IDEA GROUP PUBLISHING ITJ3061

16 701ofE.Database
Journal ChocolateManagement,
Avenue, Suite 17(1),
200, Hershey PA 17033-1240, 2006
16-32, January-March USA
Tel: 717/533-8845; Fax 717/533-8661; URL-http://www.idea-group.com
This chapter appears in the publication, Journal of Database Management volume 17, issue 1
edited by Keng Siau © 2006, Idea Group Inc.

The Knowledge Transfer Process:

From Field Studies to
Technology Development
M. Millie Kwan, University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong
Pak-Keung Cheung, University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong

ABSTRACT

Knowledge transfer in an organization is the process through which one unit (e.g., group,
department, or division) is affected by the experience of another. Yet, experience has shown that
transferring knowledge, whether at the individual, group, product line, department, or divi-
sion level, is usually a laborious, time-consuming, and difficult task. In this article, we review
20 recent empirical studies on knowledge transfer and suggest a four-stage process model to
summarize and organize their findings. This resulted in a framework where determinants for
success at each stage of the knowledge transfer process are defined. Based on this knowledge
transfer framework, we propose a knowledge transfer management system that integrates cur-
rent knowledge management tools and technologies to support the needs at different stages of
the knowledge transfer process.

Keywords: knowledge management systems; knowledge sharing; knowledge transfer pro-

cess

INTRODUCTION group, product line, department, or division

Knowledge transfer in an organiza-
tion is the process through which one unit
(e.g., group, department, or division) is af-
fected by the experience of another
(Argote, 1999). For example, in the pizza-
delivery business, a franchise may learn the
pizza production process from another fran-
chise in order to reduce its production costs.
Yet, experience has shown that transfer-
ring knowledge, whether at the individual,
level, is usually a laborious, time-consum-
ing, and difficult task.
Although various knowledge manage-
ment tools and technologies have been de-
veloped and applied to support knowledge
transfers, their success often has been
questioned. On the other hand, research-
ers from various disciplines, including
knowledge management, organization sci-
ence, and strategic management, already

