A qualitative study of inter-

organizational knowledge
management in complex products
and systems development
Eric W.T. Ngai1, Chen Jin2 and Tong Liang2
1
Department of Management, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon,
Hong Kong, PR China. mswtngai@inet.polyu.edu.hk
2
School of Management, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang 310027, PR China.
cjhd@zju.edu.cn; cqtongliang@163.com

Much research has recognized that cross-disciplinary knowledge inputs are necessary to
successful product innovation, particularly in complex products and systems (CoPS) develop-
ment. This paper focuses on developing an exploratory framework for studying how an inter-
organizational knowledge management (KM) approach affects the development of CoPS, and
exploring how inter-organizational collaboration affects KM within a CoPS context. Based on
a review of the literature and in-depth case studies, this paper puts forward some propositions
and develops an integrated conceptual model showing the link between the dimensions of inter-
organizational KM and the performance of CoPS development. Finally, the implications of the
proposed model for inter-organizational KM in a CoPS environment are discussed.

1. Introduction involving a lot of integration of technologies and

knowledge, so most CoPS projects are developed

D uring recent years, the management litera-

ture has increasingly touched on studies of
different issues of inter-organizational collabora-
tion, knowledge management (KM) and complex
products and systems (CoPS). The resource-based
view claims that under the emerging circumstances
of a knowledge-based economy and globalization,
an organization’s networks of external relationships
have become a fundamental source of successful
technological innovation and a major factor in a
firm’s competitive advantage (Gulati et al., 2000).
CoPS are defined as high cost technology and
software intensive products, systems and capital
goods, which are manufactured in small batches
or one-off projects (Hobday et al., 2000). CoPS
consist of various components and subassemblies,
under an innovation network which involves the
integrators, contractors, buyers, suppliers, and in
most cases, the government (Hobday and Rush,
1999). In this kind of innovation network, lin-
kages between firms and other institutions differ
from those found in the traditional manufactur-
ing approach, which focuses on individual firms
with clear boundaries, and on the transactions
between firms and their operations. The literature
on KM and inter-organizational cooperation,
which is heavily based on evidence from a mass-
production context, has failed to help CoPS
manufacturers cope with new challenges such as
managing knowledge across project families or
organizational boundaries (Chen and Tong, 2004;
Oshri and Newell, 2005).

R&D Management 38, 4, 2008. r 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation r 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 421
9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main St, Malden, MA, 02148, USA
Eric W.T. Ngai, Chen Jin and Tong Liang
Although the individual importance of inter-
organizational collaboration, KM and CoPS has
been recognized, their synergic effects have thus
far been neglected and unexplored. Hence,
this paper discusses different arguments and
perspectives of the grounded theories of KM,
inter-organizational collaboration and CoPS in-
novation, and explores whether CoPS manufac-
turers can facilitate project success and attain
technical and management knowledge via inter-
organizational collaboration within the CoPS
development network. This paper aims to address
two key questions:
(1) How does inter-organizational collaboration
impact on KM within a CoPS innovation
network? and
(2) How is CoPS innovation performance related
to inter-organizational KM?
This paper begins with an overview of inter-
organizational collaboration, KM and CoPS in-
novation. Next, follows a discussion about the
propositions of the inter-relationships among
inter-organizational collaboration, KM, and
CoPS innovation. In addition, experiences from
two case studies will be delineated. Then, accord-
ing to the propositions, an integrated conceptual
model grounded in knowledge-based theory and
network theory is developed for inter-organiza-
tional KM in a CoPS context. Finally, the im-
plications and some suggestions for future
research are discussed.
2. Literature review
The notion of inter-organizational networks and
collaboration are not new. Oliver (1990, p. 241)
defines inter-organizational collaboration as
‘enduring transactions, flows, and linkages that
occur among or between an organization and one
or more organizations in its environment’. Powell
et al. (1996) point out that innovations in the
biotechnology industry are often generated within
a collaboration network, not by an individual
firm. However, inter-organizational networks
and collaborations incur costs and risks to their
constituent organizations (Williams, 2005).
Galunic and Rodan (1998) contend that the
exchange of knowledge through inter-organiza-
tional collaboration is problematic and costly,
especially for tacit know-how, one explanation
of which is that the interchange of knowledge
requires some shared system of meaning among
innovative participants so that transferred knowl-
422 R&D Management 38, 4, 2008
edge can be understood and applied in specific
contexts (Nonaka, 1994). Organizations should
try to positively devote themselves to inter-orga-
nizational linkages, building up the mechanisms
of long-term commitment and cooperation with
each other to create more competitive advantages
(Liu and Shou, 2004).
Knowledge work is fraught with tensions work-
ing together in a loosely coupled fashion (Dough-
erty et al., 2000): connecting market and
technology knowledge into new product ideas
(product level), juxtaposing multiple ideas ac-
cording to strategic standards (capability level),
and evolving from strategic settings to strategic
paths (strategic level), etc. The purpose of knowl-
edge-related activities in a firm is to organize the
whole KM process to deliver the right informa-
tion to the right person at the right time, thus
facilitating the right decision-making (Barthes
and Tacla, 2002), to balance the tensions. As the
technology and activities needed in innovation
become more complicated, firms are driven to
seek inter-organizational collaboration and mo-
bilize knowledge resources. Furthermore, how to
assimilate and integrate knowledge from sources
across borders has become an emergent issue in
KM (Lynn et al., 2000).
Based on the research results from the CoPS
studies (e.g. Hobday and Rush, 1999), a CoPS
innovation network is a closed network to which
entry is restricted by the core players, i.e. the system
integrators, core sub-contractors and users. Vaa-
land and Hakansson (2003) address the extreme
importance of inter-organizational collaboration
linkages between buying and selling parties of
CoPS projects, both at technology level and man-
agement level. It is believed that the collaborative
relationships between subcontractors, integrators,
and buyers of CoPS projects affect the knowledge
flow (Wuyts et al., 2004). Although a number of
studies have been conducted about KM, inter-
organizational collaboration and CoPS, there is a
lack of studies on the relationships among them.
This paper builds on the issue, identifying the
linkages, based on a literature review and a case
study of two typical CoPS projects.
3. Development of propositions and
conceptual framework
3.1. Research approach
A case study is particularly suitable for problems
where research and theory are at early stages, as it
r 2008 The Authors
Journal compilation r 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
 Qualitative study of inter-organizational knowledge management

is helpful in dealing with unstructured informa-
tion such as documents and interviews, and
expanding the explanatory and predictive power
of the studied theory (Benbasat et al., 1987). This
study is exploratory in nature, because past re-
search has not addressed the issues of applying
inter-organizational KM in the development of
CoPS projects. We believe that through in-depth
and systematic interviews, the case study metho-
dology is the most valuable for exploring and
understanding the impact of inter-organizational
KM in the development of CoPS projects.
3.2. Background of case study
In this section, a brief background of the case
companies and CoPS projects are provided. Two
cases were carefully selected from the system
automation sector. The two projects were ‘Sy-
sProj A’ and ‘SysProj B’, developed by ‘Integrator
A’ and ‘Integrator B’ respectively. SysProj A is a
control system developed for a Mass Transit
Railway (MTR) urban transportation system in
a city located in North China. SysProj B is also a
computerized control system installed in a power
plant in South China. Both projects have been
active for more than 3 years. This kind of dis-
tributed control system (DCS) is a typical exam-
ple of CoPS: high investment, capital goods, long
development cycle, embedded complex hardware
and software components, and a high degree of
customization.
Found in 1993, Integrator A is a High-Tech
enterprise specializing in the research & develop-
ment, manufacturing, marketing and engineering
services of industrial automation products. In the
past l0 years, Integrator A has experienced a
dramatic growth both in sales and profits. The
products and systems developed by Integrator A
have a good reputation in the industry. Integrator
A’s competitive strength lies in the design, man-
ufacturing and installation of DCS. In 2000, when
Integrator A got the contract for SysProj A, the
number of its employees had reached 500, and the
registered capital was over 100 million RMB.
Similarly, Integrator B is also a specialized system
developer, providing R&D, manufacturing, and
engineering services for process automation con-
trol solutions in many sectors such as the chemi-
cal, oil refining, electric power, construction and
machinery industries. Integrator B employs
nearly 200 R&D engineers, and invests a consid-
erable portion of annual revenue in R&D. As a
consequence, Integrator B possesses about 50
patents and had got CMM certification by 2002.
Integrator B has mastered several core technolo-
gies and developed a series of advanced, practical,
reliable and economical systems platforms, devel-
oping several types of advanced and mature
products and completing over 200 projects, most
of which have been highly tailored to client
specifications.
In both system manufacturers, interviews were
conducted with managers and employees at dif-
ferent levels: senior project managers and com-
pany executives; supervisors and practitioners
involved in project and functional activities
(Table 1). Interviewees were selected based upon
their participation in each project. The data we
tried to gather included project backgrounds,
project management, KM practices, and relation-
ships with partners in innovation networks, etc.
Moreover, for different interviewees, we prepared
different topics relevant to the project manage-
ment and KM practices, which are summarized in
Table 1.
The multi-level interviews helped us gain a
better understanding of the synthesis of project-
level processes and firm-level processes through-
out the project duration, and allowed us to
identify specific KM practices. The information

Table 1. List of interviewee roles and interviewed topics.

