INTERNAL KNOWLEDGE SHARING BEST PRACTICES Annotated Bibliography of Internal Knowledge Sharing Research for Managing Alliance Sharing Practices

INTERNAL KNOWLEDGE SHARING BEST PRACTICES

Annotated Bibliography of Internal Knowledge Sharing Research for

Managing Alliance Sharing Practices

Bonnie Aylor / ID 2030815

For: BMGT8030 – Winter 2015 – Dr. Victor Ritter – Unit10 Assigment1

Internal Knowledge Sharing Best Practices 3/20/2015 2:36:08 PM 1 of 74

Three Theoretical Articles: Osarenkhoe, A. (2010). Sharma, B. P., Singh, M. D., & NEHA.

(2012). Singh, A. K., Singh, M. D., & Sharma, B. P. (2013).

Four Research Artices: Armstrong, C. E., & Lengnick-Hall, C. (2013). Arnold, V., Benford, T.

S., Hampton, C., & Sutton, S. G. (2014). Bouncken, R and Teichert, T. (2013). Zhou, K.

Z., & LI, C. B. (2012).

One Literature Review: Gravier, M. J., Strutton, D., & Randall, W. S. (2008).

Four Other Articles: Casimir, G., Lee, K., & Loon, M. (2012). Cho, N., zheng Li, G., & Su, C.

(2007). Elmuti, D., Abou-Zaid, A., & Jia, H. (2012). Taco van, d. V., van Donk, D. P.,

Gimenez, C., & Sierra, V. (2012).

Five Seminal Articles: Casimir, G., Lee, K., & Loon, M. (2012). Cho, N., zheng Li, G., & Su,

C. (2007). Gravier, M. J., Strutton, D., & Randall, W. S. (2008). Sharma, B. P., Singh, M.

D., & NEHA. (2012). Zhou, K. Z., & LI, C. B. (2012).


Abstract [Executive Summary]

This literature review attempts to study operational elements of knowledge sharing

alliances that are most conducive of positive performance. It does so with a clear distinction

between those works commonly cited by researchers and those works that are rarely, if ever,

used in research. Study participants were generally multinational firms that either participated in

alliance relationships, or at least dealt with the implementation of knowledge management and

knowledge sharing. The results did find a clearly distinct pattern between the two kinds of

works, seminal and recent. While the seminal works focus on elements conducive to

performance administered within the focal firm, the recent works focus on elements conducive to

performance administered between the focal firm and the partner firm, but not within either. The

seminal works focused on the personal characteristics and attitudes towards knowledge and how

knowledge could be used within the firm. The recent works focused on the way knowledge

could be used across the alliance and the operational aspects of the alliance that were most

facilitative of increased performance of the alliance. The results indicated that cooperation, trust

and planning information were the most important elements of knowledge sharing alliances,

outstanding in all of the documents.

The studies were similar in that most research documents were administered as Likert

scale surveys with Cronbach’s a coefficient as a test of validity and reliability. Theoretical

documents used MICMAC analysis. Review of the literature suggested an objectivist

philosophy with a qualitative methodology as the best avenue for future research. Future

research should focus on cultural, managerial, and ethical differences between US business and

India SME’s in order to find the best was to generate trust, which increases cooperation which

increases the ability to integrate knowledge planning. Furthermore, methods such as


technological abilities, management capabilities and security infrastructure that could increase

knowledge sharing alliance performance between the two regions warrants the need for further

research. Finally, further research should be conducted regarding the operational elements of

knowledge sharing alliances in relation to the performance of the partner firm, separate from the

focal firm or the indirect relation of the partner firm to the focal firm across the alliance.


Contents

Abstract [Executive Summary] ........................................................................................... 2

Contents .............................................................................................................................. 4

Analytic Review Project ..................................................................................................... 6

Seminal Work 1 [Research] ................................................................................................ 7

Seminal Work 2 [Research] .............................................................................................. 11

Seminal Work 3 [Literature Review] ................................................................................ 16

Seminal Work 4 [Theoretical] .......................................................................................... 19

Seminal Work 5 [Research] .............................................................................................. 22

Seminal Work Summary ................................................................................................... 27

Recent Work 1 [Research] ................................................................................................ 29




Recent Work 5 [Theoretical] ............................................................................................ 50

Recent Work 6 [Theoretical] ............................................................................................ 54


Recent Work Summary ..................................................................................................... 63

Comparison of Seminal and Recent Works ...................................................................... 65

Differences .................................................................................................................... 65


Similarities .................................................................................................................... 66

My Current Philosophical and Methodological Preferences ............................................ 67

Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 68

Distinction between Works ........................................................................................... 68

Static Results ................................................................................................................. 69

Management Implications ............................................................................................. 70

Research Implications ................................................................................................... 70

Reference List: .................................................................................................................. 71

Table [Primary, Secondary, Tertiary] ............................................................................... 74


Analytic Review Project

Corporate social Responsibility (CSR) is becoming an increasingly popular topic among

globally competitive firms from Western and other regions. One way that businesses are

undergoing developmental CSR is through the use of alliance partners, mainly as supplier and

value chain partners. Environmental sustainability project are becoming equally as competitive.

In fact, many large organizations are building a brand through their efforts towards sustainability

projects. These initiatives oftentimes use networks, alliances, and industry clusters in order to

increase their environmentally sustainable ratings. These types of firm are unable to give

compromise to even the slightest decision that does not support sustainability without

compromise the corporate brand, and indirectly effecting profits.

In prior research regarding the capabilities of moving an electric Smartcar into regions of

India, due to the recent culture of celebratory purchases through automobiles and other

technologies, it was found that India’s electric infrastructure was not inviting of sustainability

branding in regards to electric vehicles. A majority of the company was obtaining electricity

from unhealthy resources, such as coal. Other parts of the country were importing electrical

resources from countries that were supplementing their exports with unsustainable resources. In

order to introduce a SmartCar, the company would first have to use petro, and then network to

assist in the change-over of electricity to alternative choices through CSR relating to the

company’s current alternative energy R&D programs. This would entail another level of

research.

In order to implement such a program, decision-maker would need to know how to create

efficient alliances with businesses located inside of the region. They would also have to know

how to manage their own operations so that they were able to self-sustain the program, allowing


the program to sustain itself even if the company had to pull out of the regions. To do this, they

would also have to research ways to share knowledge between the alliances could implement the

programs once the CSR has ceased. This literature review attempts to study the operational

aspects of knowledge sharing alliances that are most conducive to the outcomes of performance.

The Literature review separates seminal works from more recent and less cited works to

determine a common trend in regards to what researchers are looking for. It also looks for

similarities and differences in the data of the documents to find conclusory results about what

contributes to a successful alliance, what needs to be researched more in the future, and what

types of methods would be useful for implementing that future research.

Seminal Work 1 [Research]

Casimir, G., Lee, K., & Loon, M. (2012). Knowledge sharing: Influences of trust, commitment

and cost. Journal of Knowledge Management, 16(5), 740-753.

doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13673271211262781

http://search.proquest.com.library.capella.edu/docview/1088716202?pq-origsite=summon

[1] Casimir et al (2012) conduct an empirical analysis through the use of a survey in

order to explore the way that commitment derived from affect effects the desire for employees to

share knowledge within an organization via trust.

[2] The purpose of this survey study was to test the theory of affect-based trust that

affective trust in colleagues moderates the relationship of affective commitment to the

organization; perceived cost of sharing knowledge; and intermediary variables of product-term

of affective trust in colleagues and affective commitment to the organization (Casimir et al,

2012); and product-term of affective trust in colleagues and perceived cost of knowledge sharing

(2012); to knowledge sharing, controlling for age, gender, education level, years with the



organization, years in current job, industry, level in the organization, span of control, role in the

organization, social desirability, and job demand (Casimir et al, para 31, 2013) for knowledge

sharing for regular long-term employees from 15 organizations across ten sub-sectors of the

services sector. The independent variables, affective commitment to the organization, perceived

cost of sharing knowledge, and intermediary variables of product-term of affective trust in

colleagues and affective commitment to the organization, and product-term of affective trust in

colleagues and perceived cost of knowledge sharing will be defined as an internal appreciation of

the what the organization does, or what it stands for, outside of a moral commitment, the

sacrifices felt from sharing knowledge compared to not sharing the knowledge that could include

non-material things such as reputation and status, the ability to feel internal motivation for trust

in colleagues and the firm over the term of a product, and the ability to feel such internal forms

of trust that the perceived cost of sharing knowledge is decreased during the term of a single

product. Dependent variable of knowledge sharing will be defined as providing information

about proprietary knowledge to other employees on a voluntary basis. Control variables are

defined as termed.

Research questions are as follows:

RQ1 What is the relationship between affective trust in colleagues, affective commitment

to the organization and knowledge sharing?

RQ2 Is there an indirect relationship between affective commitment with knowledge

sharing, moderated by the perceived cost of sharing knowledge, and affective trust in colleagues?

[3] The theory is that affective based commitment and affective based trust are strong in

the characteristic that they derive from an internal satisfaction with the purpose of the firm and


not from some external motivation or moral value. These internal feelings override the

perceived cost of sharing knowledge and serve to encourage the knowledge sharing relationship.

[4] Casimir et al (2013) philosophic assumption was objectivist. They used a survey of

496 eligible respondents (para 25, 2013) to measure variables related to affect-based

commitment, affect-based trust, perceived cost of sharing knowledge and knowledge sharing.

[5] The methodological approach for this study was quantitative. The results indicated

that there is a definite correlation between knowledge sharing and affective commitment

moderated by affective trust (r = 0.11; p < 0.05) (Casimir et al, para 30, 2013) to the

organizations. There is also a considerable correlation between affective trust and the ability for

affective commitment to overcome the cost of sharing knowledge (r = 0.01; p < 0.05) (para 30,

2013). Both hypothesis were fully supported in the results.

[6] The study was conducted on two subgroups of organizations from the services sector.

The first sub-group was knowledge intensive and included such sub-sectors as accounting,

banking, education, finance, information technology, insurance and legal (Casimir et al, para 25,

2013). The second group was non-knowledge intensive and included such sub-sectors as

logistics, shipping and trading (para 25, 2013). There were 496 eligible respondents or regular

employees, included basic employment, managers and lower-level management (para 25, 2013).

[7] Casimir et al (2013) recognizes that there is a cost of sharing involved with the

decision to share knowledge, as well as a trust factor. The study seeks to determine if there is a

difference between a relationship of morals or duties to commit to the company versus a

relationship of affectation towards the company in overcoming the cost of sharing among

internal employees. It also seeks to find out if there is a difference between types of trust,

cognitive versus affectual, that will determine an employee’s willingness to share knowledge


when there is a cost of sharing. With current trends in innovation and knowledge sharing

between alliances, it’s becoming increasingly important for management to be able to encourage

knowledge sharing within the firm. These knowledge sharing practices can increase the

commitment between alliances and ease the process of sharing external knowledge between

employees. The authors predict that affect both in commitment to the company and a form of

trust can overcome the cost of sharing in order to enhance intent to share knowledge among

employees. Hypothesis are as follows:

H1 Affective trust serves as a moderator between the relationships of affective

commitment to knowledge sharing (Casimir et al, para 20, 2013).

H2 The same relationship exists when applying this relationship of knowledge sharing in

the context of the cost of sharing (para 20, 2013).

[9] Job demand requirement for sharing knowledge was used as a control measure,

utilizing a 3-point scale (Casimir et al, para 26-33, 2013). The survey used a 5-point Likert scale

to test for validity with 2 variables against all constructs (para 26-33, 2013). Knowledge sharing

scale was based on frequency and commitment, trust and cost scales were based on agreement.

Other control factors included age, gender, education level, years with the organization, years in

current job, industry, level in the organization, span of control, role in the organization, and

social desirability (para 31, 2013).

[10] There were limitations in the business reach of the survey. (1) Although there were

496 respondents, there were only 15 businesses used to conduct the survey (Casimir et al, para

46-49, 2013). (2) Cross sectional design of the study does not allow for causality to be measured

(para 46-49, 2013). The authors recommend that a longitudinal design in future research might

suggest causality (para 46-49, 013). Other opportunities for future research include extending


the scope of the survey, finding if organization culture could affect the outcome and studying if

the act of knowledge sharing could generate the trust required to overcome cost of sharing.

[11] The results indicated that there is a definite correlation between knowledge sharing

and affective commitment moderated by affective trust (r = 0.11; p < 0.05) (Casimir et al, para

30, 2013) to the organizations. There is also a considerable correlation between affective trust

and the ability for affective commitment to overcome the cost of sharing knowledge (r = 0.01; p

< 0.05) (para 30, 2013). Both hypothesis were fully supported in the results. This answers both

questions with the predicted outcomes. These result indicate the need to implement management

programs within the firm that can encourage an affective-based commitment and an affective-

based trust. This relationship type can be moderated depending on the desired knowledge

sharing relationship.