Copyright © 2006, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group
Inc. is prohibited.
 Journal of Database Management, 17(1), 16-32, January-March 2006 17
have applied various theories to investigate
the determinants of successful knowledge
transfer, with or without knowledge man-
agement technology. We believe that the
development of knowledge management
systems has much to gain from their in-
sights.
In this article, we review 20 recent
empirical studies on knowledge transfer and
suggest a four-stage process model to sum-
marize and organize their findings. This
resulted in a framework where determi-
nants for success at each stage of the
knowledge transfer process are defined.
Based on this knowledge transfer frame-
work, we propose a knowledge transfer
management system that integrates current
knowledge management tools and technolo-
gies to support the needs at different stages
of the knowledge transfer process.
The organization of the article is as
follows. First, we describe our proposed
process model for knowledge transfer.
Next, we describe our sample of 20 em-
pirical studies on knowledge transfer. This
is followed by an analysis of the constructs
investigated in these empirical studies, re-
sulting in a set of determinants, which we
then mapped into our process model, pro-
ducing a knowledge transfer framework.
Then, a preliminary design of a knowledge
transfer management system is described.
We conclude with a summary of our find-
ings and directions for future research.
KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER
AS A PROCESS
Knowledge transfer has been treated
by most researchers as a black box. A pro-
cess view that emphasizes the sequence
of events will provide insights on the na-
ture of the inner workings of knowledge
transfer. However, few researchers have
Copyright © 2006, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group
Inc. is prohibited.
explicitly suggested a process model for the
knowledge transfer. Hansen (1999) pro-
posed a model with two stages: Search and
Transfer. Szulanski (1996, 2000) put for-
ward a model with four stages: Initiation,
Implementation, Ramp-up and Integration.
Building on their work, we developed a four-
stage model to organize and integrate prior
research in knowledge transfer (see Fig-
ure 1). Our model differs from the models
of Hansen (1999) and Szulanski (1996,
2000) in the following ways:
1. Our model splits the Initiation stage into
Motivation and Matching stages, which
have significantly different determinants
and driving forces. The Matching stage
largely overlaps with the Search stage
in Hansen (1999).
2. Our model combines the Implementa-
tion and Ramp-up stages into a single
Implementation stage, as the two former
stages are highly iterative and practically
inseparable in practice. The determinants
of the two former stages are also very
similar.
3. Our model labels the last stage Reten-
tion in order to explain the phenomenon
of knowledge depreciation (Argote,
1999) and to reflect the importance of
achieving sustainable organizational per-
formance through knowledge transfer.
4. Our model allows for the iterations be-
tween stages that more closely describe
the knowledge transfer process in prac-
tice.
In the following paragraphs, the theo-
retical foundation, process description, and
criteria for completion of each stage are
discussed.
18 Journal of Database Management, 17(1), 16-32, January-March 2006
Motivation
This stage comprises all the events
that lead to the attempt to initiate a knowl-
edge transfer. It begins with the identifica-
tion of a gap between the existing knowl-
edge and the target knowledge needed to
accomplish a task or to achieve a certain
performance level. However, the discov-
ery of such a gap does not necessarily trig-
ger a search for potential solutions. Pos-
sible reasons include the not-invented-here
syndrome (Katz & Allen, 1982); organiza-
tional culture (McDermott & O’Dell,
2001); the crowding-out effect (Osterloh
& Frey, 2000); and the perceived owner-
ship of the knowledge (Jarvenpaa &
Staples, 2000, 2001). The attempt to seek
knowledge transfer may be initiated by the
source or by the recipient. Their corre-
sponding partner then is identified, and the
attempt to transfer is cultivated in the
Matching stage. Once a suitable partner is
identified, the Motivation stage is revisited
on the partner side. Thus, the Motivation
and Matching stages form an iterative loop.
If both the source and the recipient (and all
the necessary actors) in the knowledge
transfer process are motivated and the
transfer is ready to proceed, the Motiva-
tion-Matching iteration is completed, and
the process moves to the Implementation
stage.
Matching
The Matching stage begins with an
attempt to search for a suitable transfer
partner(s). In searching for the appropri-
ate partner(s), not only are the character-
istics of the required knowledge critical for
successful matching, but other factors such
as the organizational context (Szulanski,
1996), the perceived reliability of the part-
ner (Szulanski, 1996), the competitive rela-
Copyright © 2006, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group
Inc. is prohibited.
tionship between the partners (Tsai, 2002),
the similarity between the partners (Darr
& Kurtzberg, 2000), and the strength of
social ties between the partners (Constant
et al., 1996; Hansen, 1999) also can play a
part. Successful matching would not auto-
matically trigger the transfer of knowledge
(i.e., the Implementation stage). The
matched partner has to be willing to share
or learn the knowledge in question. The
Motivation-Matching iteration would only
exit, if ever, when all key partners of the
knowledge transfer process have been
identified, motivated and committed. Only
then could the implementation of the knowl-
edge transfer occur.
Implementation
During this stage, resources flow be-
tween the recipient and the source. De-
pending on the level of knowledge com-
plexity, transfer-specific social ties between
the source and the recipient are established,
and the transferred practice often is
adapted to suit the anticipated needs of the
recipient. The ability of the recipient to as-
similate and to apply the resources obtained
from the source is referred to as the ab-
sorptive capacity. It is largely a function
of the individual or group’s level of prior
related knowledge (Cohen & Levinthal,
1990). The Implementation stage is con-
sidered completed when the recipient starts
using the transferred knowledge. However,
as the recipient is likely to use the new
knowledge ineffectively at first, the Imple-
mentation stage is iterative until the per-
formance reaches a satisfactory level.
Retention
The Retention stage begins after the
recipient has achieved satisfactory results
with the transferred knowledge. The new
 Journal of Database Management, 17(1), 16-32, January-March 2006 19
Figure 1. A model of the knowledge transfer process
Stages of knowledge transfer
Motivation
Attempt to search
for knowledge
transfer partner
practices become institutionalized, progres-
sively lose their novelty, and become part
of the objective, taken-for-granted reality
of the recipient organization. However, in
order to maintain the initial performance
gain, the recipient needs to retain the knowl-
edge in an organizational repository and be
able to retrieve and apply it effectively
when the need arises again in the future.
Otherwise, knowledge depreciates rapidly
in a production environment, even if labor
turnover is controlled (Argote et al., 1990).
RESEARCH SAMPLE
The procedure we used for selecting
papers for review is as follows. First, pa-
pers on knowledge transfer were scanned
from four sources: (1) a knowledge man-
agement bibliography (Tiwana &
Kankanhalli, 2002); (2) keyword searches
on Proquest ABI-INFORM online data-
base; (3) special issues on knowledge man-
agement from the journals Decision Sup-
port Systems, Journal of MIS, Organi-
zation Science, Strategic Management
Copyright © 2006, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group
Inc. is prohibited.
Implement-
Matching Retention
ation
Source and recipient
matched and ready New knowledge is
for knowledge put to use
transfer
Journal, and Academy of Management
Review; and (4) reference sections of rel-
evant papers and books. This resulted in
126 papers and 11 books on knowledge
transfer. From this set, we selected papers
that report empirical research on the de-
terminants of intraorganizational knowledge
transfer. This resulted in the final set of 20
papers listed in Table 1. Their research
theme, method, and level of analysis are
summarized in the table.
We found that the conceptual models
and frameworks employed in the knowl-
edge transfer literature are diverse and
based on theories from various disciplines.
Studies that focused on the Motivation and
Matching stages often established their
conceptual frameworks on theories from
social psychology and sociology, such as
theory of reasoned action (Fishbein &
Azjen, 1975), theory of planned behavior
(Ajzen, 1991), diffusion of innovations
theory (Rogers, 1983), and social cognitive
theory (Bandura, 1986). In particular, Con-
stant, et al. (1994) applied social cognitive
20 Journal of Database Management, 17(1), 16-32, January-March 2006

theory to demonstrate the power of self-
expression as a motivational force;
Jarvenpaa and Staples (2000, 2001) applied
social exchange theory (Blau, 1967) and
social identity theory (Jenkins, 1996) to
explain the difference between sharing
behavior for information and expertise;
Bock & Kim (2002) applied economic ex-
change theory (Kelley & Thibaut, 1978),
social exchange theory, and social cogni-
tive theory to establish the determinants of
attitude toward knowledge-sharing attitude.
Studies that focused on the Matching stage
employed theories mainly from sociology.
Examples are various studies that investi-
gated the effects of the strength of social
ties (Constant et al., 1996; Hansen, 1999),
which are based on the theory of “the
strength of weak ties” (Granovetter, 1973).
Darr and Kurtzberg (2000) focused on part-
ner similarity, which is based on the social
psychological theory that there is a posi-
tive relationship between similarity and at-
traction.
Interestingly, different streams of re-
search may produce different conclusions.

