Knowledge Management Systems in Multinational Corporations: Typology and Transitional Dynamics

Long Range Planning

Volumn 40, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 314-340

  Nielsen, Bo Bernhard ^a   Michailova, Snejina ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPENSATION (PERSONNEL); PERSONNEL SELECTION; PERSONNEL TRAINING; SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS; STRATEGIC PLANNING;

MULTINATIONAL COMPANIES; STAFFING; SUBSIDIARIES;

KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT;

EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS; MULTINATIONAL ENTERPRISE; TYPOLOGY;

EID: 34547789466     PISSN: 00246301     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.lrp.2007.04.005     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Foss N.J., and Pedersen T. Organizing knowledge processes in the multinational corporations: An introduction. Journal of International Business Studies 35 Special Issue (2004) 340-349
2. Szulanski G. Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practices within the firm. Strategic Management Journal 17 Winter Special Issue (1996) 27-43
3. See S. A. Carlsson, O. A. El Sawy, I. Eriksson, and A. Raven, Gaining competitive advantage through shared knowledge creation: In search of a new design theory for strategic information systems, in Proceedings of the Fourth European Conference on Information Systems, Lisbon, Portugal (1996)
4. McQueen R. Four views of knowledge and knowledge management. Proceedings of the Fourth American Conference on Information Systems (1998) 609-611
5. On the distinction between knowledge as object and knowledge as process, see also. Spender J.-C. Managing knowledge systems. In: Despres C., and Chauvel D. (Eds). Knowledge Horizons: The Present and The Promise of Knowledge Management (2000), Butterworth Heinemann, Woburn, MA 149-167
6. Alavi M., and Leidner D.E. Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. Management Information Systems Quarterly 25 1 (2001) 107-136
7. Davenport T.H., Long D.W.D., and Beers M.C. Successful knowledge management projects. Sloan Management Review 39 2 (1998) 43-57
8. Gray P.H. The effects of knowledge management systems on emergent teams: Towards a research model. Journal of Strategic Information Systems 9 2/3 (2000) 175-191
9. Alavi M. KPMG Peat Marwick U.S., One Giant Brain. Harvard Business School Case (1997) 9-397-108
10. Armistead C., and Meakins M. A framework for practising knowledge management. Long Range Planning 35 (2002) 49-71
11. Heier H., Borgman H.P., and Manuth A. Siemens: Expanding the knowledge management system ShareNet to Research and Development. Journal of Cases on Information Technology 7 1 (2005) 92-110
12. Prusak L. What is up with knowledge management: A personal view. In: Cortada J.W., and Woods J.A. (Eds). The Knowledge Management Yearbook 1999-2000 (1998), Butterworth-Heinemann, Woburn, MA 3-7
13. Gottschalk P., and Khandelwal V.K. Stages of growth for knowledge management technology in law firms. The Journal of Computer Information Systems 44 4 (2004) 111-124
14. Housel T., and Bell A.H. Measuring and Managing Knowledge (2001), McGraw-Hill, New York
15. Voelpel S., Dous M., and Davenport T.H. Five steps to creating a global knowledge-sharing system: Siemens ShareNet. Academy of Management Executive 19 2 (2005) 9-23
16. Kazanjian R.K., and Drazin R. An empirical test of a stage of growth progression model. Management Science 35 12 (1989) 1489-1503
17. Although the literature on the 'differentiated MNC' does pay considerable attention to organisational mechanisms (eg,. Hedlund G. The hypermodern MNC - A Heterarchy?. Human Resource Management 21 1 (1986) 9-35
18. Bartlett C.A., and Ghoshal S. Managing Across Borders: The Transnational Solution (1989), Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge, MA the organisational dimension of MNC knowledge processes is not addressed, conceptualised and theorised in any systematic way
19. Söderquist K.E. Organising knowledge management and dissemination in new product development: Lessons from 12 global companies. Long Range Planning 39 (2006) 497-523
20. See also. Kodama M. Knowledge creation through networked strategic communities: Case studies on new product development in Japanese companies. Long Range Planning 38 (2005) 27-49
21. Birkenshaw J. Managing internal R&D networks in global firms: What sort of knowledge is involved. Long Range Planning 35 (2002) 245-267
22. Through observations (interviews), we seek to classify our case companies according to certain identified characteristics. Observed types are not understood as value judgments (ie, perfect, ultimate or in any way better); rather, we derive the types based on common patterns of knowledge-related features among case companies and link these to different constellations of organisational factors.
23. Macharzina K., and Engelhard K. Paradigm shift in international business research: From partist and eclectic approaches to the GAINS paradigm. Management International Review 31 Special Issue (1991) 23-43
24. Traditional MNC refers to divisional or matrix organisational structures with centralised customisation of information dictated by headquarters. The objective is typically to achieve scale economies by transferring know-how to new segments/markets.