Cho, N., zheng Li, G., & Su, C. (2007). An Empirical Study on the Effect of Individual Factors

on Knowledge Sharing by Knowledge Type. Journal of Global Business and Technology, 3(2),

1-15. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com.library.capella.edu/docview/216931583?accountid=27965

[1] Cho et al (2007) conduct a study to examine the different organizational cultural

attributes that could serve to increase knowledge sharing within an organization. The authors

find that it is important for business leaders to implement cultural aspects to foster intelligence,

expertise, intrinsic and extrinsic confidence and specific personality traits that will serve to

increase the intent for internal employees to share knowledge (2007).

[2] The purpose of this survey was to test the theory of individual level variables of

personality traits, individual ability, extrinsic motivation, and intrinsic motivation (Cho et al,



para 14, 2007) that effect the desire to share knowledge and the mechanism acceptable for

sharing knowledge for regular employees of the Korean National Information Society Agency,

regular employees of three Samsung Subsidiary companies and working adults attending an

MBA course at a local university in Korea (para 36, 2007).


RQ1: Is the level of knowledge sharing intent influenced by the individual factors of

personality traits, individual ability, extrinsic motivation or intrinsic motivation?

RQ2: Are preferences to knowledge sharing mechanisms effected by the individual

factors of personality traits, individual ability, extrinsic motivation or intrinsic motivation?

[3] Knowledge sharing increases the ability for organizations to implement new plans,

adjust to alliances and innovate new technologies. Many organizations integrate multiple

technologies for increasing their ability to share knowledge. However, the authors find that it is

important for business leaders to implement cultural aspects to foster intelligence, expertise,

intrinsic and extrinsic confidence and specific personality traits that will serve to increase the

intent for internal employees to share knowledge (Cho et al, para 14, 2007).

[4] Ch et al (2007) use a philosophic assumption that is objectivist. They conduct a two

part survey that cross examines variables in order to set aside those that do not match validity

scores. They are testing for individual factors that will affect the motivation to share knowledge

and the motivation towards a specific mechanism of knowledge sharing.

[5] The methodological approach for the study was quantitative. The findings indicated

that (1) these factors had a significant effect on the intent to share knowledge: expertise

(β=0.156,p<0.05) (Cho et al, para 42, 2007), subjective norm (β=0.170,p<0.05) (para 42, 2007),

and self-efficacy (β=0.181,p<0.05) (para 42, 2007). (2) These factors also had a positive effect


on the intent to use knowledge sharing mechanisms: agreeableness (β=0.172,p<0.05) (para 43,

2007), reciprocity (β=0.141,p<0.05) (para 43, 2007), and self-efficacy (β=0.178,p<0.05) (para

43, 2007).

[6] Three organizations participated in the study, two with aliases assigned as Korean

National Information Society Agency and Samsung affiliates, and third was a university MBA

program (Cho et al, para 36, 2007). All three companies were located in Korea and there were

207 responses included in the final analysis (para 36, 2007).

[7] Knowledge sharing increases the ability for organizations to implement new plans,

adjust to alliances and innovate new technologies. Many organizations integrate multiple

technologies for increasing their ability to share knowledge. However, the authors find that it is

important for business leaders to implement cultural aspects to foster intelligence, expertise,

intrinsic and extrinsic confidence and specific personality traits that will serve to increase the

intent for internal employees to share knowledge (Cho et al, para 14, 2013). Cho et al (2007) are

looking for factors within the individual worker that will contribute to an intent to share

knowledge and an intent to use knowledge sharing mechanisms. They test for four separate

factors related to individual’s desire to share: internal and external popularity, ownership of

knowledge, and personality traits (para 14, 2007). The hypothesis are as follows:

H1 Agreeableness and consciousness has a positive effect on intent to share knowledge

(para 16, 2007).

H2 Agreeableness and conscientiousness has a positive effect on the intent to use

knowledge sharing mechanisms (para 16, 2007).

H3 The level of expertise and length of tenure if the field has a positive effect on the

intent to share knowledge (para 17, 2007).


H4 The level of expertise and length of experience in the field have a positive effect on

intent to use knowledge mechanisms (para 17, 2007).

H5 A persons perceived external motivation – rewards, reciprocity or subjective norm,

has a positive effect on intent to share knowledge (para 22, 2007).

H6 The perceived external motivation positively effects intent to use knowledge

mechanisms (para 22, 2007).

H7 Intrinsic motivation – self efficacy and reputation, has a positive effect on intention to

share knowledge (para 7, 2007).

H8 Intrinsic Motivation has a positive effect on use of knowledge sharing mechanisms

(para 27, 2007).

H9 Knowledge types will moderate the intent to share (para 29, 2007).

H10 Knowledge types will also moderate the use of knowledge sharing mechanisms

(para 29, 2007).

[9] The cross-sectional survey questionnaire was administered through personal

distribution of a hard copy as well as through the use of an e-survey method. Responses were

anonymous and respondents were chosen at random. The instrument was administered using a 5-

point Likert scale and a Likert-like scale. The dependent variable was intent to share knowledge

and independents included level of intelligence (expertise was β=0.156,p<0.05 (Cho et al, para

42, 2007) for sharing), personality traits (agreeableness was β=0.172,p<0.05 (Cho et al, para 42,

2007) for and reciprocity was β=0.141,p<0.05 (Cho et al, para 42, 2007) mechanisms), intrinsic

association (subjective norm was β=0.170,p<0.05 (Cho et al, para 43, 2007) for sharing and self-

efficacy was β=0.181,p<0.05 (Cho et al, 2007) for sharing and β=0.178,p<0.05 (Cho et al, para

43, 2007) for mechanisms and extrinsic association. Reliability and validity was tested using


factor analysis with Varimax rotation, factor loadings, and Cronbach’s alpha. Factors with low

loadings were purged from the survey. Hypothesis were tested using multi-variant regression

techniques. The researchers also administered an opinion questionnaire related to the preferred

knowledge sharing mechanism. The survey was designed to find what factors contributed most

to the greatest intention to share knowledge within an organization.

[10] Limitations include (1) the fact that the study only focuses on individual contributors

to knowledge sharing while there are many other factors involved at any given time (Cho et al,

para 59-62, 2007). Also, (2) trust is a prior agreed upon contributor to knowledge sharing and

could be considered a factor of agreeableness, however this survey separates them as individual

of each other (para 59-62, 2007). The authors find that further research should be implemented

on the detailed contributors to agreeableness (para 59-62, 2007). Further research should include

a broader range of contributing personality factors since those included in this design were

limited. Finally, further research could separate tacit and exploratory knowledge and also

examine how they may contribute to one another (para 59-62, 2007).

[11] The findings indicated that (1) these factors had a significant effect on the intent to

share knowledge: expertise (β=0.156,p<0.05) (Cho et al, para 42, 2007), subjective norm

(β=0.170,p<0.05) (para 42, 2007), and self-efficacy (β=0.181,p<0.05) (para 42, 2007). (2) These

factors also had a positive effect on the intent to use knowledge sharing mechanisms:

agreeableness (β=0.172,p<0.05) (para 43, 2007), reciprocity (β=0.141,p<0.05) (para 43, 2007),

and self-efficacy (β=0.178,p<0.05) (para 43, 2007). Other hypothesis were slightly supported.

The strongest effect came from self-efficacy and opinion tests yielded that (3) formal knowledge

sharing was the most preferred mechanism. The findings also indicate that (4) rewards do not

affect the intent to share knowledge nor the intent to use knowledge mechanisms. However,


reciprocity is important to both factors and could be one underlying factor of self-efficacy. This

study indicates that it is not useful to include rewards into a motivational program, unless the

reward creates reciprocity. The supplication of self-sufficiency is important when the firm wants

to generate an employee that is willing to share knowledge. Furthermore, self-sufficiency should

be moderated for firms that wish to likewise moderate attempts to share knowledge with internal

personnel.

Seminal Work 3 [Literature Review]

Gravier, M. J., Strutton, D., & Randall, W. S. (2008). Investigating the role of knowledge in

alliance performance. Journal of Knowledge Management, 12(4), 117-130.



[1] Gravier et al (2008) conduct a literature review to examine the effectiveness that the

role of knowledge plays in an alliance towards the alliance performance.

[2] The purpose of this study was to explore the effectiveness of the role of knowledge

for moderating alliance performance for alliance partnership organizations located at various

places across the globe. At this stage in the research, the role of knowledge shall be defined as

what action the knowledge is being used to implement – such as generation, implementation, or

sharing. Research questions are as follows:

RQ1: How effective is the role of the generation of knowledge in contributing value to

alliance performance (Gravier et al, para 5, 2008)?

RQ2: How effective is the role of the implementation of knowledge in contributing value

to alliance performance (para 5, 2008)?



RQ3: How effective is the role of knowledge sharing in contributing value to alliance

performance (para 5, 2008)?

RQ4: How effective is the role of environmental risk in contributing value to alliance

performance (para 5, 2008)?

[3] The idea of the study design is to find common patterns in categorical data findings.

The technique can be used across various settings and is considered cross-sectional in nature. It

can be used to assess independent variables. This method is used to examine conflicting data in

order to draw a consensus within it. Variables tested included the generation of knowledge,

implementation of knowledge, knowledge sharing, and environmental risk and alliance cohesion

(Gravier et al, para 11-13, 2008).

[4] Gravier et al (2008) use a philosophical assumption that is interpretist. They conduct

a review of literature and then conduct an interpretative analysis that provides a cross-sectional

study of each set of literature to find out how the role of knowledge effects alliance performance


[5] The methodological approach to the study is qualitative. The findings indicated a

close cohesion to most expected outcomes. For instance, the most prevalent contributors to

alliance performance were the generation of knowledge and the implementation of knowledge


[8] The author utilized literature related to three different main themes: resource based,

competence based, and knowledge based alliance formation (Gravier et al, 2008). Within these

main theoretical frameworks, the authors reviewed literature representing theories related to

performance benefits, access to knowledge, benefits of knowledge-based competition,

information processing, management literature, knowledge acquisition and cycle time, business


improvement, and achieved memory (Gravier et al, 2008). One basic criteria of the literature

was that it had to have data that could be interpreted using a survey type technique utilizing a

meta-analysis design. The authors used a snow-ball type effect in which concepts from one

piece of literature were further expounded upon in other pieces until there were no new concepts

to be found. In this regards, the research was comprehensive and the strategy allowed for a

quantitative atmosphere to be included within the qualitative research.

[9] The technique employed in their research is called a meta-analysis (Gravier et al, para

11-13, 2008). This technique requires the researcher to survey previous studies of the theoretical

data in order to seek relationships between that data (para 11-13, 2008). The idea of the study

design is to find common patterns in categorical data findings. The technique can be used across

various settings and is considered cross-sectional in nature. It can be used to assess independent

variables. This method is used to examine conflicting data in order to draw a consensus within

it. Variables tested included the generation of knowledge, implementation of knowledge,

knowledge sharing, and environmental risk and alliance cohesion. There was a separate test for

factors of cohesion relating to collaboration vs modulation and level of interaction (para 11-13,

2008). Gravier et al (2008) use the viability of this research method and the validity of the data

consumed to provide reliability and validity to their study.

[10] Limitations include that (1) the literature lacks enough standardized measures or

empirical research to allow a thorough meta-analysis (Gravier et al, para 67-70, 2008). The

authors recommend further research of the antecedents and consequences of knowledge

alliances. Also, (2) there were not enough correlations to allow for a detailed weighted

regression analysis in order to create a replicable research (para 67-70, 2008). Further research

is also recommended for studying the way in which alliance use knowledge to cohere to one


another in various environmental and industrial situations (para 67-70, 2008). Finally, some

more study on what factors could permeate the knowledge-derived alliance partnership are

integral to a final analysis.

[11] The findings indicated a close cohesion to most expected outcomes. For instance,

the most prevalent contributors to alliance performance were the generation of knowledge and

the implementation of knowledge (Gravier et al, para 41-45, 2008). While knowledge sharing is

important, the outcome was weak because the sharing of knowledge shows no effects without the

compliment of other variables – such as generation and implementation (para 41-45, 2008).

Furthermore, environmental risk had no effect due to the large amount of other factors related to

the environmental risk role of alliance. Cohesion and knowledge shared a positive correlation to

alliance performance, which basically validated the other findings (para 41-45, 2008).

Collaboration appeared to play a strong effect in cohesion while modulation played a weak

effect. The larger the interaction size, the most benefit to performance the alliance had. These

findings indicate that the most effective purpose of an alliance formation has to do with

innovative alliances that generate and implement knowledge.

Seminal Work 4 [Theoretical]

Sharma, B. P., Singh, M. D., & NEHA. (2012). Knowledge sharing barriers: An approach of

interpretive structural modeling. IUP Journal of Knowledge Management, 10(3), 35-52.

Retrieved from


[1] Sharma et al (2012) conduct a theoretical analysis of the relationship of knowledge

sharing barriers to one another between 22 different barriers (para 3, 2012) utilizing interpretive

structure modeling (ISM).