Table 1. Summary of recent empirical researches on knowledge sharing

Authors Description of Study Research Sample Level of
Method Analysis
Bock and Major determinants of the Questionnaire Employees of four large Individual
Kim (2002) individual’s attitude toward survey public organizations in Korea
knowledge sharing
Constant et al. A study of attitudes about Laboratory Boston University’s School of Individual
(1994) information sharing experiment Management
Constant et al. The usefulness of electronic Field work Tandem Computers Inc. Individual
(1996) weak ties for technical advice
Darr and An investigation of partner Field work Pizza-delivery franchise Team or unit
Kurtzberg similarity dimensions on (franchise)
(2000) knowledge transfer
Dixon (2000) An in-depth study of a number Field work Exemplary organizations in Individual and
of exemplary organizations in knowledge sharing (including Team or unit
knowledge sharing to reveal Ford, BP, TI, Ernst & Young,
their underlying principles Buckman Labs, Lockheed
Martin, U.S. Army, and The
World Bank)
Fraser et al. Identify the perceptions of and Field work A major international oil and Individual
(2000) main motivations for knowledge gas company
sharing
Galbraith Test the effects of technology Field work Eight U.S.-based corporations Team or unit
(1990) characteristics, communication,
organizational commitment,
transfer experience, pre-transfer
efforts, and post-transfer
management on the
successfulness of intrafirm
technology transfer
Gupta and Examine the effects of the value Questionnaire Heads of subsidiaries of Team or unit
Govindarajan of the knowledge, motivation, survey multinational corporations (subsidiaries
(2000) richness of transmission headquartered in the U.S. of
channels, and the absorptive multinational
capacity on the knowledge flows corporations)
between subsidiaries
Hall (2002) Investigate the effects of both Field work A large, distributed, Team or unit
hard and soft rewards on information-intensive,
knowledge sharing multinational company in UK
Hansen An investigation of the effects of Archival and A multinational electronics Team or unit
(1999) the strength of social ties and the questionnaire and computer company
knowledge complexity on the survey
search and transfer problems of
knowledge

Copyright © 2006, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group
Inc. is prohibited.
 Journal of Database Management, 17(1), 16-32, January-March 2006 21

Table 1. cont.
Hansen The development of the Archival and A multinational electronics Team or unit
(2002) knowledge network model that questionnaire and computer company
is based on relatedness in survey
knowledge contents and lateral
relations, which explains
knowledge sharing effectiveness.
Jarvenpaa and An investigation of individual Questionnaire An Australian university Individual
Staples perception of factors that survey
(2000) underlie the use of collaborative
electronic media for information
sharing
Jarvenpaa and Exploring perceptions of Questionnaire One Australian and one Individual
Staples organizational ownership of survey Canadian university
(2001) information and expertise
McDermott Cultural barriers to knowledge Field work Five large companies that felt Individual
and O’Dell sharing knowledge sharing was a
(2001) natural part of the
organizational culture
Swart and A detailed study of the ways in Field work A knowledge-intensive firm in Individual
Kinnie (2003) which HR policies and processes the southwest of England
contribute to overcoming the
barriers to sharing knowledge
Szulanski Exploring internal stickiness of Questionnaire Eight firms that had strong Team or unit
(1996) the transfer of best practice survey incentives to transfer best
within firms practices
Szulanski Analyzing internal stickiness in Questionnaire Eight firms that had strong Team or unit
(2000) stages of knowledge transfer survey incentives to transfer best
process practices
Tsai (2001) Examine the effects of network Questionnaire Two large U.S. multinational Team or unit
position and absorptive capacity survey corporations
on knowledge transfer
Tsai (2002) An investigation of the Questionnaire A diverse multiunit company Team or unit
effectiveness of coordinated surveys in
mechanisms on knowledge 1996 and 1998
sharing among “coopetitive”
organization subunits
Wasko and Why people participate and help Questionnaire Three technical Usenet Team or unit
Faraj (2000) others in electronic communities survey newsgroup
of practice

One example, as pointed out by Hansen knowledge transfer. By establishing weak

(1999), is the apparent contradictory find-
ings of social network scholars and prod-
uct innovation researchers on the effects
of the strength of social ties on knowledge
transfer. Research using the social network
approach showed that distant and infrequent
relationships (i.e., weak ties) are efficient
for knowledge transfer, while the literature
on product innovation argued that close and
frequent interactions (i.e., strong ties) be-
tween research and development and other
functions lead to project effectiveness. This
apparent contradiction can be resolved by
looking into the stages of the process of
ties with a large number of parties, the
chance of obtaining non-redundant knowl-
edge during the Matching stage (i.e., the
Search stage according to Hansen’s model)
is increased. On the other hand, during the
Implementation of knowledge transfer,
knowledge, especially tacit knowledge, of-
ten requires strong ties to be established
between the source and the recipient. Thus,
by framing the determinants against a pro-
cess model, we can clarify past research
findings and also frame and deepen under-
standing of the inner workings of knowl-
edge transfer.

