Asian Journal of Business and Management Sciences ISSN: January, 2016 Vol. 4 No. 10[01-12]

Transcription

1 THE IMPORTANCE OF THE CONTRIBUTION OF JUNIOR COMPANIES ON THE PROSPECT OF CREATING AND TRANSFERRING KNOWLEDGE BY THE COMPANIES ASSISTED Ronnie Figueiredo D'Andrade, Doctoral Student in Sustainable Management Systems UFF. Fluminense Federal University - Latec - Brazil contato@ronniefigueiredo.com.br Júlio Vieira Neto, PhD UFF. Fluminense Federal University - Brazil julio@latec.uff.br Osvaldo Luiz Gonçalves Quelhas, PhD UFF. Fluminense Federal University - Latec - Brazil quelhas@latec.uff.br João José de Matos Ferreira, PhD UBI - Beira Interior University Portugal jjmf@ubi.pt Marcus Vinicius Vianna Castro, Master's Executive Programs - IBMEC - Brazil mcastro4@ibmec.edu.br ABSTRACT This paper has the objective to check the importance of the contribution of junior companies on the prospect of creating and transferring knowledge by the companies assisted in Brazil. The methodology will be qualitative, literature review, supported by a case study with an intra-case holistic approach. Finally, the result indicates a low perception of the contribution of the Brazilian junior companies in the vision of the companies assisted. Keywords: knowledge sharing; innovation; creation of knowledge; knowledge transfer 1. INTRODUCTION Contemporary organizations have perceived the importance of setting up processes and interactions with agents that foster knowledge (Tidd et al., 2008; Yang & Lee, 2002). This process is viewed from the perspective of companies that work with creating and transferring knowledge, taking any product, whether goods or services, to be measured by the amount of knowledge organized. Much of the organizational knowledge is tacit and generated through experiences that make up daily work in which the people in the organization maintain a network of shared meanings (Cook & Yanow, 1993). They are perceived as a value by those who purchase it (Brown, 2000) because it allows them to maintain a competitive advantage and innovation in an organization, in a sector of industry, or in a country (Wenhong & Min, 2010). Globally, companies that work with the creation and transfer of knowledge can be perceived as consulting companies, development agencies, universities, incubators, or junior companies (D'Andrade et al, 2015) since they have a fundamental role in the economy. Specifically in the Brazilian context, the objective is to check the importance of the contribution of junior companies on the prospect of creating and transferring knowledge by the companies assisted. Society for Business Research Promotion 1

2 To do this, we will discuss empirically the junior companies belonging to the IFES (Portuguese acronym for Federal Institutions of Higher Education), headquartered in the five regions of Brazil, and theoretically the international databases Scopus and ISI Web Knowledge, and a national one, Scielo, on the themes of research, creation and transfer of knowledge sharing of knowledge. By reviewing the international literature it was possible to create a structured questionnaire with objective questions based on two dimensions creation and transfer of knowledge as well as criteria and requirements, applied with the five-point Likert scale. The study was set up as qualitative, case study, and the data were treated with statistical use and presented through the mode and the intra-case approach. The results indicate a low perception of relevance on the part of the companies assisted in relation to the contribution generated by the junior companies linked the Federal Institutions of Higher Education. Thus, we believe that the innovation and development of the local economy becomes compromised due to the misalignment identified between the contribution and the perception of relevance. 2. CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND "We need knowledge to acquire knowledge and, therefore, to share knowledge" (Dr Hendriks, 1999, p.22) whether as an individual or collective activity, involving explicit and tacit exchange between people and organizations (Polanyi, 1967). The sharing of knowledge can be seen as a process that consists of the creation and transfer of one entity to another in an optimum and reliable way (Geraghty & Desouza, 2005), thus becoming a social process by which one member is affected by the experience of another through social learning (Hansen, 1999; Argote & Ingram, 2000). It may involve a wide diversity of technological knowledge ranging from the most basic to the most specific procedures and capabilities (Amesse & Cohendet, 2001), in addition to exchanging new ideas and concepts often with the implication of a significant action solutions to a problem (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Damsgaard & Scheepers, 2001; Lakomski, 2003). Knowledge transfer can be viewed as sharing information, ideas, suggestions, and organizationally relevant experiences of the individual with others, (Bartol & Srivastava, 2002), but should not be viewed as an act in which one person simply passes something on to another, but as a collective or individual process consisting of different stages, each one with its own difficulties (Szulanski, 2000). The transfer at the individual level is seen "as knowledge acquired in one situation that is applied or not to another" (Singley & Anderson, 1989, p.1) and "the meaning that one person expresses is never the same as that generated in the mind of the person who receives it" (Sveiby, 1998, p. 49). For an organization, knowledge is no guarantee that it will be used (Davenport & Prusak, 1998, pp. 89, 101) and its access depends on people willing to relinquish it, make it explicit, share it (Nonaka & Takeuchi 1997; Brown & Duguid, 1998). Furthermore, the lack of the ability to transfer and use the knowledge will make it so that the knowledge does not have a positive effect on the results, even though it may be available in the company (Hurley & Hult, 1998). Therefore, the greater the ability to transfer and replicate knowledge within an organization, the greater will be the value created by the knowledge (Tanriverdi, 2001; Strach & Everett, 2006), even if it is very complicated such as through the different organizational levels (Inkpen & Dinur, 1998) or through the different business units (Szulanski, 1996). Society for Business Research Promotion 2