Position Discussed contents Interviewee number

SysProj A SysProj B

Senior managers Project and company backgrounds, attitudes to 1 2

of the company inter-organizational collaboration and KM
Project managers Project management practices, issues and approaches of 1 1
inter-organizational relationships and interaction
Sales engineers Interactions with the users throughout the project duration 2 1
R&D engineers Some detailed practices of collaboration and KM 3 3
Staff form Technical and resource support for interaction with partners and 1 1
supportive users
departments

r 2008 The Authors R&D Management 38, 4, 2008 423

Journal compilation r 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Eric W.T. Ngai, Chen Jin and Tong Liang
about these case projects was supplemented with
data from secondary sources such as the websites
and internal publications of the integrators.
3.3. Case analysis
3.3.1. How does network embeddability impact on
inter-organizational KM activities?
Following Nonaka (1994), and Nonaka and
Takeuchi (1995), much KM literature has tried
to find methods to capture, transfer and apply
knowledge to create value (e.g. Davenport and
Prusak, 1998). It has been argued that organiza-
tional learning occurs in four KM activities:
knowledge acquisition, knowledge distribution,
knowledge interpretation and knowledge retrieval
(Huber, 1991). In CoPS development, the foun-
dational knowledge typically has to come to-
gether in novel assemblages in order to solve
specific problems (Marshall and Brady, 2001).
That is functional capability in systems integra-
tion: an application of system engineering is
required to integrate the multi-disciplinary
knowledge inputs (Davies and Brady, 2000).
Marshall and Brady (2001) also suggest that the
intention of KM in CoPS innovation is to cap-
ture, depersonalize and disseminate expert knowl-
edge bases. Therefore, in this paper we consider
inter-organizational KM as consisting of three
processes: knowledge acquisition, knowledge im-
plementation, and knowledge transfer. Knowledge
acquisition is concerned with the access and ab-
sorption of knowledge from the network. Knowl-
edge implementation refers to exploiting and
integrating the acquired knowledge when the
integrator tries to develop technical solutions.
Knowledge transfer means the integrator shares
the problem-solving experiences and generated
knowledge with partners and users to facilitate
their development of sub-systems.
The embeddability mechanisms can be identi-
fied as relational linkages and structural linkages
(Dayasindhu, 2002). Lui et al. (2005) contend that
the relational context is an important factor
having impacts on the transfer of strategic orga-
nizational knowledge among partners. It has been
asserted relationship characteristics such as trust,
long-time orientation and commitment may affect
knowledge flow across organizational boundaries
(e.g. Mavondo and Rodrigo, 2001). On the other
hand, resource linkage between collaborative
partners, referring to the non-recoverable and
idiosyncratic investment that firms make in
a particular relationship (Parkhe, 1993), is a
424 R&D Management 38, 4, 2008
structural facilitator for inter-organizational
collaboration. Therefore, following prior re-
search, we define network embeddability as the
tightness of linkages among actors within a CoPS
innovation network, both in the resource dimen-
sion and the relation dimension. According to
Sporleder and Moss (2002), network embeddabil-
ity has potential explanatory power for the devel-
opment and dynamics of knowledge-related
collaboration.
Based on these arguments, the following pro-
position is posited:
Proposition 1(P1): Network embeddability has
a significant influence on inter-organizational
KM
3.3.1.1. The interrelationship between network
embeddability and the degree of knowledge acqui-
sition. As partners with dense linkages are em-
bedded in the network, they tend to solve
problems through negotiation, tolerate unfavor-
able actions on the part of each other as short-
term turbulence, and consider cooperation as a
long-term commitment building process (Lui
et al., 2005). Relational linkages such as ‘commit-
ment’ and ‘trust’ are considered as aspects of
embeddability (Sporleder and Moss, 2002).
Specifically, Hansen (2002) notes that established
dense ties between a focal team and other business
units are helpful when the team identifies knowl-
edge that requires effort to be moved from
the source and incorporated into the project.
A high level of trust means a high level of
embeddedness, which results in reciprocal ex-
change and joint problem solving (Granovetter,
1985).
In CoPS innovation networks, all actors which
specialize in some capabilities are engaged in the
innovation process, investing complementary re-
sources and skills in their cooperation, which
results in heavy dependence on each other for
successful CoPS development. Moreover, in a
CoPS context, the existence of the innovation
network will last for a long project duration, so
the integrator, sub-contractors and users will
think of their work together as a long-term
commitment. In such a network, with tight lin-
kages among partners, effective knowledge acqui-
sition from the network may be easier. Therefore,
we assume embeddability among network mem-
bers helps the integrator acquire knowledge from
sub-contractors and users. The following sub-
proposition is posited:
r 2008 The Authors
Journal compilation r 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
 Qualitative study of inter-organizational knowledge management
P1a: The tightness of network embeddability
has a significant effect on the degree of knowl-
edge acquisition from the network
3.3.1.2. The interrelationship between network em-
beddability and knowledge implementation. Ac-
cording to Santoro and Gopalakrishnan (2000),
effective knowledge implementation is facilitated
by organic structures, i.e. the resource linkages
and relational linkages embedded in the network.
As a matter of fact, in a multi-company project
team, the team’s ability to implement what it has
learned, i.e. by applying the information gathered
from partners and users, increases when the
management of all the companies involved share
the vision of the project and are willing to invest
in relation specific assets (Lynn et al., 2000). On
the basis of case studies in construction industry,
Gann and Salter (2000) assert the linkages among
the integrator and other actors in the network are
far more complicated than standardized business
contracts, and the embedded relationships pro-
vide a lot of opportunities for both integrator and
sub-contractors to absorb tacit knowledge such as
know-how and know-who through joint work.
The knowledge synergy framework developed by
Nielsen (2005) also proposes that intensified em-
beddability serves to increase the effectiveness of,
and relative capacity to internalize and integrate
external knowledge.
Therefore, the following relationship can be
posited:
P1b: The tightness of network embeddability
has a significant effect on knowledge implemen-
tation
3.3.1.3. The interrelationship between network
embeddability and knowledge transfer. In hyper-
competitive business environments, enterprises
are making an effort to go beyond the transfer
of day-to-day operational information with part-
ners by establishing long-term and tight embedd-
ability and sharing knowledge such as market
trends and future product roadmaps (Malhotra
et al., 2005). On the basis of a qualitative study on
Indian software companies, Dayasindhu (2002)
states that a tight level of embeddability is bene-
ficial to knowledge transfer. Malhotra et al.
(2005) further point out embeddability based on
close and tight relationships may promote knowl-
edge exchange that enables firms to enhance their
current competencies and processes. In other
words, when business processes are embedded in
r 2008 The Authors
Journal compilation r 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
social commitment that allows for the transfer of
idiosyncratic and privileged knowledge, value
may be created (Uzzi and Lancaster, 2003). In
terms of resource linkage, Ring and Van de Ven
(1992) contend the greater the risk resulting from
high investment, the more complex and tight the
linkage is likely to be, including reciprocal infor-
mation and knowledge exchange, with the pre-
ference of organizations involved for high
embeddability. Therefore, when there is a high
level of embeddability, a focal firm in a network
has more confidence about the partners’ abilities
and expected behavior (Das and Teng, 1998), and
is more willing to share its technical capabilities,
innovative ideas and visions with the partners
(Santoro and Gopalakrishnan, 2000).
In a CoPS context, every participant company
has its own technical competitive advantage, and
multi-forms of coordination mechanism create a
network with fuzzy boundaries and transactions
among actors (Hobday et al., 2000). For the
system integrator to achieve successful develop-
ment of a CoPS project, it must be willing to share
task-specific knowledge in the network with trust
and a belief in resource interdependence.
Based on the above arguments, we thus state
the following sub-proposition:
P1c: The tightness of network embeddability has
a significant effect on knowledge transfer
3.3.1.4. Network embeddability and KM: experi-
ences from a case study. In the case of SysPorj
A, the system could be functionally divided into
three major sub-systems: electric power supply
sub-system, environment control sub-system and
disaster alarm sub-system. Specifically, all sub-
systems could be further broken down into more
than 20 modules with nearly 40 interfaces, includ-
ing hardware platform, component software, in-
terface program and field engineering, etc. Over
40% of these sub-systems needed to be custo-
mized specially according to the operator’s re-
quirements and field characteristics of the MTR
line. It took nearly 3 years to implement this
project from initial negotiation to final delivery.
Integrator A was not specialized in every tech-
nological field needed in the project, so it had to
seek appropriate sub-contactors and suppliers as
partners. For standardized modules/components,
the criteria of outsourcing were cost and delivery
time. For unstandardized modules, which needed
to be jointly developed, the reputation and
experiences of sub-suppliers became the most
important consideration.
R&D Management 38, 4, 2008 425
Eric W.T. Ngai, Chen Jin and Tong Liang
At the beginning, explicit business contracts
were the major coordination mechanism among
Integrator A, MTR operator and partners. As
SysProj A lasted for nearly 3 years, with the
progress of development, the actors in the net-
work invested significant resources and energy
into the project, which led to mutual understand-
ing in a comparatively efficient manner. As a
result, trust was established, and the linkages
among actors (see Fig. 1) were not based only
on contract. For example, the MTR operator
frequently generated new needs and requirements
were changed several times within the project
duration, resulting in two major modifications
of the contract between Integrator A and the
MTR operator. Every time, after contract mod-
ification, Integrator A received a substantial
number of unsolicited suggestions about adjust-
ments to the current system design from the
design center and the equipment supplier.
Although not every suggestion was adopted,
they provided ideas and opportunities for Inte-
grator A to draw an improved design blueprint.
In CoPS innovation, this situation is very com-
mon because a detailed description of the whole
system cannot be developed at the bidding stage,
and sometimes even the user does not have a clear
description about the final system. On the other
hand, when Integrator A got new insights it
would pass them to its partners and the MTR
operator, in order to post the latest work progress
and help the other actors to maintain consistency
in development.
In the case of SysProj B, the Input/Output
points were nearly 12,000, including seven major
sub-systems, 12 control stations and two main-
Standard
component supplier
Tight linkage
Trust relationship Equipment supplier
Design
center
Standard
component
supplier
Power
bureau
Standard
component supplier
Figure 1. The development network for SysProj A.
426 R&D Management 38, 4, 2008
frame servers. The technological fields involved in
the project could be divided into two categories:
software technology, including basic control pro-
gram, software embedded in modules, design
blueprint, and control process solution; hardware
components consisting of computer, server, net-
work infrastructure, signal collection device, ac-
tuators, solenoids, sensors, temperature switches,
terminal display, and integrated electro-circuit,
etc. As a consequence of system complexity, the
project started in mid 1997 and ended in early
2002. The development cycle lasted for over 4
years.
Similar to Integrator A, Integrator B did not
have all the capabilities and resources necessary
to implement the project, and had to search for
partners and collaborators. Not only enterprises,
but also public research units such as universities
and institutions were taken into consideration
when designing the potential supplier pool. The
power plant played a critical role in this phase,
having the authority to reject a supplier even if it
was preferred by Integrator B. Finally, five core
collaborators, the power plant and Integrator
B composed the core innovation network (see
Fig. 2).
The power plant not only played an active role
in choosing partners, but also endeavored to
establish an information sharing culture in the
network. Integrator B, the power plant and part-
ners agreed with a documentation mechanism to
ensure every actor within the network could have
detailed records of problems occurring in devel-
opment and corresponding problem-solving solu-
tions, and make reasonable classification of
respective records to help each other get a better
Core project
network
Significant
project-specific
investment
MTR operator
Standard
Integrator component
A supplier
Construction
company
Knowledge flow
Explicit business Component sourcing
contract
r 2008 The Authors
Journal compilation r 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
 Qualitative study of inter-organizational knowledge management
Peripheral standardized
product suppliers
University
X
Partner
A D
Integrator B
Power plant
Partner
Partner Collaborative
B innovation
Sourcing
Peripheral standardized
product suppliers
Figure 2. The development network for SysProj B.
understanding of work progress. The sharing
mechanism proved to be very important in coping
with discontinuity resulting from major technical
iterations or R&D engineer changes.
Although the two case projects were alike to
some extent, there still existed some differences.
In SysProj A the MTR operator did not put much
effort into establishing direct access to suppliers.
In contrast, in SysProj B the power plant played
an active role in creating direct access to suppli-
ers. According to our interviews, both ‘direct
access’ configuration and ‘indirect access’ struc-
ture mobilized KM activities. Table 2 shows a
summary of findings based on extensive personal
interviews that indicate how evidence from the
two case projects supports the developed network
embeddability propositions.
3.3.2. How does interaction intensity influence
inter-organizational KM?
Mavondo and Rodrigo (2001) have conceptua-
lized collaboration as a multi-dimensional con-
struct including joint interaction, harmony and
flexibility. Some ‘interaction boosters’ have been
identified (Inkpen and Dinur, 1998): formal meet-
ings (e.g. periodic visits and work meetings),
informal meetings (e.g. telephone and E-mail),
and collaboration (e.g. dialogue and teamwork).
Uzzi (1997) asserts that appropriate joint problem
solving and interaction arrangements not only
enable network actors to coordinate and work
out problems, but also provide rapid explicit
knowledge feedback. Specifically, Nielsen (2005)
proposes that the more the social interaction is
built up within networks, the greater the fre-
r 2008 The Authors
Journal compilation r 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Partner
Partner A: An integrated circuit manufacturer
Partner B: A nuclear energy research center
Partner C: An electric power research center
C Partner D: An international specialist firm,
focusing on system integration
Tight linkage
Weak linkage
quency and breadth of information exchanged,
which accelerates knowledge creation and pro-
blem correction. As mentioned before, the com-
plexities in CoPS innovation lead to frequent
communication and joint decision-making during
system development, and the stability and flex-
ibility of the network are important for successful
collaboration. Based on the above arguments, we
define inter-organizational interaction intensity as
the frequency and degree of joint problem sol-
ving, technical meetings, and communication.
Furthermore, we propose inter-organizational in-
teraction intensity is another important dimen-
sion in inter-organizational collaboration
affecting KM within a CoPS development net-
work. We thus state the following proposition:
Proposition 2 (P2): Inter-organizational inter-
action intensity has a significant influence on
inter-organizational KM
3.3.2.1. The relationship between inter-organiza-
tional interaction intensity and the degree of knowl-
edge acquisition. When several companies with
different resources and complementary capacities
work together, inter-organizational interaction
can be considered as a facilitator of knowledge
acquisition (Cegarra-Navarro, 2005). In an inter-
organizational network, the interaction among
actors provides the channels for communication,
representing the richness of media. Consequently,
there exists much opportunity for the focal actor
to absorb external knowledge and learn from the
network (Inkpen and Dinur, 1998). In CoPS
R&D Management 38, 4, 2008 427
Eric W.T. Ngai, Chen Jin and Tong Liang