Copyright © 2006, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group
Inc. is prohibited.
22 Journal of Database Management, 17(1), 16-32, January-March 2006
ANALYSIS
Our analysis proceeded as follows.
First, we summarized the constructs that
have been proved by past research as cor-
related with the effectiveness of knowledge
transfer into a set of determinants. We then
mapped them to each stage of our process
model to produce an integrative framework.
In the following, we describe the determi-
nants. Table 2 summarizes the constructs
used in each research study grouped by
the determinants. The integrative frame-
work is shown in Figure 2.
Intrinsic Motivation
Many of the research studies in our
sample studied factors that are related to
attitudes toward sharing, including an
individual’s propensity to share, and own-
ership of knowledge and information. An
individual’s propensity to share is a
prosocial attitude and is directed toward
maintaining the well being of others and
self. Thus, when people wish for good out-
comes not only for themselves but also for
other employees or for the organization,
they are more likely to share knowledge.
Personal benefits, such as enjoyment from
earning respect and helping others (Bock
& Kim, 2002; Constant et al., 1994, 1996;
Fraser et al., 2000; Hall, 2002; Jarvenpaa
& Staples, 2000, 2001; Wasko & Faraj,
2000), expectations of better relationships
with others (Bock & Kim, 2002; Constant
et al., 1994, 1996; Fraser et al., 2000;
Jarvenpaa & Staples, 2000, 2001), desire
to benefit the organization or community
(Bock & Kim, 2002; Constant et al., 1994,
1996; Fraser et al., 2000; Jarvenpaa &
Staples, 2000, 2001; Wasko & Faraj, 2000),
getting useful information and expected
reciprocal sharing (Constant et al., 1994,
1996; Fraser et al., 2000; Wasko & Faraj,
Copyright © 2006, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group
Inc. is prohibited.
2000), are all reasons behind an individual’s
propensity to share.
Knowledge and information may be
perceived as owned by individuals or orga-
nizations. Employees are more inclined to
share information if they believe that orga-
nizations own the labor of their employees.
Organizational ownership is learned as
people begin to acquire work experience
and professional training. The more work
experience or work training people have,
the more organizational ownership they will
attribute to any employee’s information,
which, in turn, will lead to attitudes favor-
ing information sharing with another em-
ployee (Constant et al., 1994, 1996). Fur-
thermore, the more an employee’s work is
dependent on the efforts of others in the
organization (task interdependence), the
more they believe in organizational owner-
ship (Jarvenpaa & Staples, 2000, 2001). On
the other hand, organizational ownership
does not reduce self ownership. Rather, the
more that individuals believe in self owner-
ship, the more they believe in organizational
ownership (Jarvenpaa & Staples, 2001).
Attitudes toward organizational ownership
also depend on individual characteristics
such as age and gender (Jarvenpaa &
Staples, 2000, 2001).
Extrinsic Motivation
Information culture has been shown
to be a significant factor for knowledge
sharing behavior (Jarvenpaa & Staples,
2000). The knowledge culture should fit the
existing culture of the organization. This
could be done by (1) linking knowledge
sharing with solving practical problems, (2)
tying sharing knowledge to a pre-existing
core value, (3) introducing knowledge man-
agement in a way that matches the
organization’s style, (4) building on existing
 Journal of Database Management, 17(1), 16-32, January-March 2006 23
networks people use in their daily work,
and (5) encouraging peers and supervisors
to exert pressure to share (McDermott &
O’Dell, 2001). In particular, rewards and
recognition systems are found to be useful
in establishing and supporting a culture of
knowledge sharing (McDermott & O’Dell,
2001; Swart & Kinnie, 2003; Szulanski,
1996, 2000). These may include economic
rewards (Gupta & Govindarajan, 2000;
Hall, 2002), career enhancement/security
(Hall, 2002), and enhanced reputation (Hall,
2002).
Organizational Context
An organizational context that facili-
tates and promotes knowledge transfer will
increase the likelihood of successful knowl-
edge transfers. Formal integrative mecha-
nisms and corporate socialization mecha-
nisms can form a fertile organizational con-
text for knowledge transfer. Within multi-
national companies, the greater the extent
to which a subsidiary is linked to the rest of
the global network through formal integra-
tive mechanisms (e.g., liaison personnel,
task forces, permanent committees), the
greater the density of communication in-
terface between the subsidiary and other
units, and hence more knowledge inflows
and outflows (Gupta & Govindarajan,
2000). Corporate socialization mechanisms
build interpersonal familiarity, personal af-
finity, and convergence in cognitive maps
among personnel from different subsidiar-
ies. Greater interpersonal familiarity and
personal affinity can increase the openness
of the communication between interacting
partners, hence increasing the richness of
communication channels and resulting in a
fertile organizational context (Gupta &
Govindarajan, 2000).
Copyright © 2006, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group
Inc. is prohibited.
On the other hand, Tsai (2002) found
that formal hierarchical structure in the
form of centralization has a significantly
negative impact on knowledge sharing,
whereas informal lateral relations in the
form of social interaction have a signifi-
cantly positive effect on knowledge shar-
ing among units. In addition, organizational
units can produce more innovations and
enjoy better performance, if they occupy
central network positions that provide ac-
cess to new knowledge and if they have
high absorptive capacity (Tsai, 2001).
Human resource policies could help
to develop an organizational context in
which knowledge integration is facilitated
(Swart & Kinnie, 2003). These policies in-
clude recruitment and selection policies that
result in homogeneity in the organization,
social support for knowledge, and commit-
ment to sharing knowledge; employee de-