25. We adopt the distinction between simple and complex, explicit and tacit, and independent and systemic knowledge, as introduced by. Winter S.G. Knowledge and competence as strategic assets. In: Teece D.J. (Ed). The Competitive Challenge (1987), Harper & Row, New York 159-184 and utilised by, among others
26. Garud R., and Nayyar P.R. Transformative capacity: Continual structuring by intertemporal technology transfer. Strategic Management Journal 15 (1994) 365-385
27. Bhagat R.S., Kedia B.L., Harveston P.D., and Triandis H.C. Cultural variations in the cross-border transfer of organizational knowledge: An integrative framework. Academy of Management Review 27 2 (2002) 204-221 Whereas simple knowledge is captured with little information, more factual information is required to capture complex knowledge accurately. Explicit knowledge can be communicated relatively easily, as opposed to tacit knowledge, which is often highly personal in nature and difficult to codify. Independent knowledge can be described by itself, whereas systemic knowledge needs to be described in relation to a specific context
28. Bartlett C.A., and Ghoshal S. Changing the role of the top management: Beyond systems to people. Harvard Business Review (1995) 132-142 May-June
29. For a discussion of intra-corporate knowledge flows and strategic roles of subsidiaries, see. Gupta A.K., and Govindarajan V. Knowledge flows and the structure of control within multinational corporations. Academy of Management Review 16 4 (1991) 768-792
30. Nolan R.L., and Croson D.C. Creative Destruction (1995), Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge, MA
31. Thus, the power-wielding asset becomes the dynamic capability continuously to produce and transfer new knowledge, rather than possession of the knowledge per se. For further discussion of the determinants of subsidiary power in a MNC network, see, for example,. Forsgren M., Pedersen T., and Foss N.J. Accounting for the strengths of MNC subsidiaries: The case of foreign-owned firms in Denmark. International Business Review 8 (1999) 181-196
32. For a discussion of strategic alignment between internal factors and external conditions from an organisation theory perspective, see. Beer M., Voelpel S.C., Leibold M., and Tekie E.B. Strategic management as organizational learning. Long Range Planning 38 (2005) 445-465
33. Miles R.E., and Snow C.C. Organizational Strategy, Structure, and Process (1978), McGraw-Hill, New York
34. Miles R.E., Snow C.C., Meyer A.D., and Coleman Jr. H.J. Organizational strategy, structure, and process. Academy of Management Review 3 3 (1978) 546-562
35. In April 2005 Danisco acquired Genencor in an effort to expand its position as leader in food ingredients and diversify into growing industrial biotechnology markets, www.Danisco.com (2005).
36. For a review, see. Rajagopalan N., and Spreitzer G.M. Toward a theory of strategic change: A multi-lens perspective and integrative framework. Academy of Management Review 22 1 (1997) 48-79
37. According to population ecology, speciation must begin rapidly and in populations that are small and isolated enough for the change to take hold, in order to avoid being diluted by the parent population. In similar fashion, ShareNet started in the ICN division and received only limited support from HQ. As the KMS proved successful and valuable, it was expanded company-wide.
38. Information & Communication and Automation & Control remain the two main business areas for Siemens, receiving the majority of investments, contributing the most to the revenue stream and employing the most people. Thus, the downturn in the telecommunication industry during the beginning of the millennium resulted in corporate strategic changes throughout the entire Siemens organisation.
39. Teece D.J. Strategies for managing knowledge assets: The role of firm structure and industrial context. Long Range Planning 33 1 (2000) 35-54
40. House R., Rousseau D., and Thomas-Hunt M. The meso paradigm: A framework for the integration of micro and macro organizational behavior. In: Cummings L.L., and Staw B.M. (Eds). Research in Organizational Behavior 17 (1995), JAI Press, Greenwich, CT 71-114
41. See Miles and Snow (1978) for a discussion of the four strategic organisational types. Miles and Snow op. cit.
42. Tavakolian H. Linking the information technology structure with organizational competitive strategy: A survey. MIS Quarterly September (1989) 309-317
43. Snow C., and Hrebiniak L. Strategy, distinctive competence and organizational performance. Administrative Science Quarterly 25 (1980) 317-326 found empirical support for a positive correlation between prospectors and uncertain industries (eg, electronics) and defenders and stable industries (eg, air transport)
44. Ginsberg A. Measuring and modeling changes in strategy: Theoretical foundations and empirical directions. Strategic Management Journal 9 (1988) 559-575
45. Tushman M.L., and Romanelli E. Organizational evolution: A metamorphosis model of convergence and reorientation. Research in Organizational Behavior 7 (1985) 171-222