Table 2. Network embeddability propositions in case studies.

Sub- Case Degree of Gathered information
proposition project support

P1a (references: SysProj A Supported As the project manager said, ‘The main difficulty in
Granovetter, 1985; cooperation was that the engineers from other firms might
Hansen, 2002) have been told to take chances on opportunism . . . To be
honest and take responsibility actively were the essential
qualities that we tried to forge in our relationships with
partners’. The partners were willing to provide their new
ideas about the MTR operator’s requirements other than
just work on allocated assignments, in order to help
Integrator A design and redesign the whole system
structure.
SysProj B Supported The power plant played an active role in building direct
relationships with sub-contractors, which further
contributed to trust and commitment establishment.
Moreover, a greater density of social linkages among
engineers was encouraged to maximize the potential
knowledge and experience to be captured. Scanning,
tracking and sourcing technical experiences among
partners became very easy. As the project manager said,
‘The user and we were heavily focused on this project,
choosing suppliers, and breaking down the functionality
requirements into specification parameters together. . .
valuable insights about holistic system design were
generated’.
P1b (references: Gann SysProj A N/A Limited information was gained in the interview about this
and Salter, 2000; proposition
Hansen, 2002; SysProj B Supported ‘Direct access’ configuration made the network more
Nielsen 2005) transparent and collaborative. As one engineer said, ‘To
facilitate integration of multi-disciplinary knowledge, we
tried to develop our own shared community with agreed
elements . . . such as shared team tags and team based
slogans’.
P1c (references: SysProj A Supported The actors were very willing to share with, and help each
Dayasindhu, 2002; other. As the project manager said, ‘Both the user and
Hansen, 2002; partners trusted us very much due to our honesty . . . They
Uzzi and were willing to cooperate based on our solution’
Lancaster, 2003) SysProj B Supported The power plant allocated staff to the development field,
and provided channels to connect core suppliers directly.
Knowledge could be passed to every actor efficiently. The
project manager told us ‘For example, some times the
integrated circuit manufacturer directly discussed with the
power plant about the special requirements for circuit
arrangements in different buildings. For this kind of
information less relevant to system integration, we didn’t
need to put much manpower or resources as an intermediary,
which saved a lot of our time and energy’.
NA, not accessible in this case.

development, all actors meet together regularly to
report and review their progress in latest devel-
opments. Wuyts et al. (2004) find that both the
vendor and buyer of complex projects value
strong ties and frequent interaction that run
from suppliers through the vendor to the buyer,
because the interaction among actors provides the
system integrator with the direct access to com-
plex knowledge. Hence, the following relationship
can be proposed:
P2a: The inter-organizational interaction inten-
sity has a significant effect on the degree of
knowledge acquisition
3.3.2.2. The relationship between inter-organiza-
tional interaction intensity and knowledge imple-
mentation. Through interactions with others,
firms can combine external knowledge with exist-
ing knowledge. According to Yli-Renko et al.