velopment policies that promote cross-
boundary learning; and employee partici-
pation in the implementation of human re-
source practices.
A fertile organizational context is a
determinant for success in the Motivation
and Matching stages of our process model.
Reliability
When the source is not perceived
as reliable, trustworthy, or knowledgeable,
then initiating a transfer from that source
will be more difficult and its advice is likely
to be challenged and resisted (Szulanski,
1996, 2000). Alternatively, if the knowledge
is not perceived to be useful or does not
have a proven record of usefulness, it also
will be difficult to motivate the recipient to
transfer (Szulanski, 2000; Wasko & Faraj,
2000).
24 Journal of Database Management, 17(1), 16-32, January-March 2006
Figure 2: An integrative framework for knowledge transfer
Stages
Motivation Matching
Determinants
• Organizational
context
• Intrinsic motivation
• Reliability
• Extrinsic motivation • Partner relation
• Partner
similarity
Reliable knowledge sources are nec-
essary during the Matching and Implemen-
tation stages of our process model.
Partner Relation
Transfer of knowledge, especially
complex knowledge, requires numerous
exchanges, which, in turn, depend on ease
of communication and the intimacy of the
overall relationship between the partners.
An arduous relationship may create addi-
tional hardship in the transfer (Szulanski,
1996, 2000). Weak social ties, character-
ized by absent or infrequent contact, lack
of emotional closeness, and no history of
reciprocity, could help a project team to
search for useful knowledge in other sub-
units (Matching) but impede the transfer
of complex knowledge (Implementation),
which tends to require a strong tie between
the two partners (Hansen, 1999). Building
and maintaining strong ties require higher
Copyright © 2006, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group
Inc. is prohibited.
Implement- Retention
ation
• Causal ambiguity
• Absorptive
capacity • Causal ambiguity
• Transmission
channels
• Partner relation
• Reliability
costs for potential knowledge transfer part-
ners and may not be justified, if the knowl-
edge being transferred is codified (not com-
plex) (Hansen, 2002). In addition to social
distance, physical distance between trans-
fer partners may impact the effectiveness
of their communication and also has been
shown to be a determinant of successful
transfer (Galbraith, 1990).
Partner relation plays a role in deter-
mining the success of the Matching and
Implementation stages in our process
model.
Partner Similarity
Knowledge seekers tend to seek
partners with similar characteristics to
transfer knowledge. For organizations, the
choice is similarity in business strategies
between partners (Darr & Kurtzberg,
2000). At the individual level, homogeneity
achieved through partner selection accord-
 Journal of Database Management, 17(1), 16-32, January-March 2006 25
ing to shared mental models and fit accord-
ing to a family/social model are means to-
ward establishing a commitment to knowl-
edge sharing (Swart & Kinnie, 2003). In
an electronic community, knowledge flows
best when seekers and experts are consid-
ered members of the same community and
thus share the same values, codes, and
narratives (Wasko & Faraj, 2000).
Partner similarity is a determinant for
success in the Matching stage of our pro-
cess model.
Causal Ambiguity
The concept of causal ambiguity was
used originally by Lippman and Rumelt
(1982) to describe the phenomenon sur-
rounding business actions and outcomes that
makes it difficult for competitors to emu-
late strategies. When the precise reasons
for success or failure in replicating a ca-
pability in a new setting cannot be deter-
mined even ex post, causal ambiguity is
present. This indefinable knowledge may
be tacit knowledge embodied in human skills
or collectively held knowledge. Causal
ambiguity also may be the result of imper-
fectly understood idiosyncratic features of
the new context in which the knowledge is
put to use (Szulanski, 1996, 2000).
Transferring complex non-codified
knowledge (i.e., high causal ambiguity) is
found to be more difficult than codified
knowledge (Galbraith, 1990; Hansen, 1999;
Szulanski, 1996, 2000). Such transfers are
more effective for partners with strong ties
than with weak ties (Hansen, 1999) and
may be facilitated by rich transmission chan-
nels. Complex knowledge, even after trans-
fer, is more difficult to stay in use at the
recipient facility (Galbraith, 1990; Szulanski,
1996, 2000).
Copyright © 2006, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group
Inc. is prohibited.
Causal ambiguity is a determinant at
the Implementation and Retention stages
of our process model.
Absorptive Capacity
Absorptive capacity was coined by
Cohen and Levinthal (1990) as “the ability
of a firm to recognize the value of new,
external information, assimilate it, and ap-
ply it to commercial ends” (p. 128). Ab-
sorptive capacity is critical to the firm’s in-
novative capabilities and is largely a func-
tion of the firm’s prior related knowledge.
A firm’s absorptive capacity is not simply
the sum of the absorptive capacities of its
employees. It also depends on how well
knowledge is transferred and utilized across
and within organizational subunits. In stud-
ies of knowledge transfer between units
within an organization, it was found that
knowledge transfers from the parent cor-
poration are higher in the case of greenfield
subsidiaries than in acquired ones. The rea-
son is that acquired subsidiaries are more
likely to have a lower absorptive capacity
for intracorporate knowledge due to its rela-
tively non-duplicative knowledge base vis-
à-vis the parent corporation compared to
greenfield operations (Gupta &
Govindarajan, 2000). Organizational units
that have more prior experience in knowl-
edge transfers likely will have higher ab-
sorptive capacity and, hence, will be more
likely to succeed in knowledge transfers
(Galbraith, 1990).
Absorptive capacity is a determinant
in the Implementation stage of our process
model.
Transmission Channels
Richer transmission channels improve
communication between transfer partners,
resulting in greater success in knowledge
26 Journal of Database Management, 17(1), 16-32, January-March 2006

