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
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).
Internal Knowledge Sharing Best Practices 3/20/2015 2:36:08 PM 2 of 74
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
Internal Knowledge Sharing Best Practices 3/20/2015 2:36:08 PM 3 of 74
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.
Internal Knowledge Sharing Best Practices 3/20/2015 2:36:08 PM 4 of 74
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 2 [Research] ................................................................................................ 34
Recent Work 3 [Research] ................................................................................................ 39
Recent Work 4 [Research] ................................................................................................ 45
Recent Work 5 [Theoretical] ............................................................................................ 50
Recent Work 6 [Theoretical] ............................................................................................ 54
Recent Work 7 [Research] ................................................................................................ 58
Recent Work Summary ..................................................................................................... 63
Comparison of Seminal and Recent Works ...................................................................... 65
Differences .................................................................................................................... 65
Internal Knowledge Sharing Best Practices 3/20/2015 2:36:08 PM 5 of 74
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
Internal Knowledge Sharing Best Practices 3/20/2015 2:36:08 PM 6 of 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
Internal Knowledge Sharing Best Practices 3/20/2015 2:36:08 PM 7 of 74
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
Internal Knowledge Sharing Best Practices 3/20/2015 2:36:08 PM 8 of 74
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
Internal Knowledge Sharing Best Practices 3/20/2015 2:36:08 PM 9 of 74
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
Internal Knowledge Sharing Best Practices 3/20/2015 2:36:08 PM 10 of 74
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
Internal Knowledge Sharing Best Practices 3/20/2015 2:36:08 PM 11 of 74
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.
Seminal Work 2 [Research]
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,
Internal Knowledge Sharing Best Practices 3/20/2015 2:36:08 PM 12 of 74
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).
Research questions are as follows:
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
Internal Knowledge Sharing Best Practices 3/20/2015 2:36:08 PM 13 of 74
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).
Internal Knowledge Sharing Best Practices 3/20/2015 2:36:08 PM 14 of 74
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
Internal Knowledge Sharing Best Practices 3/20/2015 2:36:08 PM 15 of 74
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,
Internal Knowledge Sharing Best Practices 3/20/2015 2:36:08 PM 16 of 74
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.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13673270810884291
http://search.proquest.com.library.capella.edu/docview/230303785?pq-origsite=summon
[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)?
Internal Knowledge Sharing Best Practices 3/20/2015 2:36:08 PM 17 of 74
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
(Gravier et al, para 11-13, 2008).
[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
(Gravier et al, para 41-45, 2008).
[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
Internal Knowledge Sharing Best Practices 3/20/2015 2:36:08 PM 18 of 74
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
Internal Knowledge Sharing Best Practices 3/20/2015 2:36:08 PM 19 of 74
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
http://search.proquest.com.library.capella.edu/docview/1033774798?accountid=27965
[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).
Internal Knowledge Sharing Best Practices 3/20/2015 2:36:08 PM 20 of 74
[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
Internal Knowledge Sharing Best Practices 3/20/2015 2:36:08 PM 21 of 74
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
Internal Knowledge Sharing Best Practices 3/20/2015 2:36:08 PM 22 of 74
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.
Seminal Work 5 [Research]
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
Internal Knowledge Sharing Best Practices 3/20/2015 2:36:08 PM 23 of 74
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.
Internal Knowledge Sharing Best Practices 3/20/2015 2:36:08 PM 24 of 74
[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
Internal Knowledge Sharing Best Practices 3/20/2015 2:36:08 PM 25 of 74
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.
Internal Knowledge Sharing Best Practices 3/20/2015 2:36:08 PM 26 of 74
[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.
Internal Knowledge Sharing Best Practices 3/20/2015 2:36:08 PM 27 of 74
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
Internal Knowledge Sharing Best Practices 3/20/2015 2:36:08 PM 28 of 74
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.
Internal Knowledge Sharing Best Practices 3/20/2015 2:36:08 PM 29 of 74
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 ;
http://search.proquest.com.library.capella.edu/docview/1288024971?pq-origsite=summon
[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
Internal Knowledge Sharing Best Practices 3/20/2015 2:36:08 PM 30 of 74
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.
Internal Knowledge Sharing Best Practices 3/20/2015 2:36:08 PM 31 of 74
[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
Internal Knowledge Sharing Best Practices 3/20/2015 2:36:08 PM 32 of 74
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
Internal Knowledge Sharing Best Practices 3/20/2015 2:36:08 PM 33 of 74
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
Internal Knowledge Sharing Best Practices 3/20/2015 2:36:08 PM 34 of 74
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.
Recent Work 2 [Research]
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.
Internal Knowledge Sharing Best Practices 3/20/2015 2:36:08 PM 35 of 74
[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
Internal Knowledge Sharing Best Practices 3/20/2015 2:36:08 PM 36 of 74
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
Internal Knowledge Sharing Best Practices 3/20/2015 2:36:08 PM 37 of 74
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
Internal Knowledge Sharing Best Practices 3/20/2015 2:36:08 PM 38 of 74
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).
Internal Knowledge Sharing Best Practices 3/20/2015 2:36:08 PM 39 of 74
[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.