428 R&D Management 38, 4, 2008 r 2008 The Authors

Journal compilation r 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
 Qualitative study of inter-organizational knowledge management
(2001), the interaction creates a context in which
newly received knowledge can be applied and
exploited. Malhotra et al. (2005) offer support
for the role of interaction in knowledge imple-
mentation in their argument that cooperative
partners with high interaction may achieve high
performance by the development of inter-organi-
zational integrative process mechanisms and joint
decision making to integrate privileged knowl-
edge. In a CoPS context, intensive interactions
with clients and partners often result in tailoring
unique solutions regarding clients’ needs (Oshri
and Newell, 2005). In addition, informal commu-
nication and interaction among engineers allo-
cated to a CoPS project from different firms
contribute to maintaining technical consistency
and finding new combinations of resources or
activities for unexpected variation deviating
from the planned trajectory (Gann and Salter,
2000). Frequent and, typically, face-to-face com-
munication and advanced information technolo-
gies (IT) that can realize direct knowledge
exchange are especially suited to the joint search
for solutions in CoPS environments, because they
permit sufficient density and iterability to knowl-
edge integration (Marshall and Brady, 2001).
Drawing on the above material, we propose the
following sub-proposition:
P2b: The inter-organizational interaction inten-
sity has a significant effect on knowledge
implementation
3.3.2.3. The relationship between inter-organiza-
tional interaction intensity and knowledge trans-
fer. According to Dulaimi et al. (2003),
knowledge and technology transfer can be con-
sidered as a process of interaction. In the analo-
gous procedures identified by Inkpen (1996) for
knowledge transfer within joint ventures, interac-
tion between joint ventures and the parent com-
pany is a very important factor. Inkpen and
Dinur (1998) further conclude that technical in-
teraction is especially effective in knowledge
transfer at the group or organization level. Prior
empirical research on international business also
suggests that interaction intensity among head-
quarters and different subsidiaries of multina-
tional corporations (MNCs) facilitates the
frequency and thoroughness of knowledge trans-
fer (Subramaniam and Venkatraman, 2001). In
terms of an innovation network for complex
products, direct interaction between buyer–inte-
grator–supplier is also considered as a way for the
integrator to transfer complex knowledge (Wuyts
r 2008 The Authors
Journal compilation r 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
et al., 2004). Hence, we propose the following
sub-proposition:
P2c: The inter-organizational interaction inten-
sity has a significant effect on knowledge transfer
3.3.2.4. Interaction intensity and KM: experiences
from case study. In the case of SysProj A,
Integrator A endeavored to launch interaction
initiatives including both an IT-based project
reporting system and through a social approach,
through which problem solving experiences could
be acquired, integrated, filed and disseminated
among the innovation network members.
IT-based tools were used to capture and translate
the MTR operator’s requirements into design
parameters. For instance, because the MTR line
was still under construction when the system was
developed, Integrator A could not test the proto-
type system in the actual MTR construction field.
Integrator A had to build a special emulation
platform for simulating a field environment in
which the system would be partially operated.
The platform could make an accurate simulation
and take measurements, and compare the system
parameters under different operation circum-
stances, which facilitated Integrator A’s under-
standing of the MTR operator’s needs.
On the other hand, social interactions evolved
with the progress of development. Engineers
from all parties worked together to find solutions
for unplanned events. Their progress was re-
ported to their respective superiors regularly.
The reports were reviewed at monthly technical
meetings at which senior management from In-
tegrator A and the sub-contractors were present.
Certainly it is unrealistic to expect the total
elimination of task ambiguity via intensive inter-
action. In all of the sub-systems, only 60% were
inter-connected successfully at the beginning,
which resulted in three major iterations of the
integration process.
In the case of SysProj B, Integrator B also
adopted the codification approach and persona-
lization approach simultaneously to KM. The
intent of Integrator B was to build up a real-
time monitoring and tracking system, which con-
sisted of several levels of IT technologies from
knowledge transport to application (e.g. Local
Area Network). However, the mere existence of
an IT system did not mean the action team would
be willing to use it. There existed a big difference
between the official operation procedures of the
IT-based system and the actual actions of the
engineers.
R&D Management 38, 4, 2008 429
Eric W.T. Ngai, Chen Jin and Tong Liang

Integrator B also implemented a social interac- activities are significantly related to NPD perfor-
tion approach to KM, which was more effective mance. In a study of 139 Spanish optical compa-
than the IT-based approach. At the pre-project nies, Cegarra-Navarro (2005) concludes that a
stage, Integrator B allocated several specialists positive relationship exists between KM activities
and sales engineers specializing in computerized and organizational learning within inter-organi-
control systems to the power plant to discuss the zational alliances. Hence, we posit the following
system structure and functionalities. In project proposition:
implementation, technical meetings were the for-
Proposition 3(P3): Inter-organizational KM
mal mechanism for coordinating system develop-
has a significant influence on CoPS project
ment. Meeting reports signed by all participants
performance
were seen as having the same status as a technical
contract. Besides the formal meetings, direct
3.3.3.1. The relationship between the degree of
commitment-based communication between
knowledge acquisition and project performance.
engineers in the project team overcame low
Cooper and Kleinschmidt (1987) stress the
efficiency of information transfer through the
knowledge acquired from customers and the
traditional hierarchical procedures, and brought
market is one of the critical success factors for
about most of the problem-solving. The project
NPD. Through an investigation of 120
manager from Integrator B said, ‘1/3 of our time
young technology-based firms in the United
was allocated to mutual communication and
Kingdom, Yli-Renko et al. (2001) contend the
coordination, including interaction with the
more knowledge a technology-based firm
customer’.
acquires about customer needs and ways of doing
In Table 3, a summary of the data is presented,
business, the more efficiently it will be able to
which shows how the evidence from the two case
provide its product and service. They further
projects supports the interaction intensity propo-
propose knowledge acquisition increases tangible
sitions.
NPD performance in two aspects: enhanced
speed-to-market and reduced costs. Simonin
3.3.3. How does inter-organizational KM have
and Helleloid (1993) also claim that the
effect on project performance?
know-how acquired from collaboration
Collaboration can lead to a number of tangible
contributes to tangible and intangible perfor-
and intangible benefits. Only looking at the tan-
mance. Besides the argument about the impact
gible benefits of collaboration may be misleading
on tangible NPD performance, Yli-Renko et al.
(Simonin and Helleloid, 1993). Tangible perfor-
(2001) extend the impact of knowledge acquisi-
mance includes generating profits, improving
tion on enhancing the breadth and depth of
market share, and sustaining competitive advan-
relation-specific knowledge, and claim that it
tages. Relative to the tangible performance,
increases the willingness to develop new products
much less attention is given to the intangible
for key customers, providing the potential for new
output of new product development (NPD). Or-
innovative combinations.
ganizational learning explanation provides an-
The number of subsystems incorporated in
other angle for exploring inter-organizational
CoPS is very high (Hobday and Rush, 1999;
KM and its influence on CoPS project perfor-
Hobday et al., 2000), and the product needs to
mance. As a result of specific collaboration,
be compatible with a broader technical platform
learning new skills and having new experiences,
for future system expansion. Logically, providing
and enhancing social capital can be considered as
CoPS requires a combination of many areas of
intangible performance (Simonin and Helleloid,
specialized knowledge. Knowledge acquisition
1993). In a study of the home appliance industry
has been described as one of such combinative
by Sobrero and Roberts (2002), the collaboration
capabilities (Kogut and Zander, 1992). Hence,
outcomes are decomposed into two categories:
in order to combine the users’ requirements,
efficiency (e.g. cost reduction) and learning (e.g.
implement development plans, and resolve pro-
development of new solutions). Drawing on the
duct development deficiencies, the CoPS integra-
above arguments, CoPS project performance can
tor needs to access relevant information and
be defined as the synthesis of tangible efficiency
knowledge. We thus state the following
(system success) and intangible learning (learning
sub-proposition:
performance).
Empirically, Lynn et al. (2000) examine the P3a: The degree of knowledge acquisition has a
KM processes in NPD and conclude that KM significant effect on project performance

430 R&D Management 38, 4, 2008 r 2008 The Authors

Journal compilation r 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
 Qualitative study of inter-organizational knowledge management

Table 3. Interaction intensity propositions in case studies.