[2] The purpose of this study is to discover the hierarchical displacement of knowledge

sharing barriers (KSB) (Sharma et al, para 2, 2012) within businesses that implement knowledge

management systems. At this stage of research knowledge sharing barriers will be generally

defined as those systems that serve as barriers to the ability for management to share knowledge

effectively for lower level employees. The objectives of the study are as follows:

O1: To find the relationship between the KSB’s using the ISM method (Sharma et al,

para 3, 2012).

O2: To find the implications for application within the organization (para 3, 2012).

O3: To locate opportunities for future research (para 3, 2012).

[3] Knowledge sharing has become a major indicator of success among business.

Businesses share knowledge between external alliances and also between departments that are

internal to the firm. In order to more effectively disseminate that knowledge, it is important to

understand what barriers are in place that can keep the knowledge from easily sharing across

levels of employment. The primary goal of the study is to locate barriers effecting the knowledge

sharing process. The authors want to use the study to implement measures to expedite the

barriers so that they are conducive to the knowledge sharing processes within firms.

[4] Sharma et al’s (2012) philosophical assumption is constructivism. The methodology

employed is the use of interpretive structure modeling (ISM) (para 11, 2012) coupled with the

use of an expert enhanced structural self-interaction matrix (EESIM) (para 1, 2012). This is

done through a review of literature and interviews of experts. The cross-sectional study uses

interviews from experts of industry and academics to determine relationships between different

variables (para 12, 2012). The data collected indicate the inference of relationship and the


direction thereof between each factor tested. Direction indicated a positive or negative

relationship, and relationship in both directions or no relationship at all (para 13, 2012).

[5] The methodological approach for the study was qualitative. The study finds that the

two most impactful barriers to knowledge sharing within an organization are lack of

management commitment and not understanding the implemented knowledge management

system (Sharma et al, para 23, 2012).

[6] This research mostly used literature regarding knowledge sharing to obtain its data.

However, there was opinion from a group of experts familiar with the knowledge sharing

process.

[7] Sharma et al (2012) want to use the study to implement measures to expedite the

barriers so that they are conducive to the knowledge sharing processes within firms. This study

attempts to locate common barriers that can be generalized to the entire population. Since the

study takes a philosophical approach that is constructivist, there are no hypothesis.

[9-10] These findings are limited to (1) the scope of the research due to the intent to

create generalizable data (Sharma et al, para 24-26, 2012). The research is also limited to (2) the

fact that the model has to be statistically verified by other means previous to implementing this

particular research study (para 24-26, 2012). The model was not verified in this study. Further

research is suggested for implementing structural equation modeling (SEM) to determine the true

effectiveness of interpretive structure modeling (para 26, 2012). This suggested research could

serve to provide a more reliable measure of knowledge management barriers impact on the

knowledge sharing program that can be retested.

[11] The study finds that the two most impactful barriers to knowledge sharing within an

organization are lack of management commitment and not understanding the implemented


knowledge management system (Sharma et al, para 21, 2012). This means that the placement of

these two barriers within the flowchart put them at the bottom of the flow chart. In order for

information to flow up from where these two barriers had fallen within the flow chart that

resulted from the study, the knowledge sharing processes would have to proceed from these

stages into other barrier realms. This means that the first two stages could either reject the

continued flow of the knowledge, or significantly impact the ability for the knowledge to cross

through the proceeding sets of barriers. This impact could negatively affect the flow of

knowledge so that knowledge is not disseminated. Management should take these two barriers

into consideration to find ways to dissolve them when attempting to implement knowledge

sharing programs within the firm.


Zhou, K. Z., & LI, C. B. (2012). How knowledge affects radical innovation: Knowledge base,

market knowledge acquisition, and internal knowledge sharing. Strategic Management

Journal, 33(9), 1090-1102. doi:10.1002/smj.1959

http://ezproxy.library.capella.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&

db=bth&AN=77656384&site=ehost-live&scope=site

[1] Zhou & Li (2012) conduct an empirical research in the form of a survey in order to

determine the difference between broad knowledge based firms and deep knowledge based

firms.

[2] The purpose of this survey was to test the theory of market knowledge acquisition that

radical innovation relates the knowledge base to the knowledge integration mechanism

controlled for size, ownership, prior performance, competitive intensity, technological

turbulence, and market growth (Zhuo & Li, p 1093-94, 2012) for high tech firms along the

http://ezproxy.library.capella.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=77656384&site=ehost-live&scope=site



Yangste River Delta in China (p 1093, 2012) and also along the Yangste River Delta, Beijing

District and Guangdong-based Pearl River Delta in China (p 1095, 2012). For the purpose of the

research the independent variables, broad based knowledge and deep based knowledge, will be

defined as knowledge that entails a general amount of information about a lot of things or

knowledge that is specialized but contains a heavy analysis that is beyond most levels of

knowledge. The dependent variable, knowledge integration mechanism, will be defined as either

the sharing or acquisition of knowledge. Control variables size, ownership and market growth

are defined as termed, prior performance, competitive intensity and technological turbulence will

be defined as the previous ability to succeed, meet goals and profit from the knowledge sharing

venture, the level of competition regarding the number of competitors and the closeness of

products and services to the firm’s own products and services, and the number of technological

products that are related or able to compete with the focal firms technological capabilities.

Research Questions are as follows:

RQ1: Does broad based knowledge benefit more from the sharing of knowledge or the

acquisition of knowledge in fostering radical innovation?

RQ2: Does deep based knowledge benefit more from sharing of knowledge or the

acquisition of knowledge in fostering radical innovation?

[3] There are two types of innovation that can be formed within markets; radical

innovation and that which is produced gradually through minor changes to products. Radical

innovation is based on a major change to a product or service and sometimes even the

introduction of an entirely new product. In order to generate radical innovation, firms may need

to maintain or acquire a broad base of information. Some firms may actually prefer to use a deep

base of information that entails a high level of skill in a narrow frame of knowledge.


[4] The philosophical assumption used in this study is objectivist. The study utilizes a

survey to measure responses from at least 177 firms regarding questions that relate to broad

based and deep based knowledge (Zhuo & Li, p 1093, 2012).

[5] The methodological approach for the study was quantitative. The study found that

there is a definite negative correlation between the acquisition of information in a broad based

knowledge firm and radical innovation (M3: b = −0.16, p < 0.05; M7: b = −0.20, p < 0.01) (Zhuo

& Li, p 1095, 2012). However there is a positive correlation between the acquisition of

information and radical innovation in a deep based knowledge firm (M3: b = −0.16, p < 0.05;

M7: b = −0.20, p < 0.01) (p 1095, 2012). Furthermore, there is a positive correlation between

knowledge sharing and radical innovation in a broad based knowledge firm (M4: b = 0.12, p <

0.10; M7: b = 0.19, p < 0.01) (p. 1095, 2012) and a negative correlation between information

sharing and radical innovation in a deep based knowledge firm (M6: b = −0.11, p < 0.10; M7: b

= −0.19, p < 0.01) (p. 1095, 2012).

[6] There were over 177 firms that participated in the survey (Zhuo& Li, p 1093, 2012).

The initial survey studied high technology companies located along the Yangste River Delta in

China (p 1093, 2012), the second survey studied high technology companies along the Yangste

River Delta, Beijing District, and Guangdong-based Pearl River Delta in China (p 1095, 2012).

The surveys were answered by senior management professional at each firm.

[7] There are two types of innovation that can be formed within markets; radical

innovation and that which is produced gradually through minor changes to products. Radical

innovation is based on a major change to a product or service and sometimes even the

introduction of an entirely new product. In order to generate radical innovation, firms may need

to maintain or acquire a broad base of information. Some firms may actually prefer to use a deep


base of information that entails a high level of skill in a narrow frame of knowledge. This study

looks to discover which method of knowledge management is most conducive of radical

innovation. It wants to discover whether or not the conduciveness of acquiring market

knowledge to radical innovation within a firm changes based on whether the firm uses broad

knowledge or deep knowledge. It wants to see if it is conducive to acquire new information in a

broad based knowledge firm or if it is more conducive to share information for generating radical

innovation. It also wants to find out if it is more conducive for a deep based knowledge firm to

share knowledge or acquire knowledge when generating radical innovation. Hypothesis are as

follows:

H1: A firm with broad knowledge will benefit more from information sharing in regards

to radical innovation (Zhuo & Li, p 1092, 2012).

H2: A firm with deep knowledge benefits more from knowledge acquisition in regards to

radical innovation (p 1093, 2012).

[9] The survey measured four factors related to knowledge sharing: knowledge breadth,

knowledge depth, knowledge sharing, market knowledge acquisition and radical innovation.

The survey was positively tested for construct validity (p < 0.01) (Zhuo & Li, p 1094, 2012) and

composite reliability (> 0.70) (p 1094, 2012) using factor analysis and AVE (> 0.50) (p 1094,

2012). It was also tested for discriminant validity use chi-square analysis, yielding positive

results (_χ2 (1) = 169.31, p = 0.000) (p 1094, 2012). There was a second survey questionnaire

administered as a longitudinal study (p 1095, 2012). This test administered all of the same study

design instruments except that all factors besides radical innovation were administered in the

first questionnaire and then radical innovation was tested six months later. All tests of validity

and reliability came back positive.


[10] There are some limitations in this study. (1) This study also employs a cross-

sectional study and lacks the ability to discover causality (Zhuo & Li, p 1097-99, 2012). Future

use of a longitudinal study might discover factors of causality. (2) The survey uses manager’s

perceptions to determine radical innovation, future research might try to find objective evidence

of these sorts of innovations, such as can be found in the use of patents and trademarks (p 1097-

99, 2012). (3) The study does not test for competence, future research might want to examine

competence building capacities related to the effects of knowledge acquisition or sharing on

radical innovation (p 1097-99, 2012). Finally, future research in what capabilities for acquiring

knowledge are most effective for positive radical innovation would be of use.

[11] The findings were in line with the hypothesis. The study found that there is a

definite negative correlation between the acquisition of information in a broad based knowledge

firm and radical innovation (M3: b = −0.16, p < 0.05; M7: b = −0.20, p < 0.01) (Zhuo & Li, p

1095, 2012). However there is a positive correlation between the acquisition of information and

radical innovation in a deep based knowledge firm (M3: b = −0.16, p < 0.05; M7: b = −0.20, p <

0.01) (p 1095, 2012). Furthermore, there is a positive correlation between knowledge sharing

and radical innovation in a broad based knowledge firm (M4: b = 0.12, p < 0.10; M7: b = 0.19, p

< 0.01) (p 1095, 2012) and a negative correlation between information sharing and radical

innovation in a deep based knowledge firm (M6: b = −0.11, p < 0.10; M7: b = −0.19, p < 0.01) (p

1095, 2012). From these results it can be determine that broad based knowledge firms should

share knowledge to instigate innovation and that deep based knowledge firms should acquire

information to instigate innovation.


Seminal Work Summary

The five seminal works that were included in the research were similar in regards to the

fact that they all looked to discover some aspect related to knowledge sharing. There are two set

of research that contributed to the knowledge sharing data: internal traits contributing to the

knowledge sharing alliance and methods of knowledge sharing most effective towards an

increased level of performance. Two of the documents focused on characteristics of the

individual person that would contribute to a positive knowledge sharing environment. One

research document concentrated on discovering what barriers existed that were most detrimental

to the ability to share knowledge, finding two aspects relating to the individual characteristics of

management professionals, and the final two documents concentrated on effective ways to use

knowledge in order to generate increased performance. The first document focused on the

ability for an affective trust and affective commitment, an internal characteristic providing a

natural love for the company and trust for its employees, could overcome the cost of sharing

knowledge and increase the motivation to share knowledge to internal personnel of the firm. The

second document focused on some specific characteristics of the individual, such as personality

traits, individual ability, extrinsic motivation, and intrinsic motivation, to see which ones

contributed most to the motivation to share knowledge and the motivation to use knowledge

sharing mechanisms, fining that personality traits and intrinsic motivation were the strongest

contributors, with personality traits leading for both research areas.

The second set of documents focused on knowledge sharing methods between alliances.

The two previously mentioned documents are similar to the fourth document in the research, that

concentrates on literature and expert opinions to discover a set of knowledge sharing barriers and

which barriers were most dominate in effecting the ability to share knowledge within the internal


organization, realizing that management commitment, a form of intrinsic motivation, and the

ability to understand the knowledge sharing mechanism were the strongest barriers to the ability

to share knowledge. This leads into the third document that seeks to discover which role of

knowledge is the most effective in contributing to the value of alliance performance, finding that

the generation and implementation of knowledge are most effective. The final document tries to

discover which base of knowledge, broad based or deep based, is most effective towards which

mechanism, knowledge sharing or knowledge acquisition, finding that knowledge with a broad

base is best for sharing and knowledge with a deep base is best for acquisition of knowledge.

This leads to a general understanding of how a knowledge based alliance should be formed and

managed.

The final outcome of the seminal works suggests that the most effective situation for a

knowledge sharing alliance in one in which the knowledge is generated and then implemented or

in which knowledge is either generated or implemented. This alliance should implement

measures to ensure that a broad base if knowledge is maintained between partners such that deep

knowledge is contributed to by broad based knowledge from the partnering firm. This

arrangement should be administered by management committing to the sharing of new

knowledge forms within internal areas of the firm through training programs related to how to

understand the knowledge sharing mechanisms. Management should make sure that programs

include methods of including self-efficacy, that knowledge sharing mechanisms include

reciprocity, and that these traits can combine in a way as to garner effective trust and affective

commitment towards the knowledge sharing venture.


