an integrative model for knowledge transfer between new product development project teams

An integrative model for knowledge transfer

between new product development project

teams

Alejandro German Frank1 andJose Luis Duarte Ribeiro1

1Industrial Engineering Department, Federal

University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre,

Brazil

Correspondence: Alejandro German Frank,Industrial Engineering Department,Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Av.Osvaldo Aranha, n. 99, 5o Andar,CEP 90035-190, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil.Tel: þ55 51 3308 3490;Fax: þ55 51 3308 4007;E-mail: [email protected]

Received: 21 March 2012Revised: 31 May 2012Accepted: 18 October 2012

AbstractKnowledge transfer (KT) between new product development (NPD) project

teams is considered by many authors as a process. A variety of works in

literature have proposed models to elucidate such a KT process and its stages.However, the nomenclature used to describe these models and the proposed

KT stages present large heterogeneity. Researchers from different fields have

studied the KT processes; hence, there have been different interpretations or

approaches for the same problem. This study presents a comparison of 14 KTmodels organized in two main research approaches: the emergent approach

(which considers the dynamics and integration of the team) and the

engineering approach (which considers the organization and management ofknowledge). The comparison is based on content analysis. The main

contribution of this paper is the proposition of a new model for KT between

NPD project teams, integrating the previous models so as to provide a morecomplete and consistent KT framework.

Knowledge Management Research & Practice advance online publication,

17 December 2012; doi:10.1057/kmrp.2012.57

Keywords: knowledge transfer; new product development; project teams; teamintegration

IntroductionKnowledge is considered a strategic resource for companies, since itprovides a basis for competitive long-term advantage (Coakes et al, 2004;Hong et al, 2011; Frank & Echeveste, 2012). This is mainly important innew product development (NPD), considering that NPD is naturally aknowledge-intensive activity (Ramesh & Tiwana, 1999; Goffin & Koners,2011). Accordingly, knowledge generated during a prior NPD projectshould be used in new projects, aiming at the improvement of teamperformance in time and quality (Liu et al, 2010). In addition, concurrentNPD projects have the potential to exchange knowledge throughsimultaneous and integrated management (Nobeoka, 1995; Nobeoka &Cusumano, 1997). Such use of knowledge among different NPD projectteams is called knowledge transfer (KT).

In the academic literature it is possible to observe that most KT studiesare focused on analysing factors that influence KT. However, these studiesconsider KT as an isolated act rather than a process with several stages (e.g.,Cummings & Teng, 2003; DeTienne et al, 2004; Du et al, 2007; Gooderham,2007; Jensen, 2010; Liu & Phillips, 2011; Frank & Echeveste, 2012). Incontrast, authors like Szulanski (2000), Garavelli et al (2002), Schlegelmilch& Chini (2003) and Hansen et al (2005) point to the importance of

Knowledge Management Research & Practice (2012), 1–11

& 2012 Operational Research Society. All rights reserved 1477–8238/12

www.palgrave-journals.com/kmrp/

considering KT as a process composed of many stages onthe basis of the fact that organizational factors may havedifferent levels of impact at each stage of KT (Hansenet al, 2005). Nonetheless, considering KT as a process andanalysing the structure of its stages increases the com-plexity of its study (Szulanski, 2000). But, as highlightedby Hansen et al (2005): ‘research on knowledge sharing[referring to KT] needs to fully incorporate the phaselevel of knowledge sharing in an organization and thesubset level of social networks in order to advance arobust theory of knowledge sharing’.

Aiming to accomplish such a robust theory of the KTprocess, some scholars studied this process and its stages(e.g., Major & Cordey-Hayes, 2000; Szulanski, 2000; Alavi& Leidner, 2001; Zollo & Winter, 2002, among others).However, when their results are compared, they showlarge heterogeneity in terms of nomenclature andstages. This is because KT is still a new approach, andevery previous research focused on KT from a differentperspective. Consequently, understanding the process ofKT within NPD teams turns out to be difficult or, at least,confusing.

For that reason, this paper aims to present a compara-tive analysis of previous KT models in order to putforward an integration of the different ideas and app-roaches in a new model, aiming at clarifying the under-standing of this strategic process for NPD. The new modelis built through the analysis of 14 prior KT models,addressing studies of the social science field (emergentapproach) as well as from the technology managementand information systems fields (engineering approach).As a result, such model provides insights that lead to abetter and more general understanding of the phenom-enon of the KT process involving NPD project teams. Inaddition, this paper presents some important managerialimplications based on the proposed model.

KT between NPD projects: conceptualizationIn this paper, KT is understood as the process of knowl-edge movement from a source to a recipient, and itssubsequent absorption and use, aiming to take advantageof prior experience and solutions (Davenport et al, 1998;Szulanski, 2000; Hsu, 2008; Salleh et al, 2012). Transfer isnot only the transmission between source and reci-pient, but the whole process, given that knowledge isacquired from the source, applied and incorporated bythe recipient. In this conception, knowledge is seen as ablend of experience, values, contextual information, andinsights acquired during the lifetime of a person or ateam (Davenport & Prusak, 1998). It is part of people’sminds, but it is also embedded in documents and inseveral organizational activities and routines (Nonaka,1994; Zollo & Winter, 2002). Moreover, part of theorganizational knowledge belongs also to the team’smemory (or organizational memory), which is a collec-tive memory created among individuals sharing experi-ence and values during work routines (Argote & Ingram,2000; Lewis et al, 2005; Nevo & Wand, 2005). A learning

process happens through this phenomenon, in view ofthe fact that specific knowledge is transmitted from asource to a recipient until it is absorbed and applied inthe solution of a new problem (Bartezzaghi et al, 1997).Thus, KT can also be understood as a cognitive process(Garavelli et al, 2002).

There are two units of analysis to be considered inthe KT process: the source and the recipient of thetransferred knowledge (Argote & Ingram, 2000; Alavi &Leidner, 2001). These units can be individuals (e.g., teammembers) or groups (e.g., project teams). KT can happenbetween two units from the same project (intra-projecttransfer) or between two units from different projects(inter-project transfer) (Bartezzaghi et al, 1997). Thispaper takes into consideration the most complex situa-tion, i.e., KT between project teams (group unit) andbetween different projects (inter-project).

In such cases, the transfer of knowledge does notalways happen spontaneously (Van der Bij et al, 2003).This is because, in several cases, there are differentproduct families and platforms using independent teamstructures (Bartezzaghi et al, 1997; Van der Bij et al, 2003).In other cases, the work in dispersed teams (virtualteams), on the rise in a globalized world, does not allowfor face-to-face interaction among people (Song et al,2007). Furthermore, there are also many other inter-project KT barriers related to individual and teambehavior, and to the organizational system (Sun & Scott,2005; Dyer & Hatch, 2006; Frank & Echeveste, 2012).