Sub-proposition Case Degree of Gathered information
project support

P2a (references: Inkpen SysProj A Supported As a result of IT-based and social approaches to
and Dinur, 1998; interaction, information from the MTR operator and
Hobday and Brady, partners was easily accessed. As an IT-service
2000; Cegarra- department member of staff said, ‘We (the network
Navarro, 2005) members) achieved an agreement to upload and
download work progress with IT tools . . . something
like Lotus Notes and GroupWise . . . Detailed inputs
and outputs in every subsystem were documented . . .
We also recorded the changes of functionalities
generated by development iterations, whether for the
holistic system and subsystems...of course, the meeting
memos were stored in the central database too’.
SysProj B Supported The formal and informal approaches to dealing with
knowledge sources (partners) were seen as vehicles to
carry knowledge. As the project manager said, ‘At the
beginning, the IT-led interaction tools were not
designed very well and didn’t work as expected . . .
Joint work together was a supplement of IT tools,
which gave us a lot of ideas to shape the solutions as we
went forward’.
P2b (references: Lynn SysProj A Supported The interaction was largely project specific.
et al., 2000; Integrator A felt the partners were really technically
Yli-Renko specialized, so the problem of ‘not invented here’
et al., 2001; seldom occurred. As one engineer said, ‘There were a
Wu and lot of areas where we needed to rely on partners . . . We
Tsai, 2005) trusted the work they passed to us . . . 60% of
functionality was actualized at the first time we carried
through debugging’.
SysProj B Weakly Although Integrator B adopted initiatives to interact
Supported with partners and the power plant, system integration
didn’t go smoothly. As one of the engineers noted,
‘especially at the integration and debugging stages,
many sub-systems/modules didn’t work once they were
inter-connected together, though they functioned very
well separately’. Moreover, from system start-up to
final system installation, all actors gathered formally
18 times to hold technical meetings, 6 of which
directly led to modification of the prior contract.
P2c (references: SysProj A Supported In the monthly meetings, the participants discussed
Subramaniam and the context-specific difficulties in detail in face-to-face
Venkatraman, 2001; communication, which not only provided
Wuyts idiosyncratic and tacit insights about current
et al., 2004) development processes, but also enhanced the
atmosphere of knowledge sharing among all parties.
SysProj B Supported To achieve successful development and operation of
the system, Integrator B was willing to share its
technical know-how without worrying about
knowledge leakage. For example, after system
installation, Integrator B deployed 18 technicians and
coordinators at the control center in the power plant,
training the users in how to manipulate the system
appropriately, monitoring the system operation, and
capturing first-hand feedback information that was
important for system maintenance and update.

3.3.3.2. The relationship between knowledge areas of technology (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990),
implementation and project performance. NPD whether in intra-organizational or inter-organiza-
requires the integration and combination of tional contexts. Alavi and Leidner (2001) contend
specialized knowledge inputs from many different that performance often depends on an ability to

r 2008 The Authors R&D Management 38, 4, 2008 431

Journal compilation r 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Eric W.T. Ngai, Chen Jin and Tong Liang
turn knowledge into effective action. Further-
more, some studies have pointed out that knowl-
edge implementation is positively related to NPD
project performance, including market share,
sales, and profit, etc. In a study on complex
software development by Tiwana (2004), knowl-
edge implementation is highlighted to have had
impacts on various dimensions of software devel-
opment performance, such as increasing software
development effectiveness and reducing defect
density. In terms of learning performance, the
model of organizational learning process devel-
oped by Crossan et al. (1999) suggests that knowl-
edge implementation is necessary for enterprises
to update their knowledge and competences. In
situations where the project team has an abun-
dance of records and documents, knowledge im-
plementation may be crucial for learning (Lynn
et al., 2000). Sobrero and Roberts (2002)
conclude that the choice of coordination and
knowledge integration mechanisms must be
accurately balanced to have a positive impact on
both long-term learning and short-term efficiency
outcomes.
Because the system integrator has a lot of
opportunity to access knowledge from the
innovation network, the acquired knowledge
needs to be applied in the CoPS development
process, to make the inter-linked subsystems run
holistic functionalities and to update the existing
knowledge base. Following the above statements,
the relationship between knowledge implementa-
tion and CoPS project performance is expected:
P3b: Inter-organizational knowledge implemen-
tation has a significant effect on project perfor-
mance
3.3.3.3. The relationship between knowledge trans-
fer and project performance. Prior studies have
reported the relationship between knowledge
transfer and performance at both firm and project
level. Hoopes and Postrel (1999) conclude firms
that encourage the free flow of knowledge within
the organization may be more competitive in
NPD. Cegarra-Navarro (2005) believes organiza-
tions that track customer preferences and share
their knowledge with partners can perform at a
higher level, delivering more satisfaction to cus-
tomers with the help from partners. Wu and Tsai
(2005) see knowledge transfer as one of the
knowledge-creating activities, and empirically re-
port a significant relationship among knowledge-
creating activities, intellectual capital and KM
effectiveness (i.e. learning performance).
432 R&D Management 38, 4, 2008
To make sure the CoPS projects are successful,
the CoPS manufacturers need to share knowledge
with partners during joint development. As a
result, in inter-organizational CoPS innovation
networks, knowledge transfer and dissemination
may be intensified across firms’ boundaries.
Malhotra et al. (2005) have developed a proposi-
tion indicating that enterprises engaged in ex-
changing a range of high quality information
with partners will achieve high performance
through modular design of their interlinked
processes. Therefore, we develop the following
proposition:
P3c: Inter-organizational knowledge transfer
has a significant effect on project performance
3.3.3.4. Inter-organizational KM and CoPS pro-
ject performance: experiences from case study. In
the case of SysProj A, the system was put into
actual operation in 2002 and experienced only
two minor field adjustments before final acknowl-
edgement by the MTR operator and the govern-
ment. As the system was the first project
Integrator A had contracted in the urban public
transportation sector, much knowledge about
MTR lines was new to it. The success of this
project brought Integrator A into the urban
public transportation sector and made itself
accepted, responding to a call from the govern-
ment for indigenous innovation in backbone in-
dustries and winning the confidence of the
government. In the following few years, several
cities in China got approval from the central
government to construct MTR lines. Through
the accumulated technical and organizational
experiences from SysProj A, Integrator A won a
considerable portion of the contracts for devel-
oping control systems for these MTR lines.
In the case of SysProj B, Integrator B also
delivered the system successfully, which not only
directly generated considerable financial benefits,
but also strengthened the competitive status of
Integrator B. The power sector is an industry with
a high degree of government monopoly in China.
The successful installation and operation of the
system also improved the relationship between
Integrator B and local government, opening an
opportunity window for potential contracts.
Moreover, through knowledge exchange with
other parties, some technical weaknesses and
organizational routines were improved. Table 4
provides a summary of the data that shows how
the two case projects support the performance
propositions.
r 2008 The Authors
Journal compilation r 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
 Qualitative study of inter-organizational knowledge management

Table 4. Performance propositions in case studies.

Sub-proposition Case project Degree of Gathered information
support

P3a: (references: Cooper SysProj A Supported To gain experience and get into the sector were the
and Kleinschmidt, 1987; primary goals of this project, both of which were
Simonin and achieved. The executive manager said ‘As our first
Helleloid, 1993; project in the public traffic sector, we learned a lot of
Yli-Renko new things . . . Profit was a secondary consideration at
et al., 2001) that time . . . as long as it covered the cost . . . even a
small loss was acceptable’
SysProj B Supported Senior management was convinced of the
contribution of idiosyncratic know-how to the
project’s success. In other words, both the
architecture knowledge and distributed component
knowledge (e.g. digital electronics and signal
processing etc.) made the system successful. In
addition, the acquired component knowledge from
partners helped broaden Integrator B’s in-house
R&D technological capabilities.
P3b: (references: Lynn SysProj A Supported Both the employee from the IT service department
et al., 2000) and the project manager noted that their emulation
platform was very useful in simulating system
integration, which saved much effort when the actors
did it in the field and decreased the error occurrence
after the system had been put into operation.
Furthermore, successful integration of all subsystems
enhanced the firm’s reputation on DCS integration,
representing its high technical capability.
SysProj B Supported Integrator B got profit and acknowledgement from
both the user and local government through this
project. As one senior manager said, ‘If you have some
special knowledge . . . such as connecting all subsystems
with appropriate structures and interfaces, something
like that, while other competitors don’t, it puts you in a
privileged position . . . it means other power plants or
users in other sectors may put you on their priority list
as potential DCS suppliers . . . we were satisfied with
the financial benefits from this project’
P3c: (references: Crossan SysProj A Supported The project manager told us that about 60% of
et al., 1999; Hoopes and learning opportunities were related to the interaction
Postrel, 1999; Malhotra with other parties in the innovation network, instead
et al., 2005) of to existing lessons from former projects that
Integrator A had finished. ‘Sharing experiences had
been a kind of routine among our partners’ For
example, Integrator A filed a useful handbook as
shared guidelines to handling unexpected events
through joint development, especially in subway
environments.
SysProj B Supported In fact, the system delivery was delayed for about half
a year due to one supplier being unable to integrate
the fire and smoke alarm sub-system to the whole
system. Both Integrator B and the power plant
allocated engineers to that supplier, responding to the
supplier’s request for help, rather than just providing
relevant technical documents. The allocated
engineers provided assistant technical knowledge and
the interface information, facilitating the sub-
system’s interconnection to other modules. Owing to
this, the system was successfully developed by all
actors’ joint work.