Recent Work 1 [Research]

Armstrong, C. E., & Lengnick-Hall, C. (2013). The pandora's box of social integration

mechanisms. Journal of Strategy and Management, 6(1), 4-26.

doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17554251311296530 ;


[1] Armstrong and Lengnick (2013) conduct empirical research in the form of a survey

studying business leaders regarding the absorptive capacity of knowledge among internal

employees.

[2] The purpose of this survey as to test the theory of social integration that compares

potential absorptive capacity with cross functional teams, decision sharing processes, and self-

managing teams (Armstrong & Lengnick, para 25, 2013) to the level of realized capacity,

controlling for firm size, number of competitors, and HUB status for bid preparers and managers

for businesses that competitively bid for projects worth $25,000 or more at the university (para

23-24, 2013). The independent variables, potential absorptive capacity, cross functional teams,

decision sharing processes, and self-managing teams will be defined as knowledge that is

generated with the potential to be absorbed, teams from various departments within the

organization working towards a common goal, processes in which regular employees are invited

to take part in the regular decision making process, and teams by which employees allowed to

pull from the resources of available information to make their own decisions. The dependent

variable of realized absorptive capacity will be defined as that knowledge that is put together in

such a way as to win the bid. The control variables of firm size, size of the competitive, and

HUB status will be defined as the amount of employees that work at the firm, the number of



other people placing a bid for the same project, and those bidding organizations coming from

various minority groupings within the region of questions.

The research Questions are:

RQ1: Are there conditions in which social integration mechanisms hinder, rather than

support, an organization’s absorptive capacity (Armstrong & Lengnick, para 23-24, 2013)?

RQ2: What is the relationship between potential absorptive capacities and realized

absorptive capacity (para 23-24, 2013)?

RQ3: Does absorptive capacity apply to other situations beside R&D, such as bidding

(para 23-24, 2013)?

[3] Armstrong & Lengnick (2013) study the theory of social integration to find out how it

relates to realized absorptive capacity, hypothesizing that cross functional teams, decision

sharing processes, and self-managing teams have a negative effect on the ability for potential

absorptive capacity to transition into realized absorptive capacity, for social integration to

moderate the transformation of an intelligent idea into an actionable product. Previous research

has determined that absorptive capacity within firms are a major contributor to a firm’s

competitiveness. However, while many times the potential to realize absorptive capacity exists

in many facets of the organization, it is not actually realized. Some theorists contend that social

integration strategies can assist in the realization of that capacity. This study contends with three

of those social integration theories – cross functional teams, decision sharing processes, and self-

managing teams.

[4] The philosophical assumption used in this paper is objections. The study is conducted

as a survey of around 100 firms (Armstrong & Lengnick, para 23-24, 2013) that contains a set of

control variable and undergoes calculations related to validity and reliability.


[5] The methodological approach for this study is quantitative. The findings prove the

reality of hypothesis 1, but insignificantly prove hypothesis 2 and 3 – Cross functional teams

were definitely detrimental to the realization of absorptive capacity while the detriment of

decision sharing processes and self-managing teams could not be verified. Cross functional

teams were negative and significant towards absorptive capacity (p , 0.05) (Armstrong &

Lengnick, para 32, 2013), positive and significant towards potential absorptive capacity (p , 0.01

and p , 0.05) (para 32, 2013), and the moderating effect was negative and significant (p < 0.01)

(para 32, 2013). The main effect of participation in decision sharing was negative but not

significant, and the moderating effect was positive but not significant. Finally, the effect of self-

managing teams was negative but not significant. The effect on potential absorptive capacity

was negative and weakly significant (p < 0.10) (para 32, 2013) but the moderating effect was

positive and not significant.

[6] The study population consisted of vendors that provided products and services to a

large US focal university (Armstrong & Lengnick, para 23-24, 2013). The venders ranged in

sizes from single individual, sole-proprietor organizations to multidivisional public companies.

All companies in the survey were pulled from the competitive bidding process data found in the

university archives.

[7] Previous research has determined that absorptive capacity within firms are a major

contributor to a firm’s competitiveness. However, while many times the potential to realize

absorptive capacity exists in many facets of the organization, it is not actually realized. Some

theorists contend that social integration strategies can assist in the realization of that capacity.

This study contends with three of those social integration theories – cross functional teams,

decision sharing processes, and self-managing teams (Armstrng & Lengnick, 2013). The main


goal of the study is to determine the level of interaction that three methods of social integration –

cross structural teams, decision sharing, and self-managing teams, have in realizing potential

absorptive capacity. The study attempts to prove that these three methods can be harmful to the

ability to realize absorptive capacities within an organization. The hypothesis are as follows:

H1a: Cross-functional teams are negatively related to absorptive capacity Armstrong &

Lengnock, para 17, 2013).

H1b: Cross-functional teams are negatively related to the moderation of potential to

realized absorptive capacity (para 17, 2013).

H2a: Decision sharing processes are negatively related to absorptive capacity (para 20,

2013).

H2b: Decision sharing processing are negatively related to the moderation of potential to

realized absorptive capacity (para 20, 2013).

H3a: Self-management teams are negatively related to absorptive capacity (para 22,

2013).

H3b: Self-managed teams are negatively related to the moderation of potential to realized

absorptive capacity (para 22, 2013).

[9] Armstrong & Lengnick (2013) provide supporting facts within their research to prove

its validity. For instance, the different sizes of the firm chosen in the survey related to the

bidding process creates an ability to generalize the information, which contributes to validity

since it is not beneficial to just one population of real world application. To mediate situations

that may create a bias when firms experience little or no competition, the size of the competition

is controlled with an operational value related to -1 (Armstrong & Lengnick,para 27-31, 2013).

Other control factors include firm size and HUB status – referring to regionally acquainted


nationalities of minority nature (para 27-31, 2013). Data was analyzed through the use of a

Likert Scale measuring potential absorptive capacity, cross-functional teams, participation in

decision making and self-managing teams against the results of the bidding process (para 27-33,

2013). Likert Scale determinants were measured using the Cronbach’s a variable analysis

method (para 29, 2013). The analysis included a binomial regression test of the hypothesis

where the first model tested the control variables on dependent variables, the second adds

potential absorptive capacity and the rest add direct and moderating effects and social

integration.

[10] Limitations include that (1) the tests were not conclusive (Amrstrong & Lengnick,

para 45-47, 2013), also (2) the study is cross-comparison but not longitudinal in nature (para 45-

47, 2013), and (3) that binomial variables tend to be coarse figures warranting the need for future

study (para 45-47, 2013). Rather, future studies could use an aggregate of win/loss information

rather than a limited case analysis. Finally, (4) the sample population is limited to one industry

and not generalizable across other industries (para 45-47, 013). Future research could include a

broader selection of social integration methods (para 48, 2013). Future studies could also include

a longitudinal study of analyzed variables. The introduction of an unlearning variable into future

studies will be conducive to a conclusive research into the topic area (para 50, 2013). Finally,

future studies warrant the exploration of the integration and delineation capabilities of absorptive

capacities to organizational learning.

[11] The findings prove the reality of hypothesis 1, but insignificantly prove hypothesis 2

and 3. Cross functional teams were negative and significant towards absorptive capacity (p ,

0.05) (Armstrong & Lengnick, para 30-34, 2013), positive and significant towards potential

absorptive capacity (p , 0.01 and p , 0.05) (para 3-34, 2013), and the moderating effect was


negative and significant (p < 0.01) (para 30-34, 2013). Main effect of participation in decision

sharing was negative but not significant, and the moderating effect was positive but not

significant. Finally, effect of self-managing teams was negative but not significant. The effect

on potential absorptive capacity was negative and weakly significant (p < 0.10) (para 30-34,

2013) but the moderating effect was positive and not significant. The research questions were

definitely answered in the study. There does appear to be moderating effect between some social

integration theories and the ability for potential absorptive capacity to transform into realized

absorptive capacity. Decision-sharing processes and self-managing teams seem to have some

positive correlation to this phenomenon. This has clear implications for leadership in deciding

how to involve employees in the decision processes when it comes to working and creating bids,

and how to avoid the use of cross-functional teams in the bidding process. However, the paper

fails to describe the way in which each of these decision making process effects the ability to win

a bid - just that it does.


Arnold, V., Benford, T. S., Hampton, C., & Sutton, S. G. (2014). Enterprise Risk Management:

Re-Conceptualizing the Role of Risk and Trust on Information Sharing in Transnational

Alliances. Journal Of Information Systems,28(2), 257-285.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1368996

[1] Arnold et al (2014) use an empirical research design in the form of a survey to

quantitatively examine different facets of information sharing across alliances – namely, what

methods are most useful in fostering the sharing of information across alliances. It also

examines the effects that each factor has on productivity stemming from that sharing of

information across the alliances.



[2] The purpose of this survey study was to test the theory of Enterprise Risk

Management (ERM) (Arnold et al, 2014) that supersedes and/or replaces trust such that the level

of trust and level of perceived risk are effected by ERM in the information sharing process

controlled for a no basis (2014) for answering or an alliance partner’s cultural or geographic

diversity for United States Business-to-Business (B2B) ecommerce (2014) knowledgeably

employed respondents. The independent variables, trust, risk and ERM, will be defined as the

ability to believe in the statements and actions of the other party, the level of harm that could be

caused to the company through a specific decision, and the ability to manage a process so as to

mitigate risk. The dependent variable of information sharing will be defined as the ability for

one entity in an alliance to release information about a product, process, or service to another.

The control variables no basis for answering and alliance partners cultural and geographic

diversity will be defined as the ability to know the answer to the question through knowledge or

experience and differences in values, beliefs, systems or moralities, customs and the physical

displacement of the partner’s location.

The research questions are:

RQ1: What is the influence of ERM on trust, risk, and information sharing (Arnold et al,

2014)?

RQ2: What is the relationship between trust, risk, and information sharing (Arnold et al,

2014)?

[3] The study examines the moderating effects of enterprise risk management to effect

the information sharing process such that ERM could mitigate risk, in effect superseding and/or

replacing trust needed to engage in the information sharing process (Arnold et al, 2014). The


ERM satisfies the need for management systems to be implemented across organizations in order

to stimulate the smooth flow of conducting business within such organizations.

[4] The philosophic assumption used in this study in objectivist. The study conducts a

survey that employs three different levels of analysis in order to control for bias and construct

validity in order to provide a generalizable result that can be retested and used again in future

research. There were 200 respondents from various US B2B ecommerce firms Arnold et al,

2014).

[5] The methodological approach for the survey was quantitative. The data concludes

that there is a direct relationship between trust and information sharing (+0.40) (Arnold et al,

2014). There is an indirect effect between ERM and trust (+0.30) (Arnold et al, 014) and a direct

effect between ERM and information sharing (+0.26) (Arnold et al, 2014).

[6] There were several US firms that participated in this study. The participating firms

were screened as B2B ecommerce businesses. There were 200 survey respondents with 160

being high level managers and 176 having three or more years of experience with their current

employer (Arnold et al, 2014).

[7] Innovative work processes and design innovations are becoming a trend in business

that are proving imperative to the organization within the market. A global pattern for

generating innovation in practice has introduced information sharing as a major element of

innovation. Information sharing is also a major factor in alliance formation and can be the cause

of diversity of alliances outside of supply chain management. Arnold et al (2014) present a

theoretical study that predicts that enterprise risk management (ERM) can supersede and/or

replace trust in fostering information sharing. The primary goal of the study is to introduce ERM

as a new method for managing the amount of trust between alliances. This study attempts to


discover the best way to encourage information sharing between diverse alliances. The study

results in:

H1 There is a positive relationship between the strength of ERM and the amount of trust

felt by alliance partners (Arnold et al, 2014).

H2 There will be a negative association between the strength of ERM and the levels of

B2B risk felt by alliance partners (2014).

H3 There is a positive relationship between the strength of ERM and the amount of

information sharing between alliances (2014).

H4 There exists a positive relationship between a decrease in BSB risk and alliance’s

ability to trust (2014).

H5 There exists a positive correlation between decreases in B2B risk and information

sharing among alliances (2014).

H6 There exists a positive relationship between increases in trust and increased levels of

information sharing (2014).

[9] Arnold et al (2014) use statistical analysis and validation terms such as: Chi-

square¼35.34; df¼39; p-value¼0.638 (Arnold et al, 2014), leaving no room for bias and creating

constructions of data before the research is conducted. The survey instrument was contrived of

prior research data and made specifically for this study. The authors found 5 factors relating to

B2B risk that were of use in the research design: strategic nature, understanding benefits,

reengineering business processes, obligation fulfillment, and management of data processes

(Arnold et al, 2014). There were also four factors related to information sharing that were found

from the review of literature previous to the research: breadth, quality, privileged nature, and

coordination of the information exchanged (Arnold et al, 2014). The author’s then use numerical


values to code and analyze the survey. Respondents are screened before the survey is deployed.