3 Although extremely important, knowledge transfer is always very complicated, whether through the different organizational levels (Inkpen & Dinur, 1998), whether through the different business units (Szulanski, 1996), or even within the same business unit. In today's globalized business environment where companies are pressured to deliver financial returns in quarterly cycles, to incorporate a long-term orientation for the activities whose value of knowledge is intangible or not easily measurable is a huge challenge for knowledge transfer (KT) (Choo, 2003), which has been defined as the movement of knowledge between its origin and destination within a specific context (Grover & Davenport, 2001; Lakomski, 2003), and it may occur through formal or informal relationships (Ernst & Kim, 2002). The relationship of organizations with their environment includes two types of traditions: the professional tradition the expert in which the expert is the vehicle of the tradition, and the organizational tradition in which the directors transmit the knowledge (Sveiby, 2000, p. 95) that may encourage the innovation and economic performance (Birley, 1985; Burt, 1992; Goes and Park, 1997; Granovetter, 1973; HALL, 1982; Jenssen, 1999; Minzberg, 1979; Tushman, 1977; Tushman & Scanlan, 1981). The tradition of the organizational knowledge "is similar to that of the professional knowledge, but not as strong. The organizational knowledge is transferred by the directors entering into a new company, as well as trade schools, business management schools, universities, and consultants." The larger the organizational knowledge, the better will be the organization's performance and the greater will be its capacity of transformation in an asset and tradition as an innovator (D`Andrade et al, 2015). The transformation of knowledge into an organizational asset with value, "the knowledge, experience, and expertise should be formalized, distributed, and applied (Loureiro, 2003, p ), because employees do not absorb only external knowledge, but also create new knowledge in the organization (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990). The successful transfer of knowledge (Silva & Neves, 2003, p. 194) is determined by the "behavioral values, norms, and standards that make up the organizational culture more than the tools provided by technology, although these are essential, particularly for large and complex organizations." However, many other authors have pointed out that the success of companies increasingly more depends on the synergy obtained from different product projects through learning and knowledge transfer resulting from the interaction and integration of these collective projects (Bourgeon, 2007; Marsh & Stock, 2006; Antoni et al., 2005; Corso & Pavesi, 2000). The collective knowledge of an organization is strongly influenced by the culture and way that each employee is able to absorb the knowledge and by the socialization process (Hedlund & Nonaka, 1993; Lowendahl, 1997; Nonaka & Konno, 1998; Spender, 1996; Schhön, 1983; Blackler, 1995; Alvesson, 1993; Lave & Wenger, 1991) that generates new knowledge. The new knowledge generated works like a stone thrown into a calm lake, producing waves that steadily cross its surface (Ryan & Gross, 1943; Griliches, 1957; Rogers, 1995; Hägerstrand, 1953, Mansfield, 1968, Sorenson, 2006) and then interact with various other players. Knowledge transfer from the network perspective, (Fleury; Oliveira Junior; Child, 2001) point to the participation of actors focused on activities that relate to socialization such as visits to other units recognized as "centers of excellence", meetings of functional teams, and periods of medium-length training (a few weeks). Society for Business Research Promotion 3