r 2008 The Authors R&D Management 38, 4, 2008 433

Journal compilation r 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Eric W.T. Ngai, Chen Jin and Tong Liang
Based on a review of the literature and the
findings from our case studies, we propose pro-
positions 1, 2, 3 and their respective sub-proposi-
tions (see Fig. 3a). The inter-organizational
collaboration, KM and CoPS theories provide
the underlying variables. A multiple case study
approach was adopted to gain an understanding
of the relationship between inter-organizational
KM and its impact on CoPS project performance.
The postulated relationships are shown in Fig. 3a
and b. The framework explains KM in a CoPS
context characterized by inter-organizational col-
laboration and knowledge intensiveness.
4. Discussion and implications
4.1. Dimensions of inter-organizational
collaboration and KM in CoPS
Although much of literature has contributed to
the body of knowledge of KM, this article points
out that prior studies have focused on KM at
intra-organization level, not much at inter-orga-
nizational network level. Furthermore, little
research has been conducted on KM and inter-
organizational networks within a CoPS context.
a Network P1a +
embeddability
P1b +
P1c +
knowledge implementation
P2a +
P2b +
Inter-organizational
interaction
P2c +
b Knowledge
acquisition
Network
embeddability P1
Inter-organizational
Inter-organizational
P2
interaction intensity
Figure 3. (a) Conceptual model of inter-organizational KM and its impact on CoPS project performance with the sub-
propositions. (b) Conceptual model of inter-organizational KM and its impact on CoPS project performance with main
propositions.
434 R&D Management 38, 4, 2008
In traditional innovation frameworks, relatively
clear boundaries make enterprises prefer in-
house development and manufacturing. Even
other relevant actors involved in product devel-
opment and manufacturing are actually excluded
from the entity.
KM in a CoPS context aims not only at
codifying, storing and distributing learnt experi-
ences in project development, but also at creating
and providing the organizational productive link-
age between knowledge and practice (Marshall
and Brady, 2001). Nevertheless, little is known
about the interaction mechanism that facilitates
knowledge exchange and learning in CoPS pro-
jects (Oshri and Newell, 2005). Both cases in this
article have demonstrated an IT-based approach
and social interaction approach were adopted as
vehicles for inter-organizational KM. However,
use of an IT system may not be favored by project
teams in CoPS innovation, as the engineer in
SysProj B points out in this study. There may
be a dissonance between the intent of emphasizing
an IT-based approach by management and actual
preference for social interaction by engineers in
the field (Marshall and Brady, 2001).
Although prior studies seldom discuss KM in
CoPS, their arguments did offer a good starting
The degree of
knowledge acquisition
P3a +
Project
Inter-organizational P3b +
Performance
P3c +
Inter-organizational
knowledge transfer
Knowledge Knowledge
implementation transfer
P3 Project
KM processes Performance
r 2008 The Authors
Journal compilation r 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
 Qualitative study of inter-organizational knowledge management
point and references for our research. Overall, by
a review of the relevant arguments from existing
literature and experiences from two cases of
computerized control systems, this paper devel-
ops some propositions and builds up a conceptual
model, not only combining the three cross-fields
discussion of inter-organization collaboration,
KM, and CoPS development, but also exploring
some important issues such as how the character-
istics of collaboration in a CoPS innovation net-
work has impacted on inter-organizational KM
and in turn on the final project performance.
Table 5 presents a brief summary of implications,
lesson learnt and constructs along their proposed
measurements for the inter-organizational KM in
CoPS context.
4.2. Measurement of inter-organizational
collaboration and KM in CoPS
innovation
In this study, the connections between inter-
organizational KM, network embeddability and
interaction intensity have been explored in a
holistic way. However, the difficulty of better
understanding the cognitive aspect still remained,
and as this may not be realistically possible, one
could explore it more through the form of mea-
surement. Further studies could take on the task
of investigating how to measure and quantify the
constructs. The measurement of individual con-
structs of the proposed conceptual model is dis-
cussed below.
 Network embeddability
Previous sections have shown that embeddabil-
ity is closely related to the resource and relational
linkages between collaborators. Many reports
have developed some well-defined relational vari-
ables, such as trust and commitment (e.g. Lui
et al., 2005). Our case analyses also indicate that
good relationships, including non-market lin-
kages and implicit contracts, are built upon
mutual resource dependence and trust. We sug-
gest, in a further study, that elements such as
trust, significant investment into the project, asset
complementarity and collaboration vision could
be used to generate the original statements on the
instrument of network embeddability.
 Interaction intensity
In KM literature, the importance of commu-
nication and interaction has been widely studied.
In other words, close relationships, direct inter-
r 2008 The Authors
Journal compilation r 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
action and communication provide a more suita-
ble platform for supporting knowledge practice
when facing unplanned complexity, whether by
joint action, through technical meetings or
through periodic visits (Subramaniam and Ven-
katraman, 2001). Both integrators in our cases
adopt IT-based tools and personalization ap-
proaches to contact network members, and en-
courage frequent formal and informal meetings
for the project duration. Therefore, the elements
related to joint decision-making, joint design,
frequent technical meetings and frequent techni-
cal reviews could be considered in future studies
for measuring the interaction intensity.
 Knowledge acquisition
Many KM researchers have noted that knowl-
edge acquisition is vital for learning. Knowledge
acquisition in this study is defined as concern with
the access and absorption of knowledge from a
network. According to our experience gained
from case analyses, CoPS consist of a number
of sub-systems and sub-components. The system
integrators focus on absorbing technical data and
information from network members during joint
development, such as sub-system functionalities,
system design, interface connection and system
integration. Hence, we propose, in a CoPS con-
text, that the measurement of knowledge acquisi-
tion in any future study should consist of the
elements of functionality information acquisition,
design information acquisition, interface informa-
tion acquisition and integration information ac-
quisition.
 Knowledge implementation
Crossan et al. (1999) argue that implementing
acquired knowledge into business processes may
enhance organizational competitiveness. Similar
conclusions have been drawn by researching KM
in the NPD process (Lynn et al., 2000). According
to our case experience, successful CoPS develop-
ment is inevitably achieved by several iteration
processes, including continuous problem identifi-
cation and correction, and applying acquired
knowledge to development. Integrator A did a
lot to remove the problem of ‘not invented here’,
making engineers from among network members
put their hearts into co-operative development,
and so its system integration went more smoothly
than that of Integrator B. Hence, the elements
related to process improvement, and identifying
and correcting problems could be considered as
useful in future studies for measuring knowledge
implementation.
R&D Management 38, 4, 2008 435
Eric W.T. Ngai, Chen Jin and Tong Liang

Table 5. Brief summary of inter-organizational KM issues in a CoPS context.