Respondents not matching the criteria required for this survey design were left out (Arnold et al,

2014). This preliminary data was judged using a Likert scale and preliminary elimination

questions. The actual survey itself was administered as a cross-sectional questionnaire. The

survey instrument was created, not pre-used by other researchers. The preliminary instrument

was developed through an online survey. Trust measures were previously used, tested and

validated by other researchers. The B2B factors and the factors related to information sharing

were tested by other researchers and then incorporated into this survey instrument. The authors

use a multi-layered bias test with CMV and CFA methods, the CFA comes back with a bias

(0.87, which is > 0.70) (Arnold et al, 2014), however this bias is counteracted by the results of

the CMV (0.67, which is > 0.50) (Arnold et al, 2014) and it is determined that a bias is not

significant. The survey was designed to see if enterprise risk management could override the

trust factor in strengthening the desire to share information across alliances. Arnold et al (2014)

use a theoretical equation model to represent the path from ERM to B2B risk to information

sharing.

[10] Limitations are based upon (1) the reach of the survey, since it is only studying

North American firms (Arnold et al, 2014). (2) The fact that the data used in the survey is not

concrete and more interpretive can be considered a limitation. Furthermore, (3) the research is

on mature businesses and does not address the difference between start-ups and mature business

(Arnold et al, 2014). Future research could be used to discover if there is a difference, what the

difference is and if it is significant enough to change the conclusion. Finally, (4) the survey is

only transnational in nature, future studies could examine the relationships between all types of

alliance organizations (Arnold et al, 2014).


[11] The data concludes that there is a direct relationship between trust and information

sharing (+0.40) (Arnold et al, 2014). There is an indirect effect between ERM and trust (+0.30)

(Arnold et al, 2014) and a direct effect between ERM and information sharing (+0.26) (Arnold et

al, 2014). However, the structural model indicates that ERM cannot be directly related to trust.

Since ERM directly relates to other factors that moderate trust, an indirect correlation can be

determined. Since ERM can be used to manage risk, ERM actually fosters greater levels of

information sharing between alliances. The findings do answer the basic questions that the

researchers were trying to find in the study – they were able to discover the ability for ERM to

moderate risk and trust to mediate information sharing, and they were able to discover the

relationship between risk, trust and information sharing in general. Basically, the level of risk

effects the level of trust, and the ability to mitigate risk increases the levels of trust. Alliance

partners do not want to share information if there too much risk, and the greater the level of risk,

the least amount of trust towards willing alliance partners regarding the sharing of information.

When risk is mediated, this increases trust, regardless of the amount of risk, because the partner

implementing the ERM is willing the do whatever to decrease the amount of risk to make the

information sharing possible.


Bouncken, R and Teichert, T. (2013). Co-Poiesus: The Joint Birth of Knowledge across

Organizational Boundaries. International Journal Of Innovation & Technology

Management [serial online]. December 2013;10(6):-1. Available from: Business Source

Complete, Ipswich, MA. Accessed January 21, 2015.

http://ezproxy.library.capella.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&

db=bth&AN=92660679&site=ehost-live&scope=site




[1] Bounken & Teichert (2013) conduct an empirical analysis via survey instrument in

relation of copoiesus – the joint creation of knowledge within an alliance partnership.

[2] The purpose of this survey study was to test the theory of co-poiesus that uses the

administration of either automated or emergent management as co-creative rather than pre-

elaborated in knowledge construct (Bounken & Teichert, p 11-12, 2013), with unconscious or

absorptive learning as intermediaries (p11-12, 2013) to positively contribute to the success of

innovation alliances, controlled by the degree of structures process planning, intensity of clear

set milestones, use of blueprints and process-plans, and measures of process control for

performance outcomes (p11-12, 2013) of managers of small and medium sized New Media

firms, whose main services are web-design and related programming, data-base management,

promotional strategies, and media consulting, located in Germany (p10-11, 2013). The

definition of the independent variables, pre-elaborated management and emergent management,

are management systems where the knowledge and planning were created before the alliance

went into effect, and management systems in which the knowledge and planning emerges as the

alliance takes place, many times as a goal of the alliance. The definition of intermediary

variables absorptive knowledge compared to unconscious knowledge is knowledge that one has

to consciously learn and knowledge that one naturally acquires through unconscious methods.

The definition of the dependent variable, performance outcomes, means the productivity and

ease of flow of processes performed during or as a part of the alliance. The definition of the

control variables degree of structures for process planning, intensity of clear set milestones, use

of blue prints and process plans, and measures of process control are management structure

created to mediate the act of planning processes, the amount and level of clear set goals created

to mediate the activities of the partnership, clearly written and drafted planning documents made


before the partnership came into effect that guide the partnership, and clear systems of

measurement that serve the determine the performance of the partnerships as it is in progress

according to a pre-established set of guidelines that are related to those measurements.


RQ1: How does the frame of the alliance effect the way that knowledge is learned?

RQ2: Does the emergent frame of alliance management support the ability to learn

knowledge?

RQ3: What are the effects of absorption and co-poiesus of knowledge on innovation

alliances?

[3] Bounken & Teichert (2013) are using the theory of co-creation mixed with the ideals

of unconscious learning compared to conscious learning to back their prediction. Basically, the

ability to create at a moment of emergence rather than to use pre-established knowledge is

similar to the process of innovation and should be contributory to the success of an innovative

alliance.

[4] Bounken & Teichert’s (2013) philosophic assumption is objectivism. The authors use

a Likert scale survey of top management professionals and then cross-examine the outcomes of

the survey utilizing a structural examination model that can assign position to the numerical data

attained from the outcome of the survey (p11-12, 2013). They also use statistical calculations to

test the validity of their results.

[5] The methodological approach to the study was quantitative. The conclusion finds that

the style of information sharing does not place a huge negative baring on the final outcome of the

performance. However, while absorptive practices do help innovation (path coefficient 0.70 and

t-value of 3.81) (Bounken & Teichert, p16, 2013), co-creation practices tend to have a positive


effect on innovation (path coefficient of 0.28 and a t-value of 2.28) (p16, 2013). Furthermore,

the study found that the emergent management styles do have a positive effect on the ability to

co-create information (path coefficient of 0.62 and t-value of 5) (p 16, 2013) and to share

information (path coefficient 0.65 and t-value of 5) (p16, 2013). Finally, pre-planned

management does not hinder co-creation of knowledge, showing a negative path coefficient of -

0.01 (p16, 2013) rather than to correlate it positively as a negative effect.

[6] There were 196 alliances participating in the study with 52 firms quoting one alliance,

62 quoting two alliances and 7 firms quoting two or three alliances (Bounken & Teichert, p10-

11, 2013). There were 119 useable responses (p10-11, 2013) attained from executive level

management of New Media firms offering web-design and related programming, data-base

management, promotional strategies, and media consulting (p10-11, 2013) that operated as small

and medium sized firms in Germany (p10, 2013).

[7] This study was conducted to examine the difference between alliances that absorb

information between each other and alliances that create information on a joint basis. With the

need for businesses to innovate with new products, designs and practices, companies are creating

global alliances at an increasing rate. One of the main elements that can be flexible in its

administration in order to allow an alliance partnership to succeed has to do with the way the

alliance is managed, and knowledge thereof. Bounken & Teichert (2013) predict that the co-

creation of knowledge, called co-poiesus in this research, will generate an increased level of

performance in an innovative alliance. This is because their theory of co-creation is emergent

and falls in line with the general practice of innovation. The main goal of the study is to

determine what values contribute positively to the performance of co-creative alliances and what

management style will most likely foster alliances that do undergo projects of co-creation.


The hypothesis are as follows:

H1a It is apparent that a pre-planned management program supports knowledge

absorption within alliances (Bounken & Teichert, p7, 2013).

H1b Pre-planned management also has a negative effect of the ability to generate new

knowledge within an alliance (p8, 2013).

H2a The contrition of a management plan during alliance activity helps facilitate

knowledge creation within an alliance (p9, 2013).

H2b The contrition of a management plan will also react positively towards information

sharing within an alliance (p9, 2013).

H3a The absorption of knowledge in innovation alliance contributes to the innovation

(p10, 2013).

H3b The co-creation of information during such alliances contributes to innovation

performance (p10, 2013).

H3c The absorption of knowledge has a greater positive effect towards innovation in

alliances than co-creation of information does – called co-poesies (p10, 2013).

[9] Bounken & Teichert (2013) took an objectivist philosophy in their research using

terminology such as a comparative fit index (CFI) value of 0.80 (Bouncken & Teichert, p13-14,

2013) which is < 0.90 (p13-14, 2013), the threshold value . These are special measures to

control for bias and interpretation of the data. The survey was pre-administered to executive

level personnel and some questions were eliminated. The authors controlled for the degree of

process control involved in the influence of each construct. The survey was administered as a

cross-sectional questionnaire. The survey went through a 3 round process (p13-14, 2013) for

follow-up and maximization of respondents. The survey was administered as a Likert scale


measurement with 3 constructs and 4 variables (p13-14, 2013) tested for each construct. The

survey used disagreement and agreement responses as a basis of measurement. It was matching

in regards that it chose a specific type of employee in a specific industry as survey respondents,

rather than to just choose businesses and employees at random. The authors use a LISREL

instrument to measure co-efficient between latent dependent and independent variables (p13-14,

2013). It used a measurement model to test reliability and validity and a structural equation

model to measure relationships from left to right: emergence & pre-elaboration to Co-poiesis &

absorption to innovation performance. They used a Chi-Square that fit within threshold to

measure reliability (1.89 which is < 3.0) (p13-14, 2013), along with a CFI (0.89 which is < 0.90)

(p13-14, 2013) that also fit within threshold. They used factor loadings (> 4.0) (p13-14, 2013)

and t-values (> 2.0) (p13-14, 2013) to measure the validity of variables and constructs that were

a good fit for the design. The RMSEA came out to 0.068 (p1-14, 2013), which is below the

threshold of 0.08 (p13-14, 2013). Finally, the convergence validity measure of Cronbach’s alpha

was also a good fit (0.7) (p14, 2013). The study was designed to control for managerial

influence on each construct. The survey was created to test the levels of two different types of

knowledge accumulation on alliance performance.

[10] Limitations include that (1) the study was only conducted on one industry (Bounken

& Teichert, p17-20, 2013). This is significant because the variables and contingent control

factors could change for other industries. (2) A cross-industry study would verify these results

across a wide range of companies (p17-20, 2013). This study was conducted as a single industry

study that could be used to contribute verified factors in a much broader study across multiple

industries. Further studies could also focus on different stages of a project and the relation of

trust to co-creation of information.


[11] The conclusion finds that the style of information sharing does not place a huge

negative baring on the final outcome of the performance. However, while absorptive practices

do help innovation (path coefficient 0.70 and t-value of 3.81) (Bounken & Teichert, p16, 2013),

co-creation practices tend to have a positive effect on innovation (path coefficient of 0.28 and a

t-value of 2.28) (p16, 2013). Furthermore, the study found that the emergent management styles

do have a positive effect on the ability to co-create information (path coefficient of 0.62 and t-

value of 5) (p16, 2013) and to share information (path coefficient 0.65 and t-value of 5) (p16,

2013). Finally, pre-planned management does not hinder co-creation of knowledge, showing a

negative path coefficient of -0.01 (p17, 2013) rather than to correlate it positively as a negative

effect. These findings are mixed in their level of coherence to the hypothesis. However, the

main research questions have been answered. The frame of innovation has significance only

because co-poiesus tends to effect performance more strongly in a positive manner than the

positive affect found from absorptive learning. This means that it is more efficient. The second

question has also been answered because emergent management is found to have an

outstandingly productive effect on performance. This data answers two and three, the first

question is answered by considering the relationship between pre-planned and emergent

management. The data shows that the frame of management does not affect performance, since

pre-planned management does not hinder co-creation of knowledge. Managers wishing to

generate a productive innovation alliance should consider these factors during the planning

stages of the alliance.


Elmuti, D., Abou-Zaid, A., & Jia, H. (2012). Role of Strategic Fit and Resource

Complementarity in Strategic Alliance Effectiveness. Journal of Global Business and


Technology, 8(2), 16-28. Retrieved from


[1] Elmuti et al (2012) use empirical research in the form of a survey to examine a new

set of factors that could contribute to the success or failure of a strategic alliance.

[2] The purpose of the survey was to test the theory of strategic fit and complementarity

that relates strategic fit, resource complementarity, and learning process (Elmuti et al, p20-21,

2012) to strategic organizational effectiveness controlling for type of industry, country, annual

sales, and job status (p20-21, 2012) for management professionals in charge of strategic alliances

at various manufacturing and professional services firms located in the Unites States, Canada,

Japan, United Kingdom, and Mexico (p21, 2012). For the intent of this study the independent

variables strategic fit, resource complementarity and learning process will be defined as firm

alliances that operate under similar management strategies, alliance firms that provide and/or use

similar resources, and the different ways that information is disseminated to internal employees

of each firm in a partnership or between the two partnerships. The dependent variable strategic

organizational effectiveness will be defined as the ability for each firm to benefit from the

alliance, taking something new from the alliance into the firm for use even after the alliance has

ceased. The control variables type of industry, country, annual sales and job status will be

defined as termed.