4 So, as we can see, it is essential in the knowledge transfer process that there be present individual talents and motivational factors in the environment that stimulate the sharing of knowledge (Senker, 1995; Cummings & Oldham, 1997; Bond & Otterson, 1998; Ghoshal & Nahapiet, 1998) and that can be summarized as the individual and organizational learning capacity in an innovative way double-loop learning rather than cumulative or single loop (Garvin, 1993). 3. RESEARCH METHODS The research is seen as a "formal and systematic process of applying the scientific method that aims to discover the answers to problems or issues through the employment of scientific procedures" (Gil, 1999, p.42). We began the research procedures by analyzing international databases, Scopus and ISI Web Knowledge, and a national database, Scielo, on the central topic of the research, the creation and transfer of knowledge sharing of knowledge, seeking a gap in the literature that would support the questions of the study: 1. Are junior companies considered to be important agents in the creation of knowledge? 2. Is the creation of knowledge generated by junior companies considered relevant? 3. Are junior companies perceived to be important agents in the transfer of knowledge? 4. Is the transfer of knowledge generated by junior companies considered relevant? Then we moved to check the importance of the contribution of junior companies on the prospect of creating and transferring knowledge by the companies assisted. Considering the questions presented and the objective defined derived from the questions, it was possible to notice the relationship among them as shown in Table 1: Questions of the Table 1 - Relationship of the Objective with the Study's Questions Study (1,2,3, and 4) 1. Are junior companies considered to be important agents in the creation of knowledge? 2. Is the creation of knowledge generated by junior companies considered relevant? 3. Are junior companies perceived to be important agents in the transfer of knowledge? 4. Is the transfer of knowledge generated by junior companies considered relevant? General Objective (A) A. Check the importance of the contribution of junior companies on the prospect of creating and transferring knowledge by the companies assisted. A1 A2 A3 A4 Based on the definition of the objective and the questions, the articles pre-selected from the indexed databases were exported and cataloged with the use of software (Farias Filho, 2012), EndNote X7, in its seventh version, for a refinement process in the indexed databases. To initially answer the questions of the research, the software VantagePoint was used for mining texts, which assists in analyzing data through techniques for building matrixes and maps that reveal the trends and signs of sharing knowledge, as well as partnerships between institutions and researchers (Palop, 2014). This analysis made it possible to move forward in the case study by developing the data collection instrument for the research to be applied in the companies assisted by the junior companies. The structured questionnaire was prepared from the objective questions based on two dimensions creation and transfer of knowledge as well as criteria and requirements, applied with the five-point Likert scale. Society for Business Research Promotion 4

5 5 5 33% 67% The study was set up as qualitative, case study, holistic (Yin, 2009) and the data were treated with statistical use and presented through the mode and the intra-case approach, creating a specific report from the researcher without a "default set for reporting the case study research" (Merriam,1998 p.193). The following criteria were used to make up the study's sample (Table 2) in order to identify the IFES (Federal Institutions of Higher Education) and their possible JCs (Junior Companies) that have provided services for the CAs (Companies Assisted). Table 2 - Sampling Composition Criteria - Junior Companies - JCs Regions of Brazil ST GDP HDI GCI 5 27 > > Overall, the sampling defined by "accessibility" or "conglomerate" (Vergara, 2000:p.46; Gil, 1999, p.99) 63 companies assisted by junior companies headquartered in Brazil. Of the five regions invited, only four participated in the study since the North region, through its junior companies, did not participated because they were not certified by IFES due to absence and misuse of public money. The data were analyzed by statistical methods, representing the mode of each variable defined in the study. 4. DATA ANALYSIS Dimension: Knowledge Creation C1. Criterion of Sharing R1. Promotes interaction among people through dialog I N D I F F E R E N T N O P A R T I A L L Y O U T P A R T I A L L Y Graph1: Histogram of frequency related to requirement R.1 Requirement R1 shows a frequency of 67% in relation to the importance of sharing knowledge in the organization in the vision of the companies assisted by the JCs. It can be noticed that the companies assisted consider it important to partially promote the interaction between people by means of dialog, creating an atmosphere that is favorable for the production of knowledge with a focus on innovation. C2. Criterion of Creation of Concepts R2. Establishes a continuous dialog in the form of collective reflection I N D I F F E R E N T N O P A R T I A L L Y O U T P A R T I A L L Y Graph 2: Histogram of frequency related to requirement R.2 Society for Business Research Promotion 5

6 25% 25% 5 25% 25% 5 25% 25% 5 In relation to requirement R2, the JCs perceive in a very balanced way the partial importance, whether without importance and with importance. This demonstrates that the creation of concepts to establish an ongoing dialog in the form of collective reflection in the company is not relevant to the point to contribute to innovation, which means that if it is not relevant, perhaps neither is innovation. But let us consider the next requirements before reaching any conclusion. C3. Justification of Concepts R3. Justifies concepts created from the dialog established I N D I F F E R E N T N O P A R T I A L L Y O U T P A R T I A L L Y Graph 3: Histogram of frequency related to requirement R.3 Requirement R3 presents a partial importance in relation to the justification of concepts created from the dialog established with the parties. This characterizes that the companies assisted by the JCs consider as median the practice of justifying the concepts for fostering innovation in the companies. C4. Building an Archetype R4. Develops a systemic model or product from the concept I N D I F F E R E N T N O P A R T I A L L Y O U T P A R T I A L L Y Graph 4: Histogram of frequency related to requirement R.4 Requirement R4 reinforces the thesis that the companies assisted do not consider as important the construction of an archetype for the development of a systemic model or product from the creation of concepts. This is supported by R2, creation of concepts, where the importance of this stage in the process is considered median and partially without importance, and partially with importance. Therefore, the importance in R4 is not required to move forward with the innovation. C5. Dissemination of Knowledge R5. Performs the dissemination of knowledge created with the stakeholders I N D I F F E R E N T N O P A R T I A L L Y O U T P A R T I A L L Y Graph 5: Histogram of frequency related to requirement R.5 Society for Business Research Promotion 6