Construct Lesson Learnt Implication Proposed Measurement

Sysproj A Sysproj B

Network Co-operation Both the user and Asset specificity, trust, 1.Trust
embeddability mechanisms including Integrator B and commitment are 2. Significant
explicit contract and endeavoured to foster needed to strengthen investment into project
non-market good relationships in embeddability 3. Asset
relationship were built the network, based on complementarity
up in the innovation mutual resource 4.Collaboration vision
network dependence and trust
Interaction IT-based reporting Codification and Engineers from all 1.Joint decision-
intensity system and social personalization parties jointly acted as making
approach were approach to development 2. Joint design
launched and were interaction, and formal facilitators. As vehicles 3. Frequent technical
effective. Frequent and and informal to carry knowledge, meetings
regular meetings were communication various interaction 4. Frequent technical
held methods were mechanisms were reviews
introduced needed to expand
coordination and
communication
Knowledge Unsolicited suggestions Documentation Tight linkages and 1. Functionality
acquisition came from sub- mechanisms, social intensive interaction information
contractors. Reporting interactions among created channels for acquisition
system and technical engineers and ‘direct knowledge flow from 2. Design information
meetings also provided access’ configuration partners and users to acquisition
opportunities to helped the innovation system integrators 3. Interface
acquire knowledge network be more information
transparent, which acquisition
promoted knowledge 4. Integration
tracking and sourcing information
acquisition
Knowledge The problem of ‘not Although a shared Nearly all inputs were 1. Process
implementa- invented here’ seldom sense of community centralized in system improvement
tion occurred, which made with agreed elements integrators to assemble 2. Revealing problems
integration and such team tags was sub-systems, creating 3. Correcting problems
corresponding iteration established, system new knowledge 4. Knowledge
easier integration didn’t go incorporation
smoothly
Knowledge All kinds of technical Right after delivery, 18 To achieve system 1.Sharing culture
transfer meetings are set as engineers were consistency and 2. Mutual document
formal platforms for deployed to the user, successful delivery, retrieval
knowledge sharing providing service for system integrators 3. Technical training
with partners training and system needed to share 4.Staff deployment
maintenance insights and ideas with 5. Using KM systems
partners and users

 Knowledge transfer even after delivery. Therefore, we believe that

Methods of knowledge sharing have been
widely discussed (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995).
In our case studies, many effective methods such
as staff relocation and technical meetings were
adopted by both integrators, which helped all
collaborators to keep technical consistency.
Furthermore, after delivering the system to the
power plant, Integrator B still seconded engineers
to the power plant to transfer the necessary
technical expertise to the users. In other words,
in a CoPS context, knowledge sharing still exists
knowledge sharing in CoPS development may be
measured by incorporating the elements of a shar-
ing culture, mutual document retrieval, technical
training, staff deployment and using KM systems.
Progress can be made in further research by: (1)
adopting a more theoretical conceptual definition
of the individual construct that will be derived
from a content analysis of the literature; (2)
generating a set of items and designing, evaluat-
ing and refining a measurement instrument
through several iterative processes; and 3) sum-
marising data from administration of the instru-