Research Questions are as follows:

RQ1: What are the factors that may contribute to the success or failure of strategic

alliance programs?

RQ2: How do strategic fit, resource complementarity and learning processes affect the

effectiveness of a strategic alliance?



[3] Elmuti et al (2012) use prior research regarding alliance effectiveness on single

factors and prior research related to different forms of research regarding methodology and

design related to strategic alliances. Alliance are becoming an increasingly important factor to

the success in business fostering capabilities of information sharing, innovation, and resource

attainment. In order to create effective alliance partnerships it is important to understand what

factors contribute to the success or failure of such alliances. The authors combine previous data

to conduct their own research hypothesizing that strategic fit, resource complementarity and

evolutionary learning processes contribute positively to the whole organization of a research

alliance.

[4] The philosophical assumption used in this research is objectivist. The study relates

strategic fit, resource complementarity and learning processes in 729 firms to strategic

organizational effectiveness (Elmuti et al, p21, 2012).

[5] The methodological approach use in this research is quantitative. Five factors from

the study indicate a statistically significant correlation between strategic fit, resource

complementarity and evolutionary learning to the success of strategic alliances (Emuti et al, p20-

-21, 2012).

[6] There were 79 organizations that participated in the study (Elmuti et al, p21, 2012).

These organizations were form various regions across the globe, including United States,

Canada, Japan, United Kingdom, and Mexico (p21, 2012). Firms names were generated

randomly form a computer database called “Compact Disclosure” (p21, 2012), along with a

random extraction of the International Directory of Corporate Affiliation in 2011 (p21, 2012).

Random selection was conducted across several types of industries in various settings.


[7] Elmuti et al (2012) use prior research regarding alliance effectiveness on single

factors and prior research related to different forms of research regarding methodology and

design related to strategic alliances. Alliance are becoming an increasingly important factor to

the success in business fostering capabilities of information sharing, innovation, and resource

attainment. In order to create effective alliance partnerships it is important to understand what

factors contribute to the success or failure of such alliances. The authors combine previous data

to conduct their own research hypothesizing that strategic fit, resource complementarity and

evolutionary learning processes contribute positively to the whole organization of a research

alliance. Hypothesis are as follows:

H1: Organizational effectiveness of the alliance will increase with increasing factors of

strategic fit (Elmuti et al, p19, 2012).

H2: Organizational effectiveness will increase with increasing levels of resource

complementarity (p19, 2012).

H3: Organizational effectiveness will increase with increasing programs of evolutionary

learning processes (p19, 2012).

[9] The cross-sectional survey questionnaire was administered to 3,000 different

corporation (Elmuti et al, p21, 2012) throughout North America, Asia and Europe (p21, 2012).

Businesses were selected at random using the Compact Disclosure database (p21, 2012) and the

International Directory of Corporate Affiliation administered in 2011 (p21, 2012).

Questionnaires were handed out in the mail as well as web formats with two follow-ups to

reduce non-responsiveness. One instrument administered in the study was the Likert’s Profile of

Organizational Characteristics, resulting in a positive 0.73 (p20-21, 2012). The authors used

demographic factors as control variables and a Cronbach’s scale to test for reliability (p20-21,


2012), which turned out positive at .70 (p20-21, 2012). The study had a 25% response rate (p19,

2012). Other control variables were regional affiliation, industry types and size or age of

alliance. The study was conducted to test the effect of strategic fit, resource complementarity

and evolutionary learning on the overall successfulness of a strategic alliance.

[10] Limitations of the study included (1) small sample size (Elmuti et al, p26, 2012).

The authors also indicated that there was a (2) possible bias by the respondents (p26, 2012).

Furthermore, the authors conclude that (3) the results are not generalizable due to the locational

effects of the study (p26, 2012). The authors also suggest a broader study of strategic fit and

performance factors 9p26, 2012). Finally, they indicate that a longitudinal study would

constitute a better evaluation in future research (p26). They suggest using the same factors as

included in this cross-sectional research for the longitudinal design.

[11] Five factors from the study indicate a statistically significant correlation between

strategic fit, resource complementarity and evolutionary learning to the success of strategic

alliances (Elmuti, p25-26, 2012). These factors are: efficiency, performance, adaptability,

satisfaction and overall effectiveness (p25-26, 2012). Only 58% of the firms (p25-26, 2012)

recognized that the benefits of their current alliance activities outweighed the costs. The most

integral factors of alliance success as interpreted by the firms were integrated behavior, sharing

information and cooperation (p26, 2012). Finally, taking each factors from the opposite view,

how the alliance failed, proved that when strategic fit, resource complementarity and

evolutionary learning were absent or too hard to implement, the alliance was not effective, did

not form well and was not successful (p26, 2012). The implications of this study are that it is

important to plan for the alliance ahead of time by having representatives from both member

organizations meet to compare strategies in order to integrate cultural attributes and behavioral


aspects between employees administering the alliance in both organizations and to cooperate in

regards to what information is going to be shared and how.

Recent Work 5 [Theoretical]

Osarenkhoe, A. (2010). A study of inter-firm dynamics between competition and cooperation - A

coopetition strategy. Journal of Database Marketing & Customer Strategy Management, 17(3-4),

201-221. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/dbm.2010.23


[1] Osarenkhoe (2010) use a theoretical interview study of three industrial networks in

order to determine the extent that a hybrid competitive and cooperative relationship between

businesses can generate value to the individual firms involved.

[2] The purpose of this inquiry is to understand the extent that coopetitive relationships

can generate value for various members of three organization engaging in coopetitive operations

– a food court in Gallarian Nian Mall in Gavle, Sweden; Fujitsu Services AB in Kista Industrial

Park in Stockholm, Sweden; and the Association of Wood Processors of Kosovo (AWPK)

(Osarenkhoe, p206, 2010). At this stage in the research, the coopetitive relationships will

generally be defined as hybrid competitive and cooperative relationships between alliance

partnerships in a network. Research questions are as follows:

RQ1: What are the inter-organizational dynamics of coopetition?

RQ2: What is the impact of coopetition on collective strategies for value generation?

[3] In today’s competitive markets, businesses are finding more and more that they are

generating a greater amount of success by creating alliances of cooperation and collaboration.

However, these businesses still work on a competitive edge – their products or services are

similar enough that they need to target the same audience or require the same resources. In order



to optimize the need to collaborate, strategies of coopetition that recognize the need to compete

and the need to cooperate as a joint unit allow businesses to overcome these competitive factors

to collaborate. However, for a business to generate these behaviors with external partners, they

need to master strategies of coopetition in inter-firm organization. The article recognizes this

fact and seeks to determine the overall effect that the strategy has for creating value within

organizations as they interact in markets.

[4] The philosophical assumption is this study is interpretist. The study compares

interviews of different levels of personnel inside of three different organizations operating

through coopetive strategy to understand the dynamics that contribute to the value of the

organizations (Osarenkhoe, p206, 2010).

[5] The methodological approach is qualitative. The study finds that most firms do not

engage in either competitive or cooperative relationships but mostly a hybrid association

(Osarenkkhoe, p211-17, 2010). The study establishes 4 types of competitive/cooperative

relationship: low compete / low cooperate; high compete / low cooperate; low compete/high

cooperate; high compete/high cooperate – all three involved engaged in low compete/high

cooperate, however high compete/high cooperate is most conducive to innovative outcomes

(p217, 2010). Compete regularly happens over immediate characteristics of rivalry where

cooperate happens around immediate characteristics of shared interest. Most relationships are

both economic and non-economic/social capital ventures (p217, 2010). Value generation occurs

when the relationship is aligned around a common objective – mall visitors for food court,

market innovation / expansion for technological cluster and political and value chain for wood

manufacturing (p217-19, 2010). Each shared objective enhanced competitive positioning of

individual firms.


[6] The study population consists of regular employees of three organizations engaging in

coopetitive strategies – a food court in Gallarian Nian Mall in Gavle, Sweden; Fujitsu Services

AB in Kista Industrial Park in Stockholm, Sweden; and the Association of Wood Processors of

Kosovo (AWPK) (Ozarenkhow, p206, 2010). There were also interviews conducted of

personnel related to the organizations, such as mall personnel outside of the food court, or NGO

organizations associated with the AWPK, but not actually members of it.

[7] In today’s competitive markets, businesses are finding more and more that they are

generating a greater amount of success by creating alliances of cooperation and collaboration.

However, these businesses still work on a competitive edge – their products or services are

similar enough that they need to target the same audience or require the same resources. In order

to optimize the need to collaborate, strategies of coopetition that recognize the need to compete

and the need to cooperate as a joint unit allow businesses to overcome these competitive factors

to collaborate. However, for a business to generate these behaviors with external partners, they

need to master strategies of coopetition in inter-firm organization. The article recognizes this

fact and seeks to determine the overall effect that the strategy has for creating value within

organizations as they interact in markets.

[9] Osarenkhoe (2010) first defined variables for use in interpreting the data, then

extracted information from the data relevant to those variables. The theoretical framework was

used to categorize the data to enable comparisons (p206, 2010). Each set of data was linked to

matching strategic intentions. It was then linked to the hybrid level of cooperation and

competition to measure the coopetition level of each strategic element. These are the author’s

steps taken to create validation of the data. Information is also validated in reference to the fact

that it was generated by various interviews of varying levels of employment at each organization.


[10] The main limitation of the article was that (1) it was an interpretive study that cannot

be empirically regenerated (Osarenkhoe, p17-19, 2010). The author indicated that (2) there were

only 3 general case studies that can only narrowly indicate the entire population of these types of

alliances (p17-19, 2010). Further research should be conducted on the strategic methods for

developing coopetition among alliance networks. Also, research should be conducted in the

determinant of emergence and development of inter-firm coopetition, type of coopetition, critical

issues in strategic management of coopetition, types of learning experienced through coopetition,

and a broader view of the most interesting cases of coopetition strategy.

[11] The findings show high level of intensity for interaction between food vendors in the

food court with low competition due to a mutual commitment towards beneficial activity, among

constituents – they were not allowed to sell the same dishes (Osarenkhoe, p211-15, 2010). Their

competition is considered cooperative in nature, with value-added practices contributing to their

competitive factors – uniqueness of tools, designs and services (p211-15, 2010). Advantages

were in the sharing of costs and included services such as events, advertising and janitorial

services. While the technology sector did experience a bias in competitive outcomes, their

strategies were also more cooperative than competitive, leaving some actors at a dependent

disadvantage (p211-215, 2010). The most advantageous part of the network was in the

heterogeneous nature of the market players in the services offered, which tended to complement

each other in collaboration within the cluster. Some firms were able to use the relationship to

benefit external actors in alliance with cooperative benefits of the internal actors (p211-15,

2010). The wood manufacturing network mostly collaborated for the purpose of: supply chain

management, marketing activities, information sharing, customer satisfaction, and capacity

building training, provision of services and advocacy and lobbying (p211-15, 2010). While each


player were competitive for market resources and market consumers, the different specializations

allowed for cooperative advantages in these previously mentioned areas. Their collaborative

behaviors also offered them greater opportunities for financing as a network and then delegating

funds between each other. The study also finds that most firms do not engage in either

competitive or cooperative relationships but mostly a hybrid association (p215-17, 2010). The

study establishes 4 types of competitive/cooperative relationship: low compete / low cooperate;

high compete / low cooperate; low compete/high cooperate; high compete/high cooperate – all

three involved engaged in low compete/high cooperate, however high compete/high cooperate is

most conducive to innovative outcomes (p217, 2010). Compete regularly happens over

immediate characteristics of rivalry where cooperate happens around immediate characteristics

of shared interest. Most relationships are both economic and non-economic/social capital

ventures (p217, 2010). Value generation occurs when the relationship is aligned around a

common objective – mall visitors for food court, market innovation / expansion for technological

cluster and political and value chain for wood manufacturing. Each shared objective enhanced

competitive positioning of individual firms.

Recent Work 6 [Theoretical]

Singh, A. K., Singh, M. D., & Sharma, B. P. (2013). Modeling of knowledge management

technologies: An ISM approach. IUP Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(3), 41-55.

Retrieved

from http://search.proquest.com.library.capella.edu/docview/1430517153?accountid=27965

[1] Singh et al (2013) conduct a theoretical research analysis of literature and expert

interviews to examine the effectiveness of a combination of 24 knowledge management



technologies (p41, 2013) using the reliability of their use to knowledge sharing and knowledge

management.

[2] The purpose of this structural modeling study is to discover the most basic knowledge

management technologies for use in knowledge sharing and knowledge management techniques

for experts from industry and academia in knowledge intensive organizations (Singh et al, p45,

2013). At this stage in the research, the knowledge sharing technologies will be generally

defined as those technologies that facilitate the ability to share knowledge with the most amount

of employees with the most minimal amounts of effort at the lowest levels of the organization.