Finally, there are studies that employ other terminol-ogies for the KT concept (Antoni et al, 2005; van Wijket al, 2008). For instance, KT has been defined as inter-project learning (Prencipe & Tell, 2001; Koners & Goffin,2007a); knowledge sharing (Rauniar et al, 2008; Mueller,2012); technology transfer (Trott et al, 1995), organiza-tional knowledge flow (Gupta & Govindarajan, 2000);knowledge reuse between projects (Smallenburg et al,1996; Markus, 2001); continuous improvement betweenprojects (Bartezzaghi et al, 1997; Nilsson-Witell et al,2005); continuous innovation in NPD projects (Boer et al,2001), amongst others. Each concept illustrates KT from adifferent perspective, and they are often complementary.Thus, for example, authors that perceive KT as sharing areprimarily concerned with the source or producer ofknowledge, and mostly with the informal ways of KT.Others, concerned with the recipient, study KT from theknowledge absorption and acquisition perspective. None-theless, these different perspectives compose differentparts of a broader concept called here as KT. Thus,this work intends to focus on different concepts andapproaches of KT, in search of progress towards a solid,integrative model of different KT visions.

Method for the KT model analysisDifferent theoretical models were examined in order toperform the analysis of the stages that compose the KTprocess; such choices were based on an investigationof the relevant literature. First, the ISI Web of Science,

Q2An integrative model for knowledge transfer Alejandro German Frank and Jose Luis Duarte Ribeiro2

Knowledge Management Research & Practice

Science Direct and EBSCO databases were searched (in thecategories of business and social sciences), using multiplekeywords to identify relevant papers published between1990 and 2011 (van Wijk et al, 2008). The keywordsused were knowledge transfer, knowledge dissemination,knowledge sharing, knowledge reuse and team learning.The literature scope was also limited to papers related tothe issue of product development.

Second, based on the JCR index, the top 10 journals ofthe social science field were analysed to identify otherrelevant papers. Only papers related to product innova-tion and team management were considered from the top10 journals list. Third, an additional criterion was alsoused to consider knowledge management journals, sincemany of them are relatively new and, for this reason,have not been included in the JCR index yet. The top fivejournals of knowledge management were analysedaccording to the rankings by Bontis & Serenko (2009)and Serenko & Bontis (2009). Only journals included inboth rankings were reviewed (i.e., four of the five journalsof each ranking were considered).

Finally, a manual search of the abstracts from the setof journals was carried out selecting only papers thatexplicitly analysed KT processes. The references fromthe papers identified in these four steps were alsoanalysed in order to locate additional studies that theprevious search had been unable to capture. The final listcontains 14 works that describe different models of KTprocess.

In order to facilitate comprehension, the identifiedmodels were organized in two main research streams,following the classification proposed by Hooff & Huys-man (2009): (i) the engineering approach and (ii) theemergent approach. The engineering approach is com-posed of scholars related to technology and informationsystems management. This stream focuses on organiza-tional management and control for knowledge reuse(Hooff & Huysman, 2009). It is focused on buildingsolutions for business. Consequently, this stream tendsto treat knowledge as something that can be captured,stored, transmitted, etc., resulting sometimes in ‘objecti-vist reification’ (Orlikowski, 2002). On the other hand,the emergent approach is composed mainly of scholarsfrom social science. This stream focuses on the studyof dynamism among teams and personal interaction(Hooff & Huysman, 2009). It sees knowledge as some-thing emergent among people and tends to treat knowl-edge as a disposition (whether individual or collective)resulting in a ‘subjectivist reduction’ (Orlikowski, 2002).However, as Orlikowski (2002) pointed out, the ap-proaches mentioned above can be seen as complemen-tary rather than substitutable. Taking both intoconsideration broadens the overview of KT.

After this primary organization, the identified KTmodels were compared, stage by stage, to identifysimilarities and differences. The analysis considered thestages’ descriptions, the semantic choice of nomen-clature in the different models and the sequential order

presented by each work. It also enabled the KT stages tobe organized by semantic and content similarities.A content analysis about the KT models was performedto define KT stages and phases of the new integrativemodel, based on the approach proposed by Bardin (1977)for content analysis in social studies. Bardin (1977)suggested three data codification rules to transformcollected data in organized information: (i) meaningrule, which chooses the analysis unit; (ii) enumerationrule, which defines the analysis unit counting form; and(iii) categorization rule, which defines the data groupingconstruction form. What follows is a description of theapplications of these rules.

The thematic analysis was used for the meaning rule, inwhich the KT stages from different models are groupedaccording to common topics. The enumeration rulewas only used to determine whether a stage is presentor not in each model, although the citation frequency ofphrases and words was not counted. Finally, the categor-ization rule was applied. Once the KT stages had beenidentified, they were classified in common groups and,after that, the KT phases were constructed. A procedurethat defines the categories (i.e., the name of the KTphases) at the end of the construction was used. Categorynames were constructed according to the semanticcriteria, and classified according to the general meaningof the elements from each category.

As a result, five main KT phases were identified throughthe content analysis. These phases are detailed in thesection ‘Analyzing the KT models’ and were used as aframework to register the KT stages proposed in priormodels. After model comparison, the information wasconsolidated in a general structure, taking into accountthe main part of the proposition existing in KT literature.Lastly, KT stages of each phase were defined. As the finalproduct, definitions of phases and stages of the consoli-dated model and the descriptions of its scope aresummarized in the section ‘Integrating different propo-sals for the KT process phases’.

Analyzing the KT modelsTable 1 presents a comparison of 14 KT models. In thiscomparison, the KT models were classified in majorphases, which were consequently arranged in stages. Theempty blocks that appear between some stages representelements that have not been considered in those models.The models were also organized in two main blocksaccording to the focal approach used. The first blockpresents the engineering approach models while thesecond presents the emergent approach models. Compar-ing both blocks, it was observed that, for instance, theengineering approach models are more concerned withthe middle stages, because they focus on the knowledgepreparation phases, primarily aiming at KT by formalchannels. On the other hand, in the emergent approachmodels, the initial and final stages of the KT processes arediscussed in greater detail: when knowledge is created ina social interaction and, afterwards, when it is assimilated

An integrative model for knowledge transfer Alejandro German Frank and Jose Luis Duarte Ribeiro 3


Table 1 Comparison among knowledge transfer models

Main theories or approaches

Part A-Engineering approach

Organizational Capabilities focused on receptivity

Dynamic capabilities Information-processing

Knowledge communication and translation

Information -processing focused on organization memory

Learning in continuous improvement

AuthorsTrott et al. (1995) Marsh &

Stock (2003)

Major &Cordey-Hayes

(2000)

Markus (2001) Liyanage et al. (2009)

Alavi & Leidner (2001) Bartezzaghi et al. (1997)

Boer et al. (2001)

Nomenclature used for KTTechnology

TransferIntertemporal

IntegrationKnowledge

Transfer Knowledge Reuse Knowledge Transfer

Organizational Knowledge Process

Inter-project Learning

Knowledge Transfer

Phase 0: Knowledge Generation in the Source

Knowledge Production

Individual’s Knowledge Creation

Intra-project learning

Intra-project learning

Phase 1: Knowledge Identification

AwarenessAcquisition Awareness Awareness

Association Capturing Storage Abstraction Acquiring

Phase 2: Knowledge Processing

Collection and documenting Acquisition

EmbodimentSummarization / Association Packaging

knowledge

TransformationOrganization and

RetrievalTranslation / Interpretation Association

Phase 3: Knowledge Dissemination Communication Distribution Distributing

knowledge Transfer Dissemination Transferring

Phase 4: Knowledge Appling in the Recipient

AssimilationInterpretation Assimilation Reusing

knowledge ApplicationAbsorption

Application

Consolidating

RetentionApplication / Commitment Application Applying

Application

Main theories or approaches

Part B-Emergent approach

Organizational Knowledge Creation Organizational Behavior Organizational Learning Organizational

Evolution Organizational Culture

AuthorsNonaka (1994) Szulanski (2000) Gilbert and Cordey -

Hayes (1996)Carlile & Rebentisch

(2003) Zollo & Winter (2002) Abou-Zeid (2005)

Nomenclature used for KT Organizational Knowledge Creation Knowledge Transfer Knowledge Transfer Knowledge

transformation cycleKnowledge Evolution

Cycle Knowledge Transfer

Phase 0: Knowledge Generation in the Source

Enlargement of an Individual’s Knowledge

Sharing Tacit Knowledge Storage

Phase 1: Knowledge Identification

Initiation (Formation of the transfer seed) Acquisition Retrieval Generative Variation

(Ideas to be used) Initialization

Phase 2: Knowledge Processing Conceptualization Implementation

(Decision to transfer)

Transformation

Internal Selection (Evaluation and Legitimization) Interrelation

Phase 3: Knowledge Dissemination Communication Replication

Phase 4: Knowledge Appling in the Recipient

Crystallization and Justification Ramp-up (begin using) Application Implementation

RetentionNetworking Knowledge Integration

Acceptance InternalizationAssimilation

An

inte

gra

tive

mo

del

for

kn

ow

led

ge

tran

sfer

Ale

jan

dro

Germ

anFra

nk

an

dJo

seLu

isD

uarte

Rib

eiro

4Kn

ow

led

ge

Man

ag

em

en

tRese

arch

&Pra

ctice

by other teams, generating new knowledge for newproduct solutions.

In addition to the description of phases that compriseeach model, Table 1 also presents two other insights: themain theory followed by each model, and the nomen-clature used to describe the KT process. This information,however, is only used to identify the roots of each model,as this paper is not intended to discuss the underlyingtheories. The main goal of the arrangement shown inTable 1 is to facilitate the stages comparison that will bedescribed subsequently.

The questions that emerge in view of all the models ofthe KT process presented in Table 1 are: What do all theseKT models have in common? Which are the mostimportant characteristics of each KT stage? In order toanswer these questions, first a general analysis of the KTphases is presented and then an integration of thesephases and stages is proposed.

Phase 0: knowledge generation in the sourceThis phase was named as ‘Phase 0’ because it happensbefore knowledge is transferred from one context toanother. Before the beginning of the KT process, there isknowledge production or generation in the source. Thisgeneration typically happens in the context of indivi-duals and within a project team. This phase can bedeployed in stages such as individual’s enlargementof knowledge (or individual’s knowledge creation), andsharing of tacit knowledge among team members duringthe work routines (Nonaka, 1994; Alavi & Leidner, 2001).

In this phase, teams work in the NPD activities creatingnew concepts and ideas to innovate the products thatthey are developing. The learning process and an internalKT through the NPD process stages happen as the teamgenerates knowledge in a stage and transfers it to the nextstages of the same NPD project (Bartezzaghi et al, 1997;Boer et al, 2001). According to Nonaka (1994), thisprocess is part of a team’s ‘knowledge conversion’, wherethe tacit dimension of knowledge has an importantparticipation in the work routines and some of this tacitknowledge is converted into explicit. Other authors likeCook & Brown (1999) prefer to think about what happensas a ‘generative dance’ between tacit and explicit knowl-edge in which it is not converted, but generated in bothdimensions during interaction. Independently, there is aform of knowledge generation among people who worktogether with specific goals.

Furthermore, knowledge may also be articulated indocuments such as reports and operating handbooks.Until this stage, however, the explicit knowledge is asource domain, and is associated to the context where itwas produced. As a result, the project teams develop theirown work routines for the NPD process, knowing how tosolve some of their own project problems (Cohen &Bacdayan, 1994; Zollo & Winter, 2002). Consequently,they develop their own knowledge stock or memory andat least part of it may be shared with others (Carlile &Rebentisch, 2003).

Phase 1: knowledge identificationThe phase named ‘knowledge identification’ includes theability to find and abstract, as a generic concept, usefulknowledge, aiming to disseminate it to other teams. Atthe beginning of this phase, the ideas of prior NPDprojects, which can be reused through recombination,are emerging (Zollo & Winter, 2002). Hence, there isan ‘initiation of the transfer seed’ (Szulanski, 2000;Abou-Zeid, 2005), i.e., the identified ideas are the startingpoint that will foster the transfer process.

The knowledge identification phase can be deployed ina number of stages, according to the models summarizedin Table 1. First, the knowledge seeds, originated in priorprojects, have to be recognized (awareness) and retrieved(Trott et al, 1995; Major & Cordey-Hayes, 2000; Carlile &Rebentisch, 2003; Liyanage et al, 2009). This can happenin two ways: when the source project team realizes thevalue of specific knowledge they have developed andidentify a transfer opportunity (Szulanski, 2000), orwhen the recipient (i.e., potential user) identifies, in thesource, knowledge that might be useful in new projects.That happens when there are close relationships amongdifferent project teams on the basis of common activities,such as conjoint participation in some tasks, discussionsabout results obtained in different projects, working incross-member teams, job rotation and project brokers’involvement (Koners & Goffin, 2007a, b). Either waythere is a high dependence on the source, as the sourceteam must have a predisposition to share its knowledgewith others, otherwise KT will not be successful (Gupta &Govindarajan, 2000).

Once knowledge is recognized, it goes through aprocess of abstraction and generalization (Bartezzaghiet al, 1997). Knowledge must be abstracted from thecontext where it had initially been identified and after-wards be generalized as a theoretical concept that can beapplied to other contexts. Nonaka (1994) called thisprocess ‘conceptualization’, because conceptual knowl-edge (i.e., theoretical and generic) is created. Someexamples of the abstraction and generalization stage areways of dealing with suppliers, problem solving methods,product material characteristics (like mechanical andchemical patterns), etc. The abstraction and general-ization stage is seen here as the initial part of a morewide-ranging stage described in some models as knowl-edge association (Trott et al, 1995), knowledge acquisition(Gilbert & Cordey-Hayes, 1996; Boer et al, 2001; Marsh &Stock, 2006; Liyanage et al, 2009), knowledge collection(Major & Cordey-Hayes, 2000), or knowledge capture anddocumentation (Markus, 2001).

In conclusion, it is important to point out that theknowledge which originated in the source may havedifferent levels of abstraction and generalization, accord-ing to the nature of the product being developed (e.g.,innovation and complexity degree) (Kogut & Zander,1992). It is also expected that the more innovativeand complex the product is, the more difficult it will befor its knowledge to be transferred to other product teams



(Chapman & Hyland, 2004; Edmondson & Nembhard,2009). Moreover, when such knowledge is based on atheoretical framework, which is well explained andunderstood, it will be easier to be transferred (Kogut &Zander, 1992).

Phase 2: knowledge processingIn the second phase, the initial efforts to transfer theidentified knowledge from the source are executed(Szulanski, 2000). Processing and transfer may happenin two different ways (Alavi & Leidner, 2001): (i) formal –creating a semantic team memory (explicit and articu-lated knowledge in documents) to which other teamsmay have access afterwards; and (ii) informal – creatingan episodic team memory (context-specific and situatedknowledge) that is shared among different NPD projectteams through the interaction of some key projectmembers. Both ways are considered in turn.

First, considering when knowledge is disseminatedthrough formal and structured ways, the abstracted andgeneralized knowledge of the source must be processedand embodied in formal channels of dissemination thatcould be accessed by other teams. Therefore, the messagethat will be transmitted to the receptors has to be built(Szulanski, 2000). In this case, there is significant effortwith making explicit and codifying the knowledge, com-prising the externalization and combination dimensionsof the knowledge creation cycle (Kogut & Zander, 1992;Nonaka, 1994).

Table 1 shows different perspectives of this phase. Forexample, Zollo & Winter (2002), based on organizationalevolutionary theory, consider this phase as an internalselection phase. For them, it summarizes what might beuseful for future projects. Once functional aspects havebeen evaluated, knowledge is embodied or documentedin explicit, generic and accessible formats for the entireorganization, such as best practices handbooks, lessonslearned, and business process applications (Bartezzaghiet al, 1997; Alavi & Leidner, 2001; Markus, 2001). Onthe other hand, the first written ideas generally needto be improved and, therefore, it is often necessary toreorganize explicit concepts through the combination ofknowledge (Nonaka, 1994). Alavi & Leidner (2001) definethis step as knowledge storage and retrieval. Markus(2001), alternatively, defines this activity as ‘knowledgepackaging’, because knowledge is prepared as a ‘package’that will be sent to a receiver.

The activities of this phase can be further deployed.First there must be a reduction of concepts, especiallywhen subjects are too wide or generic, or when there areunnecessary pieces of information for other projects.Such reorganization is called summarization (Major &Cordey-Hayes, 2000) or transformation of knowledge(Carlile & Rebentisch, 2003; Liyanage et al, 2009). Soonafter, in a second stage, concepts must be reinterpretedand associated with more information, aiming at knowl-edge consolidation. This is known as knowledge associa-tion (Liyanage et al, 2009), interrelation (Abou-Zeid,

2005) or knowledge translation and interpretation (Major& Cordey-Hayes, 2000). A base of explicit and articulatedknowledge in formal registers (semantic memory) iscreated as a result of these stages (Alavi & Leidner, 2001).

Yet, when knowledge is transferred by informalchannels (such as team integration meetings, sharedactivities, job rotation, shared environment, amongothers) knowledge socialization (tacit KT) is stronger.An episodic memory of the group is then created(Alavi & Leidner, 2001) despite the fact that, in suchcase, knowledge processing is not as clear and defined aspreviously described. Stages such as knowledge evalua-tion and legitimization, summarization and embodimenthappen in the minds of people from different projectswho share experience and ideas. Accordingly, Table 1shows that the model created by Nonaka, which focuseson people’s interaction, provides few details in this phase.For Nonaka (1994), knowledge processing already hap-pens in the conceptualization stage, when the concept iscreated during the discussion among members fromdifferent NPD teams. Based on such an approach, it ispossible to say that the KT that happens throughinformal ways is more dynamic, iterative and unstruc-tured. It does not mean that all stages described above donot happen, however; they are simply not as sequentialand clear as in the formal way.

Phase 3: knowledge disseminationThe third phase of the KT process is named ‘knowledgedissemination’ and it aims to make knowledge availableto team members from other NPD projects. It is in thisphase that the routes and directions of KT, as well as thelevels of dissemination among NPD project teams, aredefined (Boer et al, 2001). Some authors call this activity‘knowledge dissemination’ (Boer et al, 2001), ‘knowledgetransfer’ (Bartezzaghi et al, 1997), ‘knowledge commu-nication’ (Trott et al, 1995; Gilbert & Cordey-Hayes, 1996)or ‘knowledge distribution’ (Markus, 2001).

The predominant KT element of this phase is thechannel that will be used to share knowledge (Szulanski,2000). It may be physical, such as libraries with hand-books and documents (Lynn et al, 2000; Prencipe &Tell, 2001; Zollo & Winter, 2002), or virtual, based oninformation technologies, such as corporate portals,websites, and knowledge management systems (Lynnet al, 2000; Liu & Ke, 2007; Tseng 2008). It is throughthese channels that explicit and processed knowledgewill be available and easily accessible to other people.

A different situation occurs when there is dissemina-tion of tacit knowledge. In such a case, people becomethe dissemination channel, sharing what they knowthrough lectures and meetings with different projectteams or by interacting with others in collaborative work(Nonaka, 1994; Koners & Goffin, 2007a, b). Moreover, inthis case, knowledge dissemination turns out to be thesame as knowledge sharing, because there is no inter-mediary repository where knowledge can be stored inanticipation of someone who will seek it. An active

An integrative model for knowledge transfer Alejandro German Frank and Jose Luis Duarte Ribeiro6


process occurs between the source and the recipientswho share ideas and are learning in real-time.

At this point, the difference between the emergent andthe engineering approaches is clearer. Nonaka (1994),Szulanski (2000) and Zollo & Winter (2002) are authorswho have studied KT from an emergent perspective,focusing on interaction among people. Accordingly,these authors have not gone into detail about thedissemination phase, for it is thought to happensimultaneously with knowledge processing. They believeteams construct organizational knowledge together,even if soon after it is documented. Authors from theengineering approach, on the other hand, such asBartezzaghi et al (1997), Alavi & Leidner (2001),Boer et al (2001) or Markus (2001), describe knowledgecreation in each group and its later dissemination. Thepremise is that knowledge is constructed by isolatedteams, and will eventually be shared as an object.Therefore, these authors depict the dissemination phasein detail, mainly focusing on the use of formal channelsfor KT.

Phase 4: knowledge application in the recipientThe main point in the last phase is knowledge reuse innew contexts, different from the context in whichknowledge was originally created (Szulanski, 2000). Teamwillingness and absorptive capacity to understand andreuse new knowledge are key elements to transferknowledge to a new NPD team (Cohen & Levinthal,1990; Gupta & Govindarajan, 2000).

In the first stage of this phase, the generic knowledgethat had been disseminated has to be interpreted,absorbed, assimilated, and consolidated by the newproject team (Major & Cordey-Hayes, 2000; Alavi &Leidner, 2001; Boer et al, 2001; Marsh & Stock, 2006).This means that team members of a new project,interested in a generic solution disseminated by otherproject teams, will study previous knowledge sources(conceptual knowledge) to understand and becomeskilled at it, so as to find potential application in newcontexts. Therefore, the team will study new solutionsand consider whether or not it is necessary to apply theconceptual knowledge into the new project at hand.

Next, assimilated concepts will be implemented in thepractice of the new project until a satisfactory solutionis obtained (Abou-Zeid, 2005). Szulanski (2000) namesthis point ramp-up. It is at this point that knowledge iscrystallized in the new NPD team, through practical testsof the disseminated knowledge applicability and value(Nonaka, 1994). Nonaka (1994) called this practicaltest of knowledge applicability and value knowledgejustification, whereas other authors define this stage asknowledge application (Gilbert & Cordey-Hayes, 1996;Bartezzaghi et al, 1997; Major & Cordey-Hayes, 2000;Alavi & Leidner, 2001; Boer et al, 2001; Liyanage et al,2009), knowledge assimilation (Trott et al, 1995) orknowledge reuse (Markus, 2001).

Conversely, Zollo & Winter (2002) point to somedifferences regarding the knowledge application phasein their model. It takes into consideration a single stage,replication, which involves knowledge dissemination(considered here as a stage of the prior phase – Phase 3),its absorption by the new team and its applicationin a new context. The main idea of this model is thatknowledge initiates its replication out of its originalcontext from the moment when it is shared to itsapplication in a new specific context. The activitiesconsidered within this replication stage, however, donot differ, in general, from other models.

In addition, some authors incorporate a final stage tothis phase, after knowledge has been put into practice.Szulanski (2000) and Abou-Zeid (2005) define the integra-tion or internalization stage, in which satisfactory resultsare obtained and prior product knowledge is incorporated,permanently, to the new project team routines. Such astage can be structured in acceptance of the appliedknowledge and, subsequently, its assimilation (Gilbert &Cordey-Hayes, 1996). In Zollo & Winter’s (2002) model,this stage is referred to as knowledge retention, as knowl-edge becomes part of the new NPD team routine, alteringthe way of working. Consequently, new knowledge isincorporated to the network, becoming a standard solu-tion available to the teams (Nonaka, 1994).

Integrating different proposals for the KT processphasesThis section presents a model of KT between NPD projectteams that summarizes and integrates the ideas of themodels discussed in the prior section. The nomenclatureused for this model is predominantly based on theengineering approach. This is due to (i) the pragmatismof this approach to deal with KT, given that it is mostlyconcerned with developing solutions; (ii) a higher level ofdeployment for KT stages; and (iii) the predominant focuson the NPD context. Yet, proposals from the emergentapproach were used for a better comprehension of eachstage, as well as to elucidate some less detailed stages ofmodels based on the engineering approach.

The proposed model is presented in Table 2. It isdivided into phases, which are, in turn, subdivided intostages. Table 2 also presents the references that wereused for nomenclature and explanation of each stage.According to the proposed model (Table 2), KT beginsin Phase 0 – Knowledge generation in the source, whichis subdivided into two stages: (i) knowledge creation andenlargement in the individual context, in people’s minds,and (ii) knowledge use and learning within the projectteam. For a good performance in Phase 0, it is essentialto develop the capacity for knowledge creation in theproject teams. As a result of this phase, new work routinesand project solutions developed by specific teams areobtained.

Phase 1 – Knowledge identification is composed of twostages: (i) the awareness of knowledge that can be reusedand (ii) its corresponding abstraction and conceptualization.



To ensure the success of this stage, it is necessary todevelop the capacity to identify knowledge that is mostlikely useful in other contexts. The result of this phase isthe attainment of generic and abstract knowledge thatmay be applied in new projects.

Phase 2 – Knowledge processing presents the mostrelevant differences in nomenclature among the existingmodels (Table 1). Therefore, three new nomenclaturesare proposed here for the corresponding stages, summar-izing the ideas of the discussed models: (i) knowledgeexplicitation and embodiment in formal documents, suchas learned lessons and project reports; (ii) preparationof the explicit knowledge, aiming to formulate it moreclearly, comprehensively, and summarized for otherteams; and (iii) consolidation of the explicit knowledge,

through the insertion of additional sources of informationand knowledge that may enrich the explicit content.Sometimes, stages (ii) and (iii) may involve a feedbackloop happening in parallel. In this phase, teams need todevelop the capacity to formulate explicit knowledge andto present it in a clear and concise format. As a result,formal registers of knowledge and creation of the team’sexplicit memories are obtained.

Phase 3 – Knowledge dissemination is composed of asingle stage: dissemination or distribution. The differencebetween this phase and the KT process itself is thatthis phase is only related to the act of making know-ledge available for other projects, while KT refers to thecomplete process described in this paper. Here, dissemi-nation is a specific stage of KT and its aim is to highlight

Table 2 Proposed model for KT between NPD projects

Phase Stage Scope Reference

Phase 0: Knowledge

generation in the source

Creation and enlargement

(in individuals)

Knowledge is created in the minds of

people during the project work.

Nonaka (1994); Alavi & Leidner (2001)

Using and learning within

the team project

Team members share their knowledge

and learn together within a project.

Bartezzaghi et al (1997; Boer et al (2001)

Phase 1: Knowledge

identification

Awareness An opportunity to apply the knowledge

to other projects is recognized.

The identification may be from the

source or from the recipient.

Trott et al (1995); Major & Cordey-Hayes

(2000); Liyanage et al (2009)

Abstraction and

conceptualization

Knowledge is abstracted to a generic

concept, applicable to other contexts.

Nonaka (1994); Bartezzaghi et al (1997)

Phase 2: Knowledge

processing (only for KT

by formal channels)

Explicitation and

embodiment

Abstracted knowledge is embodied in

a primary version of a formal register.

Bartezzaghi et al (1997); Major &

Cordey-Hayes (2000); Markus (2001)

Preparation Registered knowledge is prepared and

formatted, to become clear and

comprehensive for other people.

Major & Cordey-Hayes (2000);

Markus (2001); Liyanage et al (2009)

Consolidation Prepared knowledge is consolidated by

comparison and increasing combination

and association with other knowledge

sources.


Markus (2001); Liyanage et al (2009)

Phase 3: Knowledge

dissemination

Distribution/

dissemination

Consolidated knowledge is distributed

or disseminated to other teams that

may use it.

Bartezzaghi et al (1997); Markus (2001);

Marsh & Stock (2006)

Phase 4: Knowledge

application by the

recipient

Absorption and

assimilation

Other project teams study and learn

about how to apply the shared

knowledge in their context.


Alavi & Leidner (2001)

Application Knowledge is applied in the

new project.

Bartezzaghi et al (1997); Major &

Cordey-Hayes (2000); Alavi & Leidner

(2001); Boer et al (2001); Liyanage et al

(2009)

Integration and

retention

Knowledge is integrated in the routines

and is retained permanently by the

new team.

Szulanski (2000); Zollo & Winter (2002)



the activity of creating and using channels and proce-dures to share and distribute stored knowledge. Its aim isto make knowledge available to potential recipients. Thekey capacity required in this phase is dissemination,through the development and use of distribution chan-nels. The outcome is knowledge availability. Whatmatters here is not only the access channels andprocedures, but also the act of informing other teamsabout the existence of a knowledge source that may beuseful for upcoming projects.

Phase 4 – Knowledge application by the recipient. Thisphase is composed of three stages: (i) absorption andassimilation of available knowledge; (ii) knowledge appli-cation in a new project; and (iii) integration and retention ofthe new knowledge in the work routines of the projectteam. Absorptive capacity is essential for teams that willbe recipients of new knowledge. As a result of a goodabsorptive capacity for the transferred knowledge, teamswill incorporate new knowledge as possible solutions inthe new project.

Discussion and conclusions

Theoretical considerationsThe analyses of KT models performed in this paperallowed the proposal of an integrative model for the KTprocess between NPD project teams. The results obtainedprovide better comprehension of the KT process and itstheoretical background, in line with current researchapproaches. In addition, the proposed model fosters anunderstanding of what all different approaches have incommon and what is essential in the KT process.

It is important to highlight that the proposed modelpresents the stages of a formal and structured KT processwithin the organization. It is predominantly based on theengineering approach, which generally emphasizes KTsolutions based on structured methods and informa-tion systems. This approach is important considering thegrowing need for formalized and structured KT in thecurrent trend of internalization of NPD activities. In suchcases, team activities are organized in different wayswhen compared to traditional co-located team structures.Members of NPD projects are geographically distant,being part of distributed or virtual teams in whichstructured KT is essential to grant access to sources ofknowledge derived from projects that are developedremotely (Song et al, 2007; Montoya et al, 2009). Thus,the proposed model plays an important role in theelucidation of which stages have to be considered in thetransfer process.

When knowledge is transferred through face-to-faceinteraction, some stages analysed in this paper will notemerge as clearly and distinctly. This is especially true inPhase 2 – knowledge processing, because in this casethere are no formal registers, as the process happensmostly within the minds of interacting team members.However, knowledge explicitation, preparation, and con-solidation might still happen, but in a less sequential

and structured way. Moreover, Phase 3 – knowledgedissemination will be developed simultaneously withPhase 2, because of the interactions among individualswho will be processing knowledge while discussingproject solutions.

Future researchConsidering the results presented here, future researchcould address two key aspects. The first is related to theapproach used in this work, based first and foremost onthe engineering approach, where KT tends to be formallystructured by means of systems and methods in order toshare knowledge. This work examined the emergentapproach followed by authors of the social science fieldwho consider KT through the socialization and interac-tion among project teams. However, this issue demandsmore attention in future work. A valuable contributionfor the state-of-the-art might be the proposition of a KT-consolidated model based on the emergent approach inwhich non-linear aspects of the stages are better devel-oped, as well as other characteristics such as informalityand the absence, in some cases, of some stages defined inthis work.

Another relevant aspect is the analysis of factors thatinfluence the KT processes. There are several studiesabout the influence of different organizational factorson KT; however, most of them focus on the factorsthemselves, not taking into consideration the fact that KTis a process rather than an isolated act. Hence, futurework might approach the influence of these factors onthe stages of the proposed model, given that they couldvary depending on the stage. Such outcomes may beimportant to promote improvement in KT, as they mayshow how to detect the weakest stages of KT and theircorresponding influence factors, therefore allowing thecreation of improvement plans to achieve superior NPDperformance.

Managerial implicationsThe results presented in this work have importantimplications for managers and practitioners. First, man-agers may consider the described phases and developappropriate tools to promote activities in each of thesephases aiming to foster KT. To achieve this goal, managersshould evaluate, first, the real condition of each one ofthe KT stages in the NPD process. This may beaccomplished through internal survey or by using focusgroup meetings. In both cases, all proposed stages shouldbe analysed and discussed with the participants (NPDteams). Results obtained in such an analysis would allowthe identification of the most critical KT stage in thecurrent reality of the NPD process. As a result, improve-ment activities specifically oriented to address the criticalproblems could be conducted. Supposing that knowledgeawareness is the most critical KT stage identified in acompany, then managers should develop activities andtools (e.g., knowledge maps, search tools, newsletters todisseminate the results obtained, etc.) to improve this



stage. On the other hand, supposing that the absorptionstage is identified as critical, managers could focus theirattention on fostering learning activities to improve theteam members’ technical background or to reducepressures that NPD teams often suffer and that act asbarriers to the learning process in KT.

Second, a major contribution resides in the fact thatsome of the necessary capacities to perform each KTphase have also been described. It is essential thatmanagers consider how to develop these capacitiesto ensure a successful KT process. Some practitionersmistakenly consider only one of the two aspects des-cribed above: the management of KT process stages orthe development of team capacities. A balanced manage-ment approach must consider both sides. For example,if knowledge awareness were identified as a critical

stage, besides using tools and developing activities toimprove this stage, managers should also reflect on theexisting team’s capacities for successfully conducting thisstage. In this case, the capacity of knowledge identifica-tion should be fostered through motivation strategies,qualification or establishment of an appropriate environ-ment to create learning conditions, etc. For that reason,on the basis of the proposed model, a combination ofactivities and a balanced strategy for KT management canbe implemented.

AcknowledgementsThe authors thank CNPq and FAPERGS for the financial

support received. This paper is the result of a project of the

‘Programa Pesquisador Gaucho – FAPERGS PqG’ Notice No.06/2010, process 1008515.

ReferencesABOU-ZEID E-S (2005) A culturally aware model of inter-organizational

knowledge transfer. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 3(3),146–155.

ALAVI M and LEIDNER DE (2001) Review: knowledge managementand knowledge management systems: conceptual foundations andresearch issues. MIS Quarterly 25(1), 107–136.

ANTONI M, NILSSON-WITELL L and DAHLGAARD JJ (2005) Inter-projectimprovement in product development. International Journal of Quality& Reliability Management 22(9), 876–893.

ARGOTE L and INGRAM P (2000) Knowledge transfer: a basis forcompetitive advantage in firms. Organizational Behavior and HumanDecision Processes 82(1), 150–169.

BARDIN L (1977) L’Analyse de Contenu. Presses Universitaires de France, Paris.BARTEZZAGHI E, CORSO M and VERGANTI R (1997) Continuous improvement

and inter-project learning in new product development. InternationalJournal of Technology Management 14(1), 116–138.

BOER H et al (2001) Knowledge and continuous innovation: the CIMAmethodology. International Journal of Operations & Production Manage-ment 21(4), 490–503.

BONTIS N and SERENKO A (2009) A follow-up ranking of academic journals.Journal of Knowledge Management 13(1), 16–26.

CARLILE PR and REBENTISCH ES (2003) Into the black box: the knowledgetransformation cycle. Management Science 49(9), 1180–1195.

CHAPMAN R and HYLAND P (2004) Complexity and learning behaviors inproduct innovation. Technovation 24(7), 553–561.

COAKES E, BRADBURN A and SUGDEN G (2004) Managing and leveragingknowledge for organisational advantage. Knowledge ManagementResearch & Practice 2(2), 118–128.

COHEN MD and BACDAYAN P (1994) Organizational routines are stored asprocedural memory – evidence from a laboratory study. OrganizationScience 5(4), 554–568.

COHEN WM and LEVINTHAL DA (1990) Absorptive capacity: a newperspective on learning and innovation. Administrative ScienceQuarterly 35(1), 128–152.

COOK SDN and BROWN JS (1999) Bridging epistemologies: the generativedance between organizational knowledge and organizational know-ing. Organization Science 10(4), 381–400.

CUMMINGS JL and TENG BS (2003) Transferring R&D knowledge: the keyfactors affecting knowledge transfer success. Journal of Engineering andTechnology Management 20(1–2), 39–68.

DAVENPORT TH and PRUSAK L (1998) Working Knowledge. Harvard BusinessSchool Press, Boston.

DAVENPORT TH, DELONG DW and BEERS MC (1998) Successful knowl-edge management projects. Sloan Management Review 39(2),43–58.

DETIENNE KB, DYER G, HOOPES C and HARRIS S (2004) Toward a model ofeffective knowledge management and directions for future research:culture, leadership, and CKOs. Journal of Leadership & OrganizationalStudies 10(26), 26–43.

DU R, AI S and REN Y (2007) Relationship between knowledge sharingand performance: a survey in Xi’an, China. Expert Systems withApplications 32(1), 38–46.

DYER JH and HATCH NW (2006) Relation-specific capabilities and barriersto knowledge transfers: creating advantage through network relation-ships. Strategic Management. Journal 27(8), 701–719.

EDMONDSON C and NEMBHARD IM (2009) Product development andlearning in project teams: the challenges are the benefits. Journal ofProduct Innovation Management 26(2), 123–138.

FRANK A and ECHEVESTE M (2012) Knowledge transfer between NPDproject teams: a method for the identification of improvementopportunities. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management29(3), 242–264.

GARAVELLI AC, GORGOGLIONE M and SCOZZI B (2002) Managingknowledge transfer by knowledge technologies. Technovation 22(5),269–279.

GILBERT M and CORDEY-HAYES M (1996) Understanding the process ofknowledge transfer to achieve successful technological innovation.Technovation 16(6), 301–312.

GOFFIN K and KONERS U (2011) Tacit knowledge, lessons learnt, and newproduct development. Journal of Product Innovation Management28(2), 300–318.

GOODERHAM PN (2007) Enhancing knowledge transfer in multinationalcorporations: a dynamic capabilities driven model. Knowledge Manage-ment Research & Practice 5(1), 34–43.

GUPTA AK and GOVINDARAJAN V (2000) Knowledge flows within multi-national corporations. Strategic Management Journal 21(1), 473–496.

HANSEN MT, MORS ML and LOVAS B (2005) Knowledge sharing inorganizations: multiple networks, multiple phases. Academy ofManagement Journal 48(5), 776–793.

HONG P, DOLL WJ, REVILLA E and NAHM AY (2011) Knowledge sharing andstrategic fit in integrated product development proejcts: an empiricalstudy. International Journal of Production Economics 132(2), 186–196.

HOOFF BVD and HUYSMAN M (2009) Managing knowledge sharing:emergent and engineering approaches. Information & Management46(1), 1–8.

HSU I-C. (2008) Knowledge sharing practices as a facilitating factor forimproving organizational performance through human capital: apreliminary test. Expert Systems with Applications 35(3), 1316–1326.

JENSEN KW (2010) Relational effects on knowledge integration: thedifferential effects on search and transfer. Knowledge ManagementResearch & Practice 8(2), 146–160.



KOGUT B and ZANDER U (1992) Knowledge of the firm, combinativecapabilities and the replication of technology. Organization Science3(3), 383–397.

KONERS U and GOFFIN K (2007a) Learning from postproject reviews: across-case analysis. Journal of Product Innovation Management 24(3),242–258.

KONERS U and GOFFIN K (2007b) Managers’ perceptions of learning innew product development. International Journal of Operations &Production Management 27(1), 49–68.

LEWIS K, LANGE D and GILLIS L (2005) Transactive memorysystems, learning, and learning transfer. Organization Science 16(6),581–598.

LIU D-R and KE C-K (2007) Knowledge support for problem-solving in aproduction process: a hybrid of knowledge discovery and case-basedreasoning. Expert Systems with Applications 33(1), 147–161.

LIU Y, KELLER RT and SHIH H-A. (2010) The impact of team-memberexchange, differentiation, team commitment, and knowledgesharing on R&D project team performance. R&D Management 41(3),274–287.

LIU Y and PHILLIPS JS (2011) Examining the antecedents of knowledgesharing in facilitating team innovativeness from a multilevel perspec-tive. International Journal of Information Management 31(1), 44–52.

LIYANAGE C, ELHAG T, BALLAL T and LI Q (2009) Knowledge communica-tion and translation – a knowledge transfer model. Journal ofKnowledge Management 13(3), 118–131.

LYNN GS, REILLY RR and AKGUN AE (2000) Knowledge management innew product teams: practices and outcomes. IEEE Transactions onEngineering Management 47(2), 221–231.

MAJOR EJ and CORDEY-HAYES M (2000) Engaging the business supportnetwork to give SMEs the benefit of foresight. Technovation 20(11),589–602.

MARKUS ML (2001) Toward a theory of knowledge reuse: types ofknowledge reuse situations and factors in reuse success. Journal ofManagement Information Systems 18(1), 57–93.

MARSH SJ and STOCK GN (2006) Creating dynamic capability: the role ofintertemporal integration, knowledge retention, and interpretation.Journal of Product Innovation Management 23(5), 422–436.

MONTOYA MM, MASSEY AP, HUNG Y-TC and CRISP CB (2009) Can you hearme now? Communication in virtual product development teams.Journal of Product Innovation Management 26(2), 139–155.

MUELLER J (2012) Knowledge sharing between project teams and its culturalantecedents. Journal of Knowledge Management 16(3), 435–447.

NEVO D and WAND Y (2005) Organizational memory informationsystems: a transactive memory approach. Decision Support Systems39(4), 549–562.

NILSSON-WITELL L, ANTONI M and DAHLGAARD JJ (2005) Continuousimprovement in product development improvement programs andquality principles. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Manage-ment 22(8), 753–768.

NOBEOKA K (1995) Inter-project learning in new product development.Academy of Management Journal 38(4), 432–436.

NOBEOKA K and CUSUMANO MA (1997) Multiproject strategy and salesgrowth: the benefits of rapid design transfer in new productdevelopment. Strategic Management Journal 18(3), 169–186.

NONAKA I (1994) A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation.Organization Science 5(1), 14–37.

ORLIKOWSKI WJ (2002) Knowing in practice: enacting a collective capabilityin distributed organizing. Organization Science 13(3), 249–273.

PRENCIPE A and TELL F (2001) Inter-project learning: processes andoutcomes of knowledge codification in project-based firms. ResearchPolicy 30(9), 1373–1394.

RAMESH B and TIWANA A (1999) Supporting collaborative processknowledge management in new product development teams. DecisionSupport Systems 27(1–2), 213–235.

RAUNIAR R, DOLL W, RAWSKI G and HONG P (2008) Shared knowledgeand product design glitches in integrated product development.International Journal of Production Economics 114(2), 723–736.

SALLEH K, CHONG SC, AHMAD SNS and IKHSAN SOSS (2012) Learning andknowledge transfer performance among public sector accountants:an empirical survey. Knowledge Management Research & Practice10(2), 164–174.

SCHLEGELMILCH BB and CHINI TC (2003) Knowledge transfer betweenmarketing functions in multinational companies: a conceptual model.International Business Review 12(2), 215–232.

SERENKO A and BONTIS N (2009) Global ranking of knowledge manage-ment and intellectual capital academic journals. Journal of KnowledgeManagement 13(1), 4–15.

SMALLENBURG K, HALMAN JIM and VANMAL HH (1996) Towards re-use ofknowledge in the concept stage of development. International Journalof Technology Management 11(3–4), 343–353.

SONG M, BERENDS H, VAN DER BIJ H and WEGGEMAN M (2007) The effect ofIT and co-location on knowledge dissemination. Journal of ProductInnovation Management 24(1), 52–68.

SUN PY-T and SCOTT JL (2005) An investigation of barriers to knowledgetransfer. Journal of Knowledge Management 9(2), 75–90.

SZULANSKI G (2000) The process of knowledge transfer: a diachronicanalysis of stickiness. Organizational Behavior and Human DecisionProcesses 82(1), 9–27.

TROTT P, CORDEY-HAYES M and SEATON RAF (1995) Inward technology-transfer as an interactive process. Technovation 15(1), 25–43.

TSENG S-M (2008) The effects of information technology on knowledgemanagement systems. Expert Systems with Applications 35(1–2), 150–160.

VAN DER BIJ H, SONG M and WEGGEMAN M (2003) An empiricalinvestigation into the antecedents of knowledge dissemination at thestrategic business unit level. Journal of Product Innovation Management20(2), 163–179.

VAN WIJK R, JENSEN JJP and LYLES MA (2008) Inter- and intra-organizationalknowledge transfer: a meta-analytic review and assessment of itsantecedents and consequences. Journal of Management Studies 45(4),830–853.

ZOLLO M and WINTER SG (2002) Deliberate learning and the evolution ofdynamic capabilities. Organization Science 13(3), 339–351.

About the authorsAlejandro German Frank is a Postdoctoral ResearchFellow at the Industrial Engineering Department of theFederal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Brazil.He received his BS degree in Industrial Engineering at theNational University of Misiones (UNaM), Argentina, andhis MS and Ph.D. degrees at UFRGS. He also participatedas visiting researcher at Politecnico di Milano, Italy.

Jose Luis Duarte Ribeiro is a full professor at theIndustrial Engineering Department of the FederalUniversity of Rio Grande do Sul, where he is thecoordinator of the Quality Engineering area. Hereceived a Ph.D. from the same university and partici-pated as a post-doc researcher at Rutgers University –U.S.A.



an integrative model for knowledge transfer between new product development project teams

Documents