Abstract
Knowledge transfer is widely emphasized as a strategic issue for sustainable competitive advantage of an organization. To date, it seems that the soft and hard mechanisms are being employed for knowledge transfer. Although there is considerable variation in the researchers’ views about the role of the two mechanisms of knowledge transfer of an organization, this paper suggests a symbiotic strategy that recognizes the interplay between the soft and hard mechanisms. It is argued that the symbiosis mechanism falls somewhere between the rather divergent mechanisms. Drawing from the analogy of knowledge as an iceberg, the perceived explicitness of knowledge is contended to be the essential determinant for the proposed symbiosis mechanism. The paper then proceeds to analyse the tradeoffs of implementing the symbiosis mechanism. It is found that when an organization has similar unit costs of transferring explicit and tacit knowledge, it can ideally minimize its total knowledge transfer cost, aligning individual's effort with the organization's. The proposed symbiosis approach to knowledge transfer will provide powerful arguments for a more holistic view which is crucial for the effective knowledge transfer. However, it is to be noted that the model is a conceptual one, not an operational one in which the mathematics only explain a structure but do not guide the practitioner to find optimal solutions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Argote L (1999). Organizational Learning: Creating, Retaining, and Transferring Knowledge. Kluwer: Massachusetts.
Argote L and Ingram P (2000). Knowledge transfer: A basis for competitive advantage in firms. Org Behav Human Decis Process 82(1): 150–169.
Barrett M, Cappleman S, Shoib G and Walsham G (2004). Communities: Managing technology and context. Eur Mngt J 22(1): 1–11.
Baum JA and Ingram P (1998). Survival-enhancing learning in the Manhattan hotel industry, 1898–1980. Mngt Sci 44: 996–1016.
Boiral O (2002). Tacit knowledge and environmental management. Long Range Plann 35: 291–317.
Broendsted J, Elkjaer B . (2001). Information Technology As a Fellow Player in Organizational Learning. European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS): Bled, Slovenia, 27–29 June.
Brown SJ and Duguid P (1998). Organizing knowledge. Calif Mngt Rev 40(3): 90–111.
Buckley PJ and Carter MJ (2000). Knowledge management in global technology Markets—applying theory to practice. Long Range Plann 33: 55–71.
Cohen WM and Levinthal DA (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Admin Sci Q 35: 128–152.
Davenport HT and Prusak L (1998). Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know. Harvard Business School Press: Massachusetts.
Davenport S and Bibby D (1999). Rethinking a national innovation system: The small country as SME. Technol Anal Strateg Mngt 11(3): 431–462.
Day GS and Nedungadi P (1994). Managerial representations of competitive advantage. J Market 58: 31–44.
Dixon N (2000). Common Knowledge: How Companies Thrive by Sharing What They Know. Harvard Business School Press: Massachusetts.
Eginton K (1998). Knowledge management—Law firms can do it too. Austral Law Libr 6: 247–255.
Gilbert M and Cordey-Hayes M (1996). Understanding the process of knowledge transfer to achieve successful technological innovation. Technovation 16(6): 301–312.
Grant RM (1997). The knowledge-based view of the firm: Implications for management practice. Long Range Plann 30(3): 450–454.
Hansen TM, Nohria N and Tierney T (1999). What's your strategy for managing knowledge? Harvard Bus Rev 77(2): 106–116.
Hendriks PH (2001). Many rivers to cross: From ICT to knowledge management systems. J Inform Technol 16: 57–72.
Huber G (2001). Transfer of knowledge in knowledge management systems: Unexplored issues and suggested studies. Eur J Inform Syst 10: 72–79.
Jasimuddin SM, Klein JH and Connell C (2005). The paradox of using tacit and explicit knowledge: Strategies to face dilemmas. Mngt Decis 43(1): 102–112.
Lave J and Wenger E (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge University Press: UK.
Leonard D and Sensiper S (1998). The role of tacit knowledge in group innovation. Calif Mngt Rev 40(3): 112–132.
Machlup F (1980). Knowledge: Its Creation, Distribution and Economic Significance. Princeton University Press: New Jersey.
Müller-Merbach H (2007). Kant's two paths of knowledge creation: A priori vs a posteriori. Knowl Mngt Res Pract 5: 64–65.
Müller-Merbach H (2008). Kant's reciprocity of sensations and concepts. Knowl Mngt Res Pract 6: 100–101.
Nonaka I and Takeuchi H (1995). The Knowledge Creating Company. Oxford University Press: UK.
Pan SL and Scarbrough H (1999). Knowledge management in practice: An exploratory case study. Technol Anal Strategic Mngt 11(1): 359–374.
Sbarcea K (1998). Know what know how know why: Implementing a knowledge management system—The Philips Fox experience. Austral Law Libr 6: 4–8.
Scarbrough H, Swan J and Preston J (1999). Knowledge Management: A Literature Review. Institute of Personnel and Development: London.
Storey J and Barnett E (2001). Knowledge management initiatives: Learning from failure. J Knowl Mngt 4(2): 145–156.
Strassmann PA (1998). Taking a measure of knowledge assets. Computerworld 32(4): 74.
Szulanski G (1996). Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strat Mngt J 17(Winter special issue): 27–43.
Walsh JP and Ungson GR (1991). Organizational memory. Acad Mngt Rev 16(1): 57–91.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Jasimuddin, S., Zhang, Z. The symbiosis mechanism for effective knowledge transfer. J Oper Res Soc 60, 706–716 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602613
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602613