RQ1: What are the contextual relationships between different knowledge management

technologies?

RQ2: Which technologies enhance the smooth knowledge sharing activities between

employees in the industries?

[3] Since knowledge sharing capabilities are an integral part of the innovation process in

today’s highly technical industries, it can be resolved that internalized knowledge sharing

capabilities are a high concern among knowledge based organizations. Organizations with a

high number of employees need to develop methods of sharing knowledge that can reach a broad

range of employees in a small amount of time. The primary goal of the study is to find what

methods can be used to share knowledge among a large base of employees. The study focuses

on the dissemination of knowledge to bottom level employees. These are employees that may be

at the frontline of knowledge implementation practices, receiving basic knowledge that could

impact the flow of productivity at individual firms.


[4] The philosophic approach is interpretist. The study compares the input from experts

in industry and academia with a literature review (Singh et al, p45, 2013) to derive the

relationship of different knowledge management technologies to determine the most effective

technologies to the smooth sharing of knowledge within the firm.

[5] The methodological approach is qualitative. The research found that the internet, e-

mail, groupware, and enterprise portal were the most significant forms of knowledge

management technologies (Singh et al, p53, 2012).

[6] There were no particular organizations that participated in this research. There was a

group of experts from industry and academia that provided input regarding different knowledge

management technologies (Singh et al, p45, 2012), and this input was cross examined with the

literature.

[7] Since knowledge sharing capabilities are an integral part of the innovation process in

today’s highly technical industries, it can be resolved that internalized knowledge sharing

capabilities are a high concern among knowledge based organizations. Organizations with a

high number of employees need to develop methods of sharing knowledge that can reach a broad

range of employees in a small amount of time.

[9] The cross-sectional study uses interviews from experts of industry and academics to

determine relationships between different variables (Singh et al, p45, 2013). The data collected

indicate the inference of relationship and the direction thereof between each factor tested (p46-

48, 2013). Direction indicated a positive or negative relationship, and relationship in both

directions or no relationship at all. A transitivity test is used to test conceptual validity (p48,

2013). These figures combined to form a reachability matrix called an ISSM and ISM combined

instrument (p44-49, 2013). This reachability matrix is used to construct a structural model


known as a digraph. A MICMAC analysis instrument is used to derive levels of driving versus

dependence power of each variable based on 4 factors (p52, 2013). The data collected from

these two models are charted along a Cartesian graph (p48-49, 2013) where they are labeled with

numbers that will determine their placement within an information sharing capabilities flowchart

(p51, 2013). The study is designed to discover the reachability of different knowledge sharing

technologies within a firm in order to share knowledge with the greatest amount of people in the

least amount of time.

[10] The research is limited by (1) the scope of capabilities represented (Singh et al, p53,

2013) and (2) the number of participants in the EESIM process (p53, 2013). Further research

could engage a larger portion of the population and integrate even larger amounts of knowledge

sharing techniques. Further research could also be supplied for studying the implementation

techniques for these technologies. Also, a more detailed look at knowledge sharing capabilities

to introduce levels of security and types of techniques disseminated through each capability

measure would provide a greater comprehension of application processes. Furthermore, the

study could attain a greater level of validity through the use of statistical validation modeling

techniques.

[11] The research found that the internet, e-mail, groupware, and enterprise portal were

the most significant forms of knowledge management technologies (Singh et al, p53,

2013). These systems were the easiest to administer. It was suggested that these mechanisms

could be implemented by a very small set of experts at the top of the line and then disseminated

to any or all employees within the firm. The technologies could be implemented for broad use

and also controlled for specific populations in both large and small numbers. This creates a very

high level of generalizability for knowledge sharing capabilities.



Taco van, d. V., van Donk, D. P., Gimenez, C., & Sierra, V. (2012). Modelling the integration-

performance relationship. International Journal of Operations & Production

Management, 32(9), 1043-1074. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01443571211265693


[1] Taco et al (2012) use an empirical research analysis in the form of a survey to study

different ways to improve the performance of complex supply chain integration.

[2] The purpose of this survey was to test the theory of the integration-performance

relationship that utilizes supply complexity to moderate the relationship of communication

infrastructure and cooperative behavior (Taco et al, p1055-56, 2012) with planning information

and joint improvement to performance, controlling for size (p1053, 2012) for general managers

of small to medium sized companies most likely engaging in buyer-supplier type relationships in

Spain and the Netherlands (p1052-53, 2012). For the purpose of this research, the independent

variables communication infrastructure, cooperative behavior, planning information and joint

improvement will be defined as the way in which the management communicates with lower

level employees, the way that employees of the same level communicate with one another, the

way that lower level employees communication with management, and the way in which the

firm inter-reacts with external partners, the level of ability for the firm to cohere with the

activities of the partner and to agree with and engage in those activities within the partnership,

the agreeableness of interfirm employees to the tasks related to the alliance, the level of planning

that goes into the ability to share information prior to the formation of the alliance and the ability

to agree to the scope of the alliance, information that is pre-determined to be shared, and

improvement structure that is agreed upon by both partners in the alliance with predetermined

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01443571211265693



perimeters for judging and monitoring improvement. The dependent variable performance will

be defined as the outcome of the alliance and the smoothness of operations during the activity of

the alliance. The control variable size is defined as the number of employees working at each

firm.


RQ1: Does communication infrastructure play an enabling role in alliance performance?

RQ2: Does cooperative behavior play an enabling role in alliance performance?

RQ3: What determines the dimensions and performance of the supply chain?

RQ4: Does supply complexity play a moderating role in the outcome of alliance

performance?

[3] In today’s highly technological society industries are finding it increasingly important

to share knowledge between each other to foster the innovation process. Firms either both

decide to stay as a united alliance or take the knowledge gained in the alliance and share it

among other alliances, encouraging an overall market growth among industries. However, many

firms are still reluctant to share knowledge, and some do not find that performance is enhanced

enough through the knowledge sharing process to warrant a need for sharing knowledge. The

authors are looking for the best way to implement processes for integrating knowledge through

complex supply chains. The research was conducted through the use of a controlled survey

study measured by use of a statistical modeling technique.

[4] Taco et al (2012) use a philosophic assumption that is objectivist. The study

compares input from a variety of firms in two locations in Europe, the Netherlands and Spain

(p1053-54, 2013), in order to determine the relationship of communication infrastructure,


cooperative behavior, planning information, and joint improvement (p1055-56, 2013) as

moderated by supply complexity to performance, through the use of a survey design.

[5] The methodological approach for the study was quantitative. The outcome showed

that the biggest drivers of performance improvement in supply chain integration is cooperative

behavior and planning information for sharing (Taco et al, p1058-61, 2012).

[6] The survey was conducted of a sample of 145 companies from the Netherlands and

Spain (Taco et al, p1053-55, 2012) based on a target audience from the NACE listing with

business codes 21, 22, 24, 25,and 27-35 (p1053-55, 2013), because they were the most likely to

engage in supplier-buyer relationships. The employees engaged in the study of the small to

medium sized companies of 50 or fewer employees were general managers (p1053-55, 2012).

[7] .The primary goal of the study was to determine what factors of the knowledge

sharing portion of a value chain alliance contribute to an enhanced level of performance, creating

an atmosphere where knowledge sharing becomes an encouraged practice within alliance

portfolios. The hypothesis are as follows:

H1: There is a positive relationship to alliance performance in having a communication

infrastructure and being able to plan information (Taco et al, p1047, 2012).

H2: There is a positive relationship between having a communication infrastructure and

joint improvement among alliance (p1047, 2012).

H3: There is a positive relationship between cooperative behaviors and planning

information (p1047, 2012).

H4: There is a positive relationship between cooperative behavior and joint improvement

among the alliance (p1048, 2012).


H5: There is a positive relationship between planning information and performance in the

alliance (p1048, 2012).

H6: There is a positive relationship between the implementation of joint improvement

and performance (p1049, 2012).

H7: There is a positive relationship between cooperative behavior and performance

(p1049, 2012).

H8: There is a positive relationship between having a communication infrastructure and

performance (p1049, 2012).

[9] A pre-test was conducted prior to the full administration of the survey (Taco et al,

p1053, 2012). The cross-sectional survey was conducted using a systematic sampling criteria to

find a randomized population of respondents from companies from two convenient countries

listing businesses in a specific set of business sectors (p1053, 2012). The survey exercised an

elimination round related to whether or not the companies were suppliers to another company.

Taco et al (2012) used a randomized sample downloaded from the AMADEUS database,

limiting for companies employee 50 or more employees (p 1053-54, 2012). The web-survey was

administered through an email link sent to companies that had previously stated that they were

willing to participate. There were reminders sent to each participating company in case of non-

response. An ANOVA test was administered to test for differences in respondents using the

NACE designation as one of the controlling factors - no significant difference was indicated

(p1054-56, 2012). Respondents were merged yielding 145 companies (p1053-54, 2012) in the

study. It was determined that all firms were small and medium sized enterprises and size was

used as a control variable. The authors used an extrapolation method to test early and late

responses to test for a non-response bias, no bias was indicated (p1054-56, 2012). Furthermore,


a Harmon single factor test was utilized with an exploratory factor analysis instrument to test for

common method variance that also indicated no bias (factor loading of 0.6) (p1054-56, 2012).

Sub-samples of complexity levels were categorized and tested to control for variability in

complexity throughout the design. Factor loading analysis was performed to test variability of

the constructs, yielding 65% variability (p1054-56, 2012). Crohmbach’s alpha and AVE

instruments were used to test for reliability and validity, which came back with positive results

(0.70) (p1054-56, 2012). A sample size tests yielded no size relevance in the study (Pearson

correlation analysis with p > 0.18) (p1054-56, 2012). The SmartPLS 2.0 software was used to

perform an SEM model using LISREL and AMOS, indicating that the sample size was sufficient

to validate the results (p1054-56, 2012). The study was designed to find factors of supply chain

integration of knowledge sharing activity that were most conducive to performance.

[10] Limitations of the study were related to (1) the definition of complexity (Taco et al,

p1064-65, 2012). There was also a loss of generalizability in the study due to (2) the limited

number of regions (p1064-65, 2012). Also, the study only included (3) the general material of

the supply chain integration itself, whereas it could have included micro-level factors that

supersede these materials (p1064-65, 2012). Further research is suggested for testing the direct

vs indirect effects of information and communications technologies against multiple dimensions

of supply chain integrations. The current study merely covers the general process of integration.

[11] The outcome showed that the biggest drivers of performance improvement in supply

chain integrations is cooperative behavior and planning information for sharing (Only 7.3%

variance in the data analysis) (Taco et al, p1058-61, 2012). The data in question revolved around

complex data designs. These designs are usually proprietary and any knowledge sharing may

require factors related to trust, need and growth incentives. Other drivers were either not


significantly correlated or negatively correlated to performance improvement. The results can be

used to implement project scopes for future alliance formations in order to plan for alliance

success.

Recent Work Summary

The recent work regarding knowledge sharing alliances shared a common characteristic

in that is talked about implementation of alliances and knowledge alliances in particular. Topics

discovered in the recent works included the absorptive capacity of knowledge, enterprise risk

management, the co-creation of knowledge, termed copoiesis (Bounken & Teichert, 2013),

strategic fit and commonalities across alliance partners, the competitive-cooperative hybrid

relationship in alliance implementation, knowledge management technologies, and drivers of

performance improvement along supply chain alliance partnerships. These documents can easily

be separated into knowledge alliance implementation and alliance implementation in general.

Knowledge alliance implementation dealt with how to manage the knowledge for different

sharing situations and different employment types. It also dealt with the different forms of

knowledge sharing and sought out the most effective methods towards increased performance of

the alliance.

There were four recent documents dealing with knowledge alliances. The first sought out

an answer to the question of how to increase absorptive capacity of knowledge across alliances,

or the ability to win the bid determined upon a knowledgeable product, and found that cross-

functional teams could harm absorptive capacity but that decision-sharing practices and self-

managing teams could have a positive effect on the ability to realize the absorptive capacity of

knowledge. The second dealt with a way to increase the ability to share knowledge with alliance

partners through the use of ERM systems, the findings indicated that ERM decreases risk, which


indirectly increases trust in the relationship and, thereby, increases the ability to share

knowledge. A third finds that the ability for organizations to generate knowledge together

during the implementation of an alliance was more positively conducive to innovation that

merely sharing knowledge, however, although the was moderated by emergence of knowledge

with a positive contribution, the utilization of pre-planned knowledge in the co-creation of new

knowledge did not have a negative effect on the performance outcome of the relationship.

Finally, the knowledge alliance research found that knowledge sharing technologies dealing with

internet, email, groupware, and the use of an enterprise portal were the most conducive to

sharing knowledge with the most amount of people both internal and external to the firm. All of

these techniques have implications related to the implementation of the findings in the seminal

works discovered in this research.