transfer. This may be achieved by estab- By putting forward such an integra-

lishing corporate socialization mechanisms
(Gupta & Govindarajan, 2000), as previ-
ously stated, and by using implementation
strategies such as collocating personnel,
pre-transfer training, and higher quality of
documentation (Galbraith, 1990).
Transmission channels are a deter-
minant in the Implementation stage.
tive framework, we hope to contribute to
the literature in the following ways:
1. The framework provides an alternative
process view on knowledge transfer that
is potentially more informative than the
previous models in that it has integrated
the findings of recent empirical research
on knowledge transfer.

Table 2. Summary of constructs used in our sample of knowledge transfer studies

Authors Motivation Matching Implementation Retention

Bock and Kim Intrinsic motivation
(2002) (expected
associations and
expected contribution)
Constant, et al. Intrinsic motivation
(1994) (perceived ownership)
Constant, et al. Intrinsic motivation
(1996) (personal benefits).
Extrinsic motivation
(organizational
motivation)
Darr and Partner similarity
Kurtzberg (business strategy).
(2000)
Dixon (2000) Partner similarity Absorptive capacity.
(task and context) Casual ambiguity
(tacit or explicit)
Fraser, et al. Intrinsic and extrinsic
(2000) motivation
(personal and
organization benefits,
expected reciprocal
sharing)
Galbraith Partner relation Casual ambiguity
(1990) (Physical distance) (complexity)
Transmission
channels
(on-the-job training,
documentation)
Absorptive capacity
(prior experience)
Gupta and Extrinsic motivation Transmission
Govindarajan (incentive focus) channels.
(2000) Absorptive capacity
Hall (2002) Intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation (hard and
soft rewards)
Hansen (1999) Partner relation Casual ambiguity
(strength of tie) (noncodified)
Partner relation
(strength of tie)
Hansen (2002) Partner relation Casual ambiguity
(path length in (noncodified)
knowledge network, Partner relation
direct relation) (path length in
knowledge network,
direct relation)
Jarvenpaa and Intrinsic motivation
Staples (2000) (perceived ownership,
propensity to share)
Extrinsic motivation
(task dependence)

Copyright © 2006, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group
Inc. is prohibited.
 Journal of Database Management, 17(1), 16-32, January-March 2006 27

Table 2. cont.

Authors Motivation Matching Implementation Retention

Jarvenpaa and Intrinsic motivation
Staples (2001) (perceived ownership,
propensity to share,
individual difference,
organizational culture)
McDermott and Extrinsic motivation
O’Dell (2001) (shared values,
organization culture,
reward system)
Swart and Extrinsic motivation Partner similarity
Kinnie (2003) (HR policies for (homogeneity)
commitment to share) Organization context
(HR policies for social
support)
Szulanski Partner relation Causal ambiguity Causal ambiguity
(1996) (Partner relationship) Absorptive capacity
Szulanski Motivation Partner relation Causal ambiguity Causal ambiguity
(2000) (Partner relationship) Absorptive capacity
Reliability Partner relation
(Partner relationship)
Reliability
Tsai (2001) Partner relation Absorptive capability
(network position)
Tsai (2002) Organization context
(level of
centralization)
Partner relation
(social interaction)
Wasko and Intrinsic and extrinsic Reliability
Faraj (2000) motivation (tangible Partner similarity
and intangible returns,
community interests)

2. The framework informs the research-
ers by aiding them to identify the poten-
tial role of IT that may influence the ef-
fectiveness of knowledge transfer
through influencing the determinants in
one or more stages of the process model.
3. In designing knowledge management
systems (KMS), this framework guides
the designer in identifying which stage(s)
of knowledge transfer the system is de-
signed to facilitate and, hence, the set of
determinants that the KMS needs to
address. In particular, we can use the
results in this framework to design a
knowledge transfer management sys-
tem, as we will outline in the next sec-
tion.
4. The framework helps managers in plan-
ning and managing the knowledge trans-
fer process by focusing on the set of
determinants that come into play for
each stage of the process.
IMPLICATIONS FOR
KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
SYSTEMS
Our knowledge transfer framework
provides the basis for a methodology for
managing the process of knowledge trans-
fer. This methodology will include tools and
techniques for controlling the different fac-
tors that can impact the outcome of each
stage of the process. Just as a CASE tool
embodies the tools needed to support the
activities in a systems development meth-
odology, we propose to integrate current
knowledge management (KM) tools into a
knowledge transfer management system
(KTMS) to support the different needs at