Recent Work 3 [Research]
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
Internal Knowledge Sharing Best Practices 3/20/2015 2:36:08 PM 40 of 74
[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
Internal Knowledge Sharing Best Practices 3/20/2015 2:36:08 PM 41 of 74
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.
Research questions are as follows:
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
Internal Knowledge Sharing Best Practices 3/20/2015 2:36:08 PM 42 of 74
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.
Internal Knowledge Sharing Best Practices 3/20/2015 2:36:08 PM 43 of 74
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
Internal Knowledge Sharing Best Practices 3/20/2015 2:36:08 PM 44 of 74
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.
Internal Knowledge Sharing Best Practices 3/20/2015 2:36:08 PM 45 of 74
[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.
Recent Work 4 [Research]
Elmuti, D., Abou-Zaid, A., & Jia, H. (2012). Role of Strategic Fit and Resource
Complementarity in Strategic Alliance Effectiveness. Journal of Global Business and
Internal Knowledge Sharing Best Practices 3/20/2015 2:36:08 PM 46 of 74
Technology, 8(2), 16-28. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.library.capella.edu/docview/1321680866?accountid=27965
[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?
Internal Knowledge Sharing Best Practices 3/20/2015 2:36:08 PM 47 of 74
[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.
Internal Knowledge Sharing Best Practices 3/20/2015 2:36:08 PM 48 of 74
[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,
Internal Knowledge Sharing Best Practices 3/20/2015 2:36:08 PM 49 of 74
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
Internal Knowledge Sharing Best Practices 3/20/2015 2:36:08 PM 50 of 74
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
http://search.proquest.com.library.capella.edu/docview/817412131?pq-origsite=summon
[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
Internal Knowledge Sharing Best Practices 3/20/2015 2:36:08 PM 51 of 74
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.
Internal Knowledge Sharing Best Practices 3/20/2015 2:36:08 PM 52 of 74
[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.
Internal Knowledge Sharing Best Practices 3/20/2015 2:36:08 PM 53 of 74
[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
Internal Knowledge Sharing Best Practices 3/20/2015 2:36:08 PM 54 of 74
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
Internal Knowledge Sharing Best Practices 3/20/2015 2:36:08 PM 55 of 74
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.
Research questions are as follows:
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.
Internal Knowledge Sharing Best Practices 3/20/2015 2:36:08 PM 56 of 74
[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
Internal Knowledge Sharing Best Practices 3/20/2015 2:36:08 PM 57 of 74
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.
Internal Knowledge Sharing Best Practices 3/20/2015 2:36:08 PM 58 of 74
Recent Work 7 [Research]
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
http://search.proquest.com.library.capella.edu/docview/1033805719?pq-origsite=summon
[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
Internal Knowledge Sharing Best Practices 3/20/2015 2:36:08 PM 59 of 74
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.
Research questions are as follows:
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,
Internal Knowledge Sharing Best Practices 3/20/2015 2:36:08 PM 60 of 74
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).
Internal Knowledge Sharing Best Practices 3/20/2015 2:36:08 PM 61 of 74
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,
Internal Knowledge Sharing Best Practices 3/20/2015 2:36:08 PM 62 of 74
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
Internal Knowledge Sharing Best Practices 3/20/2015 2:36:08 PM 63 of 74
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
Internal Knowledge Sharing Best Practices 3/20/2015 2:36:08 PM 64 of 74
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
Internal Knowledge Sharing Best Practices 3/20/2015 2:36:08 PM 65 of 74
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
Internal Knowledge Sharing Best Practices 3/20/2015 2:36:08 PM 66 of 74
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.
Internal Knowledge Sharing Best Practices 3/20/2015 2:36:08 PM 67 of 74
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
Internal Knowledge Sharing Best Practices 3/20/2015 2:36:08 PM 68 of 74
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
Internal Knowledge Sharing Best Practices 3/20/2015 2:36:08 PM 69 of 74
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
Internal Knowledge Sharing Best Practices 3/20/2015 2:36:08 PM 70 of 74
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
Internal Knowledge Sharing Best Practices 3/20/2015 2:36:08 PM 71 of 74
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.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1368996
Bouncken, R and Teichert, T. (2013). Co-Poiesus: The Joint Birth of Knowledge across
Organizational Boundaries. International Journal Of Innovation & Technology
Internal Knowledge Sharing Best Practices 3/20/2015 2:36:08 PM 72 of 74
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.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13673271211262781
http://search.proquest.com.library.capella.edu/docview/1088716202?pq-
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
Technology, 3(2), 1-15. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.library.capella.edu/docview/216931583?accountid=27965
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
http://search.proquest.com.library.capella.edu/docview/1321680866?accountid=27965
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.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13673270810884291
http://search.proquest.com.library.capella.edu/docview/230303785?pq-origsite=summon
Google, Inc. (2015). Google Scholar. Retrieved from: https://scholar.google.com
Internal Knowledge Sharing Best Practices 3/20/2015 2:36:08 PM 73 of 74
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
http://search.proquest.com.library.capella.edu/docview/817412131?pq-origsite=summon
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
http://search.proquest.com.library.capella.edu/docview/1033774798?accountid=27965
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
http://search.proquest.com.library.capella.edu/docview/1033805719?pq-
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
Internal Knowledge Sharing Best Practices 3/20/2015 2:36:08 PM 74 of 74
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)