The second set of recent works introduces techniques for the management of the

implementation of an alliance partnership in general. The first documents attempts to find if

there is a correlation between strategic fit, complimentary resources and evolutionary learning to

strategic organizational effectiveness of alliances, finding that there is a correlation and that the

individual elements of integrated behavior, sharing information and cooperation were the most

important conducive factors. The second document studied the relationship of cooperation and

competition as a hybrid element in alliance implementation and found that alliances that

implement high compete and high cooperation strategies hand in hand are most conducive to

innovation, even though the study participants all exercised low compete, high cooperative

relationships. Finally, the third document in this section reviewed the drivers of performance

along strategic organizational alliances and found that cooperative behavior and planning

information were the most conducive practices towards increased performance of the overall


alliance organization. All of these documents indicate ways in which knowledge management

and knowledge alliance management techniques in previous studies could be carried out on the

business to business level to increase effectiveness.

Comparison of Seminal and Recent Works

Differences

There was a lot to gain from all of the information in this document, however there were

some main differences between the seminal works, the works that have been cited a lot by other

researchers and considerably more than other works that are related, and the recent works, works

that have been recently created with little to no citing by other researchers. The main difference

between the two sets of documents was that the seminal works tended to focus more on the

internal working of the firm as they effect knowledge sharing or knowledge sharing alliances,

and the recent works tended to focus more on the external workings of the firm, even with those

that mentioned internal structures that were geared for external applications. The seminal works

covered topics such as what characteristics of employees were most conducive to the motivation

to share knowledge or to use knowledge sharing mechanisms. These related to the internal

management structure of the firm as they indicate styles of management that would be most

conducive to alliance performance. Whereas the recent work did study alliance performance

characteristics but these characteristics were determined through techniques such as cooperation

between the alliances and the sharing of information or planning of information sharing. Rather

than a focus on the internal management processes, these documents focused on the ways in

which the firms managed performance across the alliance itself, between alliance partners.

The seminal works also covered topics such as what barriers are most effective in

hindering the sharing of knowledge within the organization, which knowledge mechanism

should be used according the base of knowledge maintained within the organization and what


strategic role of knowledge is most conducive to the performance of an alliance. These all deal

with how the internal management of knowledge can be integrated into the external atmosphere

to enhance the performance of knowledge sharing. However, the recent works presented the

research a little differently. The topics in the recent works focused on how knowledge could best

be absorbed between alliances, how to manage for risk in an information sharing alliance so that

actors could overcome trust barriers, the most conducive way to co-create knowledge within an

alliance environment, and the best technologies to use for implementing a knowledge sharing

program to reach the widest level of individuals, internal and external to the firm, with the least

intensive level of labor. These are similar techniques to the seminal works, however the focus of

these techniques is entirely separate from the internal workings of the firm and completely within

the bounds to the alliance relationship.

Similarities

There are some similarities in the documents. For instance, those documents that use an

objectivist philosophical approach, throughout all of the literature reviewed, utilize Likert Scale

survey techniques with Chronbach’s a as a test of validity. The documents that are theoretical in

in philosophical approach and / or based upon a literature review utilize the MICMAC technique

for at least one stage of the data analysis. Furthermore, they all focus on a few of the same type

of inquiries – the most conducive way to use knowledge, the best way to relegate trust, and how

best to increase the performance of an alliance. One element agreed upon for all of the

documents was the need for cooperation. Two other common elements among all of the

documents were the need for planning of information and for managing trust. This provides an

indication for further research related to ways in which to generate cooperation and trust between

US businesses and those of India, and how to integrate those methods into techniques related to

the planning of information.


It is important to note that the documents taking a theoretical philosophical approach

focused on the management of knowledge for sharing among a large number of employees

within order between firms. One document focused on the barriers to knowledge sharing and the

other focused on technologies most conducive to the mass sharing of knowledge. The literature

review document focused on the role of knowledge. It is obvious the constructivist nature of the

theoretical documents as each document sought out what the methods under research were, and

then which ones were more pertinent to the phenomenon under measure. The literature

document is heavily interpretist in that the entire outcome depended on the way that the authors

perceived the literature read, with no clear instrument to measure that information. The objective

documents all focused on specific elements of personal characteristics, performance outcomes,

or management implications. However, all philosophical orientations ended with the same set

similar findings as previously mentioned.

My Current Philosophical and Methodological Preferences

One very good aspect of literature review is that the research consulted during the review

provides a plethora of different research methods and philosophies. These provided methods can

help the researcher determine the best way to design the research stemming from the literature

review. This literature review provided a very narrow frame of research methods in regards to

those methods that were inclusive along the majority of documents. However, there were a lot of

differences in techniques related to validity. For research related to this individual literature

review one could find a methodological design useful by integrating a numerically coded ISSM

model based on a preliminary survey conducted with data collected from literary review so that it

can be placed along a Cartesian digraph which will be interpreted for matching variables and

then integrated into a survey for opinions from a broad base of expert respondents based on a


Likert scale. Then the information can be cross examined through a numerically coded

MICMAC analysis and a structural model created from the numerical placements in the

MICMAC that are determined by statistical calculations generated from the survey. These can

be validated by Cronbach’s a coefficient and other validation instruments such as SEM, CFA and

CIM. In this regards, the research would take on an objectivist philosophy with a quantitative

methodology.

Conclusion

The purpose of this research was to study the basic elements conducive to the operational

management of a knowledge sharing alliance partnership. This will later be implemented into

research regarding the formation of environmental sustainability CSR initiatives between a

SmartCar company in the US and car retailors and SMEs within India. The research provided an

overview of the basic elements of knowledge that are conducive to the performance of an

alliance relationship. This relationship was realized from within the internal workings of the

firm as well as those techniques administered specifically within the actual alliance. There was

no data covering the view from completely outside of the focal firm or the alliance itself.

Everything was within the shield of a direct or indirect relationship with the focal firm. In this

regard, further research needs to be conducted related to issues that deal specifically with the

external organization.

Distinction between Works

The results of the research indicated a clear distinction between the seminal works and

the recent works that have few, if any, citing. The seminal work deals mainly with those aspects

that assist in the knowledge sharing relationship that is internal to the firm, between employees

working only for the focal firm. This sharing relationship can be indirectly related to the

alliance, or not related to the alliance at all. It also deals with the ways of handling knowledge


for an alliance that is internal to the firm. For example, the types of knowledge that is generated

from within the firm, outside of the alliance, and the way that the use of the knowledge between

alliance partnerships effects the performance of the focal firm individually. This indicates that

researchers are mainly interested in the way that an alliance would be able to benefit an

individual entity.

The recent works took an indirect view of the alliance relationship, studying the actual

implementation of management techniques from within the firm. These relationships dealt with

the way to use knowledge between the alliances. The relationship described in the data was in

regards to indirect management techniques related to the focal firm, but not techniques that were

to be administered as part of the internal operations of the firm. The recent works also dealt with

the operational aspects of alliances in general, such as managing types of complementarity or

strategic matching, or dealing with the infrastructure used to support the alliance. These all

included the focal firm as well as the partner firm. There was no single inclusion of the focal

firm and no research that did not include the focal firm. This result indicates that researchers are

currently not interested in finding out the ways to administer the alliance so that the entire

alliance is productive, only interested in how the alliance can be administered in regards to the

structure of the individual focal firm.

Static Results

There were a few findings that remained static across all of the literature reviewed.

These findings can be the conclusory statements about the research. First of all, there was a

consensus among the documents towards the need for cooperation. Cooperation was important

in the management of alliances, in the generation and sharing of knowledge, and even in the

ability to share knowledge. Secondly, there was a need for planning information. Even Bounken

& Teichert (2013), who studied about the co-creation of knowledge and the superiority of


emergent knowledge activity, could not negate the process of pre-planning for information.

Planning information was an underlying theme in much of the research and a result of increased

performance in other literature studied. There is a final consensus regarding the management of

trust. This element surfaced either as a main element to overcome in the study, or as an indirect

relation to obtaining the desired outcome, or a clear barrier to the ability to achieve the desired

outcome.

Management Implications

These elements have clear implications for management practices. First of all,

management will need to find ways to generate trust among employees, themselves, and their

alliance partners. This trust many even be generated through indirect methods such as

reciprocity. They will need to use this trust to build cooperative behaviors between the same

entities. This cooperative behavior will most effectively manifest through the use of planned

information. The planned information may include clear goals for what information needs to be

generated and in what time frame, or it may include guidelines for information and tentative

amounts of time that this usually takes to manifest. This brings about a few implications for

further research that can be used to generate results in an alliance type CSR program

administered between US business organizations and those of India.

Research Implications

Although the results indicate clear results across all of the research documents discussed

in the literature review, businesses working in a global atmosphere still have to consider specific

elements of decision-making when implementing programs between two different regions. For

instance, in order to generate feelings of cooperation and trust between the two regions, decision-

making need to be aware of the different cultural aspects of each region and where they have

similarities and differences. They need to research ways to resolve the differences and which


similarities can be most conducive to productivity on both ends. In resolving cultural conflicts,

both regions are able to generate trust between one another, which will contribute to increased

levels of cooperation. Research should be conducted in the cultural, managerial and ethical

elements that can be used to generate trust between the two different regions. Once these

elements are found, then further research should look to find what methods can be used to

support information between both regions. These methods could include technological abilities,

management capabilities, and security infrastructures. Research can also find ways to

communicate knowledge programs between alliances of both regions in order to facilitate such

planning. Finally, more research should be conducted on elements that can be conducive to a

positively performing alliance from a non-associative relationship regarding an alliance partner

of the focal firm.

Reference List:

Armstrong, C. E., & Lengnick-Hall, C. (2013). The pandora's box of social integration

mechanisms. Journal of Strategy and Management, 6(1), 4-26.

doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17554251311296530 ;

http://search.proquest.com.library.capella.edu/docview/1288024971?pq-

origsite=summon

Arnold, V., Benford, T. S., Hampton, C., & Sutton, S. G. (2014). Enterprise Risk Management:

Re-Conceptualizing the Role of Risk and Trust on Information Sharing in Transnational

Alliances. Journal Of Information Systems,28(2), 257-285.


Bouncken, R and Teichert, T. (2013). Co-Poiesus: The Joint Birth of Knowledge across

Organizational Boundaries. International Journal Of Innovation & Technology





Management [serial online]. December 2013;10(6):-1. Available from: Business Source

Complete, Ipswich, MA. Accessed January 21, 2015.

http://ezproxy.library.capella.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct

=true&db=bth&AN=92660679&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Casimir, G., Lee, K., & Loon, M. (2012). Knowledge sharing: Influences of trust, commitment

and cost. Journal of Knowledge Management, 16(5), 740-753.



origsite=summon

Cho, N., zheng Li, G., & Su, C. (2007). An Empirical Study on the Effect of Indiviudal Factors

on Knowledge Sharing by Knowledge Type. Journal of Global Business and



Elmuti, D., Abou-Zaid, A., & Jia, H. (2012). Role of Strategic Fit and Resource

Complementarity in Strategic Alliance Effectiveness. Journal of Global Business and



Gravier, M. J., Strutton, D., & Randall, W. S. (2008). Investigating the role of knowledge in

alliance performance. Journal of Knowledge Management, 12(4), 117-130.



Google, Inc. (2015). Google Scholar. Retrieved from: https://scholar.google.com








https://scholar.google.com/


Osarenkhoe, A. (2010). A study of inter-firm dynamics between competition and cooperation - A

coopetition strategy. Journal of Database Marketing & Customer Strategy Management,

17(3-4), 201-221. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/dbm.2010.23


Sharma, B. P., Singh, M. D., & NEHA. (2012). Knowledge sharing barriers: An approach of

interpretive structural modeling. IUP Journal of Knowledge Management, 10(3), 35-52.

Retrieved from


Singh, A. K., Singh, M. D., & Sharma, B. P. (2013). Modeling of knowledge management

technologies: An ISM approach. IUP Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(3), 41-55.

Retrieved

from http://search.proquest.com.library.capella.edu/docview/1430517153?accountid=27965

Taco van, d. V., van Donk, D. P., Gimenez, C., & Sierra, V. (2012). Modelling the integration-

performance relationship. International Journal of Operations & Production

Management, 32(9), 1043-1074. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01443571211265693


origsite=summon

Zhou, K. Z., & LI, C. B. (2012). How knowledge affects radical innovation: Knowledge base,

market knowledge acquisition, and internal knowledge sharing. Strategic Management

Journal, 33(9), 1090-1102. doi:10.1002/smj.1959

http://ezproxy.library.capella.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct

=true&db=bth&AN=77656384&site=ehost-live&scope=site




http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01443571211265693






Table [Primary, Secondary, Tertiary]

Table 1: Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Literature

Main Topics: Alliance performance Knowledge sharing Organizational management

Scene: Business to business Suppliers (but not so much) Complex knowledge

Population Business leaders Employees of related business(es)

Main Topics: Alliance performance Knowledge sharing Organizational

management

Scene: Business to business Suppliers (but not so

much) Complex knowledge

Population Business leaders Employees of related

business(es)

INTERNAL KNOWLEDGE SHARING BEST PRACTICES Annotated Bibliography of Internal Knowledge Sharing Research for Managing Alliance Sharing Practices

Documents