Copyright © 2006, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group
Inc. is prohibited.
28 Journal of Database Management, 17(1), 16-32, January-March 2006
each stage of the knowledge transfer pro-
cess. In the following, we describe the ways
in which KM tools can be applied at each
stage of the process. Figure 3 shows the
components of the KTMS.
In the Motivation stage, potential
knowledge recipients first need to identify
the gaps between existing knowledge and
target knowledge needed to accomplish a
task. This need may be supported by pro-
viding (1) brainstorming tools, search tools,
databases, knowledge repositories, and so
forth for identifying target knowledge; (2)
knowledge maps, enterprise and industry
portals for understanding the relationships
between existing knowledge, and target
knowledge. Knowledge resources should
be attributed to the enterprise or to indi-
vidual employees to clarify and promote
ownership of knowledge. In addition, the
KTMS should provide tools to track these
knowledge needs as the knowledge trans-
fer process proceeds.
At this stage, the KTMS also should
provide data on the rewards for engaging
in knowledge transfer activity. This can be
in the form of a knowledge transfer
scoreboard showing rewards earned by
employees (and their departments) who
share knowledge, pointers to information
on the enterprise portal showing incentives,
and other human resource policies that en-
courage knowledge sharing.
In the Matching stage, the KTMS
should provide a comprehensive knowl-
edge/expertise directory that contains the
various knowledge resources (organiza-
tional, individual, and databases) and their
locations. For each knowledge resource,
the directory should include descriptions of
their organizational structure, organiza-
tional/departmental functions and strategies,
past records of knowledge sharing, physi-
Copyright © 2006, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group
Inc. is prohibited.
cal locations, size, economic level, owner-
ship, and so forth. In addition, the KTMS
should provide tools that help sources and
recipients to evaluate each other. For ex-
ample, social network analysis tools may
help to evaluate partner similarity, and a
knowledge transfer scoreboard may help
to evaluate reliability and motivation to
share. The KTMS also should provide tools
to support the interactions and negotiations
between them during the matching stage.
During the Implementation stage, the
KTMS should provide tools to maintain a
plan and inventory of what the knowledge
transfer will entail. Gap analysis tools may
be provided to help delineate the specific
knowledge gaps and to identify the re-
sources that need to be transferred. The
absorptive capacity of the recipient should
be evaluated by comparing its current
knowledge resource with the resources to
be transferred. Groupware, workflow man-
agement tools, knowledge repositories,
communities of practice, and so forth may
be used to support resource and communi-
cation flow between the transfer partners.
As the recipient will likely adapt the trans-
ferred knowledge to suit its needs, a record
of the adapted knowledge as well as the
implementation process should be docu-
mented in the KTMS.
During the Retention stage, the new
knowledge becomes institutionalized. The
KTMS updates the knowledge/expertise
directory to reflect this knowledge upgrade
of the recipient as well as the social net-
work views to reflect the changes in social
ties, path lengths in knowledge networks,
and so forth. (Throughout the knowledge
transfer process, the KTMS may continu-
ously update the social network views at
each stage.) It also may provide tools to
establish a community of practice for the
 Journal of Database Management, 17(1), 16-32, January-March 2006 29

Figure 3. A knowledge transfer management system

Process Motivation Matching Implementation Retention

KTMS

Brainstorming tools, Matching process Process tracking

Partner evaluation Groupware,
Support search engines, support tools tools, knowledge Community of
tools (social network workflow
tools knowledge maps, (negotiation, asset management, practice tools
analysis tools ) management,
knowledge repositories communications) gap analysis tools

Knowledge/
Data stores Knowledge transfer
expertise directories
Knowledge asset Knowledge transfer Knowledge
scoreboard inventory process record repository

knowledge that has been transferred suc- Only five of the studies in our sample
cessfully. were done in contexts where information
technology was applied in knowledge trans-
CONCLUSION fer. More empirical studies on the effec-
Much empirical work has been done tiveness of KM tools to support each stage
to look into the determinants of successful of the knowledge transfer process should
knowledge transfer. We have summarized be performed to provide a stronger foun-
the results of 20 such studies and integrated dation for the design of knowledge man-
them into a four-stage process framework. agement systems.
The framework shows that there are dif- Our knowledge transfer framework
ferent determinants for success at each also provides the basis for a methodology
stage of the knowledge transfer process. for managing the process of knowledge
Based on this framework, we propose how transfer. This methodology will include
a KTMS may apply various knowledge management procedures as well as KM
management tools to support the needs of tools and techniques for controlling the dif-
knowledge transfer in organizations. Future ferent factors that can impact the outcome
work will detail a design of such a system, of each stage of the process. Future work
build it, and test it in a real-life environment will include integrating previous work on
to evaluate its adequacy for knowledge knowledge management methodologies in
transfer support. Furthermore, a KTMS order to develop a methodology for knowl-
design should take into account that knowl- edge transfer. Future field studies should
edge transfers may occur in an attempt to validate and elaborate on this
interorganizational context. Interfaces to methodology.
other knowledge management systems also
should be investigated.

Copyright © 2006, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group
Inc. is prohibited.
30 Journal of Database Management, 17(1), 16-32, January-March 2006
REFERENCES
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned
behavior. Organization Behavior &
Human Decision Processes, 50(2),
179-211.
Argote, L. (1999). Organizational learn-
ing: Creating, retaining and transfer-
ring knowledge. Boston: Kluwer Aca-
demic.
Argote, L., Beckman, S.J., & Epple, D.
(1990). The persistence and transfer of
learning in industrial settings. Manage-
ment Science, 36(2), 140-154.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations
of thought and action. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Blau, P. (1967). Exchange and power in
social life. New York: Wiley.
Bock, G.W., & Kim, Y.G. (2002). Breaking
the myths of rewards: An exploratory
study of attitudes about knowledge shar-
ing. Information Resource Manage-
ment Journal, 15(2), 14-21.
Cohen, W.M., & Levinthal, D.A. (1990,
March). Absorptive capacity: A new
perspective on learning and innovation.
Administrative Science Quarterly,
35(1), 128-151.
Constant, D., Kiesler, S., & Sproull, L.
(1994). What’s mine is ours or is it? A
study of attitudes about information shar-
ing. Information Systems Research,
5(4), 400-421.
Constant, D., Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S.
(1996). The kindness of strangers: The
usefulness of electronic weak ties for
technical advice. Organization Sci-
ence, 7(2), 119-135.
Darr, E.D., & Kurtzberg, T.R. (2000). An
investigation of partner similarity dimen-
sions on knowledge transfer. Organi-
zational Behavior and Human Deci-
sion Processes, 82(1), 28-44.
Copyright © 2006, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group
Inc. is prohibited.
Fishbein, M., & Azjen, I. (1975). Beliefs,
attitude, intention and behavior: An
introduction to theory and research.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Fraser, V., Marcella, R., & Middleton, I.
(2000). Employee perceptions of knowl-
edge sharing: Employment threat or syn-
ergy for the greater good? Competitive
Intelligence Review, 11(2), 39-52.
Galbraith, C.S. (1990). Transferring core
manufacturing technologies in high-tech-
nology firms. California Management
Review, 32(4), 56-70.
Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of
weak ties. American Journal of Soci-
ology, 78, 1360-1380.
Gupta, A.K., & Govindarajan, V. (1991).
Knowledge flows and the structure of
control within multinational corporations.
Academy of Management Review,
16(4), 768-792.
Gupta, A.K., & Govindarajan, V. (2000).
Knowledge flows within multinational
corporations. Strategic Management
Journal, 21(4), 473-496.
Hall, H. (2002). Sharing capability: The
development of a framework to investi-
gate knowledge sharing in distributed or-
ganizations. Proceedings of the Third
European Conference on Organiza-
tional Knowledge, Learning and Ca-
pabilities (OKLC 2002), Athens.
Hansen, M.T. (1999). The search-transfer
problem: The role of weak ties in shar-
ing knowledge across organization sub-
units. Administrative Science Quar-
terly, 44(1), 82-111.
Hansen, M.T. (2002). Knowledge net-
works: Explaining effective knowledge
sharing in multiunit companies. Organi-
zation Science, 13(3), 232-248.
Jarvenpaa, S.L., & Staples, D.S. (2000).
The use of collaborative electronic me-
 Journal of Database Management, 17(1), 16-32, January-March 2006 31