436 R&D Management 38, 4, 2008 r 2008 The Authors

Journal compilation r 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
 Qualitative study of inter-organizational knowledge management
ment to provide a statistical profile of the extent
to which the characteristics of collaboration in a
CoPS innovation network will impact on inter-
organizational KM, and in turn on the final
project performance.
4.3. Managerial implications
By focusing on the crucial dimensions of knowl-
edge-related activities and inter-organizational
collaboration in CoPS innovation, we find some
underlying configurations of inter-organizational
KM in a CoPS context that can be captured,
which are meaningful to both the academic and
the business executive. From an academic
perspective, our efforts provide important
groundwork for research into the combination
of cross-school theories of KM, inter-organiza-
tional collaboration and CoPS development.
From a practitioner’s viewpoint, our work offers
CoPS manufacturers a preliminary framework
and some experiences from case studies, which
they can refer to when they try to structure and
formulate their inter-organizational KM strate-
gies. More broadly, our study also answers con-
cerns about the cognitive processes of CoPS
innovation (Hobday et al., 2000).
This study has two managerial implications.
First, the integrators need to devote themselves to
forging a collaborative atmosphere amongst net-
work members. Our case experience tells us that,
at first, collaborators may not be willing to actively
provide knowledge about sub-system development.
As a focal actor, the integrator should not only
improve the network structure through configuring
complementary resource inputs with collaborators,
but should also establish mutual trust and commit-
ment inside the network as soon as possible. The
integrator may also call more technical meetings
and increase the frequency of site visits, facilitating
mutual communication and interaction, which
may significantly reduce the shifting of responsi-
bilities onto others when problems occur. Connect-
ing key personnel from each collaborator should
be encouraged, especially for those on-site R&D
engineers, because systematic consistency will only
be achieved through frequent communication.
These interactions and linkages should not be
considered just as a business cost or methodology,
but also as an investment in learning.
Second, the integrators need to develop a series
of KM capabilities to effectively manage inter-
organizational knowledge flow, which in turn
will positively affect CoPS performance. Special
r 2008 The Authors
Journal compilation r 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
knowledge officers in charge of liaison and knowl-
edge filtering should be appointed, and appropri-
ate IT systems need to be set up. The knowledge
application mechanism inside the organization
should be adjusted to allow knowledge flow
across borders. However, reciprocal knowledge
exchange will not be sustainable if the integrators
have all of their knowledge under rigorous pro-
tection. The integrators should also post their
own development progress and relevant data, so
that all members inside the innovation network
can update their understanding of the intercon-
nection of sub-systems.
5. Conclusion
The complexity and richness of KM through
inter-organizational collaboration seems to be as
great as its potential to contribute to both the
system success and learning performance that
CoPS projects may achieve. We suggest that by
looking at two dimensions of inter-organizational
collaboration (i.e. network embeddability and
interaction intensity), KM at the inter-organiza-
tional level can be implemented so that it has an
impact on the final CoPS project performance.
The conceptual framework and testable proposi-
tions developed in this study can also highlight
and strengthen the knowledge-based dimensions
that help to explain the unprecedented economic
success and unique competitive advantages gener-
ated by CoPS. A summary of the findings has been
presented in the form of three main propositions
and nine sub-propositions that are worth explor-
ing further. We suggest that further empirical
research should develop our 12 propositions into
hypotheses that can be tested by means of data
from a survey of the CoPS firms. The focus of
further research should be on the measurement of
the constructs in the proposed conceptual model.
Such research could provide confirmation of our
argument about the impacts of network embedd-
ability and interaction intensity on inter-organiza-
tional KM processes and project performance.
6. Limitations
The major limitation of this study is its sample
size of two companies with a similar type of
organization. Specifically, both of them are sys-
tems integrator firms. Although both Integrators
A and B are the project holders, one might have
expected to hear the collaborators’ points of view,
R&D Management 38, 4, 2008 437
Eric W.T. Ngai, Chen Jin and Tong Liang
rather than having it all filtered through the
integrator. There are always limitations to the
generalizability of case study research, particu-
larly with a relatively small number of cases. We
therefore believe that further research is needed to
confirm and extend our findings. Unsuccessful or
less-than-successful cases that may also be in-
structive in helping to test the propositions could
be examined as well. One could also check for any
additional antecedents that are important in in-
fluencing inter-organizational KM processes, as
well as checking and refining those we have
identified. We believe that a survey approach to
this topic will become increasingly feasible as case
study work continues, and as the relevant con-
structs are identified, and could provide a more
complete descriptive picture of the current prac-
tice of inter-organizational KM in CoPS devel-
opment. We hope that this study can represent a
small step along the path to the improved under-
standing of KM in CoPS development.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by NSFC under
grant number 7022004 and The Hong Kong
Polytechnic University under grant number
G-YF02. The authors are grateful for the
constructive comments of the two referees on an
earlier version of this article.
References
Alavi, M. and Leidner, D.E. (2001) Review: knowledge
management and knowledge management systems:
conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS
Quarterly, 25, 1, 107–136.
Barthes, J.A. and Tacla, C.A. (2002) Agent-supported
portals and knowledge management in complex
R&D projects. Computers in Industry, 48, 3–6.
Benbasat, I., Goldstein, D.K. and Mead, M. (1987) The
case research strategy in studies of information
systems. MIS Quarterly, 11, 3, 369–386.
Cegarra-Navarro, J.G. (2005) An empirical investiga-
tion of organizational learning through strategic
alliance between SMEs. Journal of Strategic Market-
ing, 13, 3–16.
Chen, J. and Tong, L. (2004) The knowledge manage-
ment mechanism in CoPS innovation. Proceedings of
International Engineering Management Conference,
18–21, October Singapore, 651–655.
Cohen, W. and Levinthal, D. (1990) Absorptive capa-
city: a new perspective on learning and innovation.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128–152.
438 R&D Management 38, 4, 2008
Cooper, R.G. and Kleinschmidt, E.J. (1987) What
makes a new product a Winner: success factors at
the project level. R&D Management, 17, 3, 175–189.
Crossan, M.M., Lane, H.W. and White, R.E. (1999)
An organizational learning framework: from intui-
tion to institution. Academy of Management Review,
24, 3, 522–537.
Das, T.K. and Teng, B-S. (1998) Between trust and
control: developing confidence in partner coopera-
tion in alliances. Academy of Management Review,
23, 491–512.
Davenport, T.H. and Prusak, L. (1998) Working
Knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School
Press.
Davies, A. and Brady, T. (2000) Organizational cap-
abilities and learning in complex product systems:
towards repeatable solutions. Research Policy, 29,
931–953.
Dayasindhu, N. (2002) Embeddedness, knowledge
transfer, industry clusters and global competitive-
ness: a case study of the Indian software industry.
Technovation, 22, 551–560.
Dougherty, D., Borrelli, L., Munir, K. and O’Sullivan,
A. (2000) Systems of organizational sensemaking for
sustained product innovation. Journal of Engineering
and Technology Management, 17, 321–355.
Dulaimi, M.F., Ling, F.Y.Y. and Bajracharya, A.
(2003) Organizational motivation and inter-organi-
zational interaction in construction innovation in
Singapore. Construction Management and Econom-
ics, 21, 307–318.
Galunic, D.C. and Rodan, S. (1998) Resource recom-
binations in the firm- knowledge structures and the
potential for schumpeterian innovation. Strategic
Management Journal, 19, 1193–1201.
Gann, D.M. and Salter, A J. (2000) Innovation in
project-based, service-enhanced firms: the construc-
tion of complex products and systems. Research
Policy, 29, 955–972.
Granovetter, M. (1985) Economic action and social
structure: the problem of embeddedness. American
Journal of Sociology, 91, 3, 481–510.
Gulati, R., Nohria, N. and Zaheer, A. (2000) Strategic
networks. Strategic Management Journal, 3, 21,
203–215.
Hansen, M.T. (2002) Knowledge networks: explaining
effective knowledge sharing in multiunit companies.
Organization Science, 13, 3, 232–248.
Hobday, M. and Brady, T. (2000) A fast method for
analyzing and improving complex software pro-
cesses. R&D Management, 30, 1, 1–21.
Hobday, M. and Rush, H. (1999) Technology manage-
ment in complex product systems (CoPS): ten ques-
tions answered. International Journal of Technology
Management, 17, 618–638.
Hobday, M., Rush, H. and Tidd, J. (2000) Innovation
in complex products and system Research Policy, 29,
793–804.
r 2008 The Authors
Journal compilation r 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
 Qualitative study of inter-organizational knowledge management
Hoopes, D.G. and Postrel, S. (1999) Shared knowledge,
‘glitches’, and product development performance.
Strategic Management Journal, 20, 837–865.
Huber, G.P. (1991) Organizational learning: the con-
tributing process and the literatures. Organization
Science, 2, 1, 88–115.
Inkpen, A.C. (1996) Creating knowledge through
collaboration. California Management Review, 39,
1, 123–140.
Inkpen, A.C. and Dinur, A. (1998) Knowledge man-
agement processes and international joint venture.
Organization Science, 9, 4, 454–468.
Kogut, B. and Zander, U. (1992) Knowledge of the
firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of
technology. Organization Science, 3, 383–397.
Liu, T.L. and Shou, I. (2004) Enhancement of customer
network relationship via governance mechanism of
inter-organizational core resource and core knowl-
edge strategic alliance. The Journal of American
Academy of Business, 5, 220–229, September.
Lui, S.S., Ngo, H.Y. and Hon, A.H.Y. (2005) Coercive
strategy in interfirm cooperation: mediating roles of
interpersonal and interorganizational trust. Journal
of Business Research, 59, 4, 466–474.
Lynn, G.S., Reilly, R.R. and Akgun, A.E. (2000)
Knowledge management in new product teams:
practices and outcomes. IEEE Transactions on En-
gineering Management, 47, 2, 221–231.
Malhotra, A., Gosain, S. and EI Sawy, O.A. (2005)
Absorptive capacity configurations in supply chains:
gearing for partner-enabled market knowledge crea-
tion. MIS Quarterly, 29, 1, 145–187.
Marshall, N. and Brady, T. (2001) Knowledge manage-
ment and the politics of knowledge: illustrations
from complex products and systems. European Jour-
nal of Information Systems, 10, 99–112.
Mavondo, F.T. and Rodrigo, E.M. (2001) The effect of
relationship dimensions on interpersonal and inter-
organizational commitment in organizations con-
ducting business between Australia and China.
Journal of Business Research, 52, 2, 111–121.
Nielsen, B.B. (2005) The role of knowledge embedded-
ness in the creation of synergies in the strategies
alliances. Journal of Business Research, 58, 9,
1194–1204.
Nonaka, I. (1994) A dynamic theory of organizational
knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5, 1, 14–37.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995) The Knowledge
Creation Company: How Japanese Companies Create
the Dynamics of Innovation. Oxford: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
Oliver, C. (1990) Determinants of interorganizational
relationships: integration and future directions.
Academy of Management Review, 15, 241–265.
Oshri, I. and Newell, S. (2005) Component sharing in
complex product and systems: challenges, solutions,
and practical implications. IEEE Transaction on
Engineering Management, 52, 4, 509–521.
r 2008 The Authors
Journal compilation r 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Parkhe, A. (1993) Strategic alliance structuring: a game
theoretic and transaction cost examination of inter-
firm cooperation. Academy of Management Journal,
36, 794–829.
Powell, W.W., Koput, K. and Smith-Doerr, L. (1996)
Inter-organizational collaboration and the locus of
innovation: networks of learning in biotechnology.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 116–145.
Ring, P.S. and Van de Ven, A.H. (1992) Structuring
cooperative relationships between organizations.
Strategic Management Journal, 13, 6, 483–98.
Santoro, M.D. and Gopalakrishnan, S. (2000) The
institutionalization of knowledge transfer activities
within industry-university collaborative ventures.
Journal of Engineering and Technology Management,
17, 299–319.
Simonin, B.L. and Helleloid, D. (1993). Do organizations
learn? An empirical test of organizational learning in
international strategic alliances. In Moore, D. (ed),
Academy of Management Best Papers Proceedings.
Madison, WI: Omnibus.
Sobrero, M. and Roberts, E.B. (2002) Strategic man-
agement of supplier-manufacturer relations in new
product development. Research Policy, 31, 159–182.
Sporleder, T.L. and Moss, L.E. (2002) Knowledge
management in the global food system: network
embeddedness and social capital. American Journal
of Agricultural Economics, 84, 5, 1345–1352.
Subramaniam, M. and Venkatraman, N. (2001) Deter-
minants of transnational new product development
capability: testing the influence of transferring and
deploying tacit overseas knowledge. Strategic Man-
agement Journal, 22, 359–378.
Tiwana, A. (2004) An empirical study of the effect of
knowledge integration on software development per-
formance. Information and Software Technology, 46,
899–906.
Uzzi, B. (1997) Social structure and competition in
inter-firm networks: the paradox of embeddedness.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 1, 35–67.
Uzzi, B. and Lancaster, R. (2003) Relational embedded-
ness and learning: the case of bank loan managers and
their clients. Management Science, 49, 4, 383–399.
Vaaland, T. and Hakansson, H. (2003) Exploring
interorganizational conflict in complex projects.
Industrial Marketing Management, 32, 127–138.
Williams, T. (2005) Cooperation by design: structure
and cooperation in inter-organizational networks.
Journal of Business Research, 58, 2, 223–231.
Wu, W-Y. and Tsai, H-J. (2005) Impact of social capital
and business operation mode on intellectual capital
and knowledge management. International Journal of
Technology Management, 30, 1/2, 147–171.
Wuyts, S., Stremersch, S., van Den Bulte, C. and
Franses, P.H. (2004) Vertical marketing systems for
complex products: a triadic perspective. Journal of
Marketing Research, 41, November, 479–487.
Yli-Renko, H., Autio, E. and Sapienza, H.J. (2001)
Social capital, knowledge acquisition, and knowl-
R&D Management 38, 4, 2008 439
Eric W.T. Ngai, Chen Jin and Tong Liang
edge exploitation in young technology-based firms.
Strategic Management Journal, 22, 587–613.
Eric W. T. Ngai is an Associate Professor in the
Department of Management and Marketing at
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University. His
current research interests are in the areas of
decision support systems and knowledge and
technology management. He has papers pub-
lished in a number of international journals
including MIS Quarterly, Journal of Operations
Management, Production & Operations Manage-
ment, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and
Cybernetics, Information & Management, Decision
Support Systems, European Journal of Operational
Research, Transportation Research and others. He
serves on the editorial board of six international
journals. E-mail: mswtngai@inet.polyu.edu.hk
440 R&D Management 38, 4, 2008
Jin Chen is a Full Professor at the College of
Public Administration, Zhejiang University. He
received his PhD from Zhejiang University and
was a Visiting Scholar at Sloan School of Man-
agement, MIT as well as visiting fellow at SPRU,
University of Sussex, UK. His main research
areas are managing technological innovation
and R&D management. He has published four
books on management of technology and innova-
tion and various papers which appeared in IEEE
Transactions on Engineering Management and
others. He is also a guest editor for International
Journal of Manpower. E-mail: cjhd@zju.edu.cn
Liang Tong received his PhD from the School of
Management, Zhejiang University. His research
interests are in managing R&D-based innovation
and organizational change. E-mail: cqtongliang@
163.com
r 2008 The Authors
Journal compilation r 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd