and consequences’’, Journal of Management

Studies, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 830-53.

Yin, R.K. (2003), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Zander, U. and Kogut, B. (1995), ‘‘Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation of

organizational capabilities: an empirical test’’, Organization Science, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 76-92.

Appendix. Methods

Table AI Sample selection

Applied criterion Requirements for sample firms Rationale

Network position Network center Focusing on a specific position sharpens the research question

Relevance of network Key part of the strategy Ensuring high importance of network for firm Competitive position Market leader Focusing on polar firms, i.e. firms that are successful

in their network strategy Size of network Large number of partners Focusing on polar firms, i.e. firms that are successful

in their network strategy Knowledge intensity Knowledge-intensive industry Ensuring high importance of knowledge transfer for

firms Degree of uniqueness of knowledge transfer

Standardised knowledge transfer Focusing on a standardised transfer sharpens the research question

Industry focus Sample should include a variety of industries

Learning from a range of industry practices

Size Large Focusing on firms with similar scale of resource availability

Regional scope of activities Multinational Focusing on firm with similar degree of internationalization

Home country Europe and USA Focusing on firms from similar economic background

VOL. 14 NO. 3 2010 jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTj PAGE 445

Data collection

The authors looked at the information that was available to the public at large on the websites of the case firms. Six of the nine firms had partner-portals to which the authors were also granted full access. In each case, the portals provided partner firms, as well as employees of the center, with comprehensive non-public information related to the centers’ knowledge transfer programmes. In addition, they studied detailed hard cover documentation about knowledge transfer for network partners and selection of knowledge transfer products as well as annual reports. Furthermore, they read the annual reports of the firms. The authors further familiarised themselves with the nine participating firms and their programmes by reading articles about the firms and interviews with their chief executives and board members in general business publications. Finally, they gathered detailed data from reports by well-known market research firms and analysts.

However, as the information available to the authors differed for each case firm, they slightly adapted their interview questions. In general, the interviews were divided into two parts. The first was a structured part that the authors used to introduce proven theoretical insights, settle on a common language for the following discussion, and to raise the attention of the interviewees to characteristics of knowledge transfer. At this, the authors verbally presented the five different categories of knowledge transfer characteristics. The interviewees were then asked to comment on each of the specific knowledge transfer characteristics. The second was a less structured part during which the authors aimed to identify the motivations and principles that the interviewees applied, or saw applied, in the context of knowledge transfer. More specifically, the authors asked the interviewees about:

B the partner network and its management;

B the role of knowledge transfer in partner management;

B the types of partners and their relevant characteristics;

B the types of knowledge being transferred and knowledge characteristics;

B the types of channels being used and transfer characteristics;

B the knowledge transfer programme and its public and exclusive products; and

B the management system used for controlling knowledge transfer and development of the partner network.

All the interviews were tape recorded and then transcribed into a common database that members of the research team could access and review. Details on the nine case firms (with firm names withheld) and of the data collection can be found in Table AII.

An overview, of the case firm details, partner details, interview features, and data sources can be found in Table AII.

PAGE 446jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTj VOL. 14 NO. 3 2010

T a b le

A II

D e ta ils

o f c a s e fi rm

s a n d d a ta

c o lle c ti o n

C a s e

d e ta

ils U

S -1

U S

-2 U

S -3

U S

-4 E

u ro

-1 E

u ro

-2 E

u ro

-3 E

u ro

-4 E

u ro

-5

In d u s tr y

P re -p a c k a g e d s o ft w a re

C o m p u te r a n d o ffi c e

e q u ip m e n t

C o m m u n ic a ti o n s

e q u ip m e n t

F o o d a n d k in d re d

p ro d u c ts

C o m p u te r s e rv ic e s

P re -p a c k a g e d s o ft w a re

F in a n c ia l s e rv ic e s

P h a rm

a c e u ti c a ls

C o m m u n ic a ti o n s

e q u ip m e n t

R e v e n u e (2 0 0 6 )

. $ 2 0 b n

. $ 2 0 b n

$ 1 0 -1 5 b n

$ 1 5 -2 0 b n

$ 1 0 0 -5 0 0 m ill io n

$ 5 -1 0 b n

$ 1 ,2 5 0 -1 ,5 0 0 b n (A U M )

$ 5 -1 0 b n

$ 1 0 -1 5 b n

N u m b e r o f p a rt n e rs

(2 0 0 6 )

. 1 0 0 ,0 0 0

, 1 ,0 0 0

2 5 ,0 0 0 -5 0 ,0 0 0

2 5 ,0 0 0 -5 0 ,0 0 0

, 1 ,0 0 0

1 ,0 0 0 -1 0 ,0 0 0

2 5 ,0 0 0 -5 0 ,0 0 0

, 1 0 0

1 ,0 0 0 -1 0 ,0 0 0

A v e ra g e re v e n u e p e r

p a rt n e r (2 0 0 6 )

$ 5 0 0 ,0 0 0 -1 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0

. $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0

$ 5 0 0 ,0 0 0 -1 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0

$ 1 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 -1 0 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0

$ 5 0 0 ,0 0 0 -1 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0

. $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0

$ 2 0 m . (A s s e ts

u n d e r

m a n a g e m e n t)

. $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0

$ 1 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 -

1 0 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0

A re a s o f c o lla b o ra ti o n

w it h p a rt n e rs

S o ft w a re

d e v e lo p m e n t,

s a le s , m a rk e ti n g ,

c o m p le m e n ta ry

p ro d u c ts

S a le s , c o m p le m e n ta ry

p ro d u c ts

Te c h n . d e v e lo p m e n t,

s a le s , s e rv ic e ,

c o n s u lt in g

O p e ra ti o n s , s a le s ,

m a rk e ti n g , s e rv ic e

C o m p le m e n ta ry

p ro d u c ts

Te c h n . d e v e lo p m e n t,

s a le s , c o n s u lt in g ,

c o m p le m e n ta ry

p ro d u c ts

S a le s , c o n s u lt in g

R & D

S a le s , s e rv ic e ,

c o n s u lt in g

In te rv ie w

p a rt n e r 1

S e n io r V ic e P re s id e n t

re s p o n s ib le

fo r

k n o w le d g e

m a n a g e m e n t

V ic e P re s id e n t

re s p o n s ib le

fo r

k n o w le d g e

m a n a g e m e n t

H e a d o f G lo b a l

E d u c a ti o n

M a n a g e r o f E d u c a ti o n

P o rt fo lio

S e n io r V ic e P re s id e n t

re s p o n s ib le

fo r

k n o w le d g e

m a n a g e m e n t

V ic e P re s id e n t

re s p o n s ib le

fo r

k n o w le d g e

m a n a g e m e n t

M e m b e r o f C o rp o ra te

C o n s u lt in g Te a m

V ic e P re s id e n t

re s p o n s ib le

fo r

k n o w le d g e

m a n a g e m e n t

V ic e P re s id e n t

re s p o n s ib le

fo r

k n o w le d g e

m a n a g e m e n t

In te rv ie w

p a rt n e r 2

M a n a g e r re s p o n s ib le

fo r p a rt n e r s u p p o rt

M a n a g in g d ir e c to r o f

p a rt n e r fi rm

M a n a g e r re s p o n s ib le

fo r p a rt n e r s u p p o rt

M a n a g in g d ir e c to r o f

p a rt n e r fi rm

M a n a g e r re s p o n s ib le

fo r p a rt n e r s u p p o rt

M a n a g in g d ir e c to r o f

p a rt n e r fi rm

M a n a g e r re s p o n s ib le

fo r p a rt n e r s u p p o rt

M a n a g e r re s p o n s ib le

fo r p a rt n e r s u p p o rt

M a n a g e r re s p o n s ib le

fo r p a rt n e r s u p p o rt

W ri tt e n d o c u m e n ts

c o v e ra g e

F ir m

w e b s it e , p a rt n e r

p o rt a l, h a rd

c o v e r

d o c u m e n ta ti o n , a n n u a l

re p o rt s , th ir d -p a rt y

a rt ic le s a n d re p o rt s

F ir m

w e b s it e , p a rt n e r

p o rt a l, h a rd

c o v e r

d o c u m e n ta ti o n , a n n u a l

re p o rt s , th ir d -p a rt y

a rt ic le s

F ir m

w e b s it e , p a rt n e r

p o rt a l, a n n u a l re p o rt s ,

th ir d -p a rt y a rt ic le s a n d

re p o rt s

F ir m

w e b s it e , h a rd

c o v e r d o c u m e n ta ti o n ,

a n n u a l re p o rt s ,

th ir d -p a rt y a rt ic le s a n d

re p o rt s

F ir m

w e b s it e , h a rd

c o v e r d o c u m e n ta ti o n ,

a n n u a l re p o rt s ,

th ir d -p a rt y a rt ic le s

F ir m

w e b s it e , p a rt n e r

p o rt a l, h a rd

c o v e r

d o c u m e n ta ti o n , a n n u a l

re p o rt s , th ir d -p a rt y

a rt ic le s a n d re p o rt s

F ir m

w e b s it e , p a rt n e r

p o rt a l, h a rd

c o v e r

d o c u m e n ta ti o n , a n n u a l

re p o rt s , th ir d -p a rt y

a rt ic le s

F ir m

w e b s it e , h a rd

c o v e r d o c u m e n ta ti o n ,

a n n u a l re p o rt s ,

th ir d -p a rt y a rt ic le s a n d

re p o rt s

F ir m

w e b s it e , p a rt n e r

p o rt a l, h a rd

c o v e r

d o c u m e n ta ti o n , a n n u a l

re p o rt s , th ir d -p a rt y

a rt ic le s

VOL. 14 NO. 3 2010 jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTj PAGE 447

About the authors

Thomas Hutzschenreuter (PhD, Leipzig Graduate School of Management, Germany) is Professor of Corporate Strategy at WHU 2 Otto Beisheim School of Management in Vallendar, Germany and holds the Dietmar Hopp Endowed Chair of Corporate Strategy and Electronic Media Management. His research interests include networks, knowledge management, and paths of internationalisation and diversification. Thomas Hutzschenreuter is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected]

Julian Horstkotte is a PhD candidate at WHU 2 Otto Beisheim School of Management in Vallendar, Germany. His research interests include corporate strategy and knowledge management.

PAGE 448jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTj VOL. 14 NO. 3 2010

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.