dia for information sharing: An explor-
atory study of determinants. Journal of
Strategic Information Systems, 9(2-3),
129-154.
Jarvenpaa, S.L., & Staples, D.S. (2001).
Exploring perceptions of organizational
ownership of information and expertise.
Journal of Management Information
Systems, 18(1), 151-183.
Jenkins, R. (1996). Social identity. Lon-
don: Routledge.
Katz, R., & Allen, T.J. (1982). Investigat-
ing the not invented here (NIH) syn-
drome: A look at the performance, ten-
ure, and communication patterns of 50
R&D project groups. R&D Manage-
ment, 12(1), 7-19.
Kelley, H.H., & Thibaut, J.W. (1978). In-
terpersonal relations: A theory of in-
terdependence. New York: Wiley.
Lippman, S., & Rumelt, R.P. (1982). Un-
certain imitability: An analysis of inter-
firm differences in efficiency under com-
petition. Bell Journal of Economics,
13, 418-438.
McDermott, R., & O’Dell, C. (2001).
Overcoming cultural barriers to sharing
knowledge. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 5(1), 76-85.
Osterloh, M., & Frey, B.S. (2000). Moti-
vation, knowledge transfer, and organi-
zational forms. Organization Science,
11(5), 538-550.
Rogers, E.M. (1983). Diffusion of inno-
vations. New York: Free Press.
Swart, J., & Kinnie, N. (2003). Sharing
knowledge in knowledge-intensive
firms. Human Resource Management
Journal, 13(2), 60-75.
Szulanski, G. (1996). Exploring internal
stickiness: Impediments to the transfer
of best practice within the firm. Strate-
gic Management Journal, 17, 27-44.
Szulanski, G. (2000). The process of knowl-
edge transfer: A diachronic analysis of
stickiness. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 82(1),
9-27.
Tiwana, A., & Kankanhalli, A. (2002).
Knowledge management endnote library.
Retrieved September 26, 2005, from
http://www.isworld.org/endnote/
index.asp.
Tsai, W. (2001). Knowledge transfer in
intraorganizational networks: Effects of
network position and absorptive capac-
ity on business unit innovation and per-
formance. Academy of Management
Journal, 44(5), 996-1004.
Tsai, W. (2002). Social structure of
“coopetition” within a multiunit organi-
zation: Coordination, competition, and
intraorganizational knowledge sharing.
Organization Science, 13(2), 179-190.
Wasko, M.M., & Faraj, S. (2000). “It is
what one does”: Why people participate
and help others in electronic communi-
ties of practice. The Journal of Strate-
gic Information Systems, 9(2-3), 155-
173.

Millie Kwan is an assistant professor of information systems in the School of Business, Univer-
sity of Hong Kong. She received her doctoral degree in management information systems from
Boston University. Prior to joining the University of Hong Kong, she was the head of library
computer systems at University of Rhode Island and has subsequently worked in research
projects with large U.S. corporations including Lucent Technologies and IBM. Her research
interest is in application development methodology, particularly in knowledge management
and e-business applications that employ workflow and collaborative technologies. Her work

Copyright © 2006, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group
Inc. is prohibited.
32 Journal of Database Management, 17(1), 16-32, January-March 2006

has appeared in conferences and journals including Decision Support Systems and Journal of
the Operational Research Society.

Pak-Keung Cheung is currently a a PhD candidate in the School of Business, University of

Hong Kong. He graduated in computer studies from the City University of Hong Kong and
received an MBA from the University of Sheffield, UK. His key research activities involve the
area of knowledge management, and more recently, the area of human-computer interactions.
Prior to undertaking his PhD study, Pak-Keung served as a senior technical services manager
in the outsourcing business unit of IBM. He has also worked for more than 13 years in various
IS capacities including database design and administration, network design and support, and
applications development.

Copyright © 2006, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group
Inc. is prohibited.