7 Requirement R5 points to partially without importance in relation to the dissemination of knowledge in the vision of the companies assisted. To carry out the dissemination of the knowledge created with the stakeholders is not a relevance that can be evidenced as positive. Once again, requirement R5 supports requirements R2 and R4, characterizing a low importance for innovation from the companies analyzed. In summary, we realized that the importance of the requirements of dimension D1, knowledge creation, stands out only in requirement R1 when the importance appears in sharing knowledge, which is the initial step in the process for creating knowledge. Other requirements, such as R2, R3, R4, and R5 do not present an increase in the creation process, characterizing a trend of low importance on the part of the companies assisted in terms of creating knowledge. Therefore, we can infer that the innovation is shown in the study initially as something without relevance for the companies assisted by the JCs Dimension: Knowledge Transfer C6. Merger of Ideas R6. Associates ideas freely, generating others as a result I N D I F F E R E N T N O P A R T I A L L Y O U T P A R T I A L L Y Graph 6: Histogram of frequency related to requirement R.6 Requirement R6 emphasizes a significant importance in relation to the transfer of knowledge in companies assisted. We could consider that the mergers of ideas with a free association, generating other ideas as results, are perceived in a positive way to contribute with the innovation. We started to perceive a mild tendency in terms of importance in the transfer of knowledge in comparison with the creation of knowledge, D1. C7. Confrontation of Ideas R7. Tests and refines the ideas collectively, giving coherence I N D I F F E R E N T N O P A R T I A L L Y O U T P A R T I A L L Y Graph 7: Histogram of frequency related to requirement R.7 Requirement R7 reinforces the trend suggested in R6, highlighting the importance of knowledge transfer having as a base the confrontation of ideas by means of the test and collective improvement, giving consistency to the actions of innovation carried out with the intensive use of knowledge. Society for Business Research Promotion 7

8 C8. Push Strategy R8. Sends the knowledge without a formal request from those who are looking for it I N D I F F E R E N T N O P A R T I A L L Y O U T P A R T I A L L Y Graph 8: Histogram of frequency related to requirement R.5 Requirement R8 presents a low frequency of 4, even though it is the highest in mode in relation to the importance of sending the knowledge to the companies assisted by the JCs without the implementation of a formal request on the part of the company assisted itself in providing the service. Perhaps the relevance is even greater in requirement R9 below. C9. Pull Strategy R9. Sends the knowledge based on a stimulus from those who are looking for it I N D I F F E R E N T N O P A R T I A L L Y O U T P A R T I A L L Y Graph 9: Histogram of frequency related to requirement R.9 Requirement R9 surpasses the relevance presented in R8, being the frequency of importance stressed in the Pull strategy type, which considers the sending of knowledge based on the stimulus from those who are looking for it, in the case the company assisted. It can be noticed that the preference is in passivity instead of proactivity in the generation of knowledge to foster innovation. Requirements R10 and R11, used in data collection from the junior companies, JCs, were not applied to the questionnaire of the companies assisted. The decision to continue with the sequence of numbering the requirements was to maintain the same order of comparison in both questionnaires. In summary, the tendency of dimension D2, knowledge transfer, is based on requirement R9, adopting as its strategy the Pull approach, which considers the delivery of knowledge based on the stimulus from those who are looking for it as important for the companies assisted by the JCs. Therefore, requirements R6 and R7 reinforce the tendency signaled in both regarding the importance of knowledge transfer based on the confrontation of ideas through test and collective improvement in the merging of ideas, free association that generates other ideas as results of innovation. Society for Business Research Promotion 8

9 Therefore, the companies assisted value and consider it important when the JCs transfer the knowledge in a "passive way, always requested, instead of in a "proactive way, before being requested. When this happens, the companies assisted value in this knowledge transfer process stages R6 and R7, which are merging of ideas and the confrontation of ideas with a frequency greater than 8 of partial importance. 5. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION This approach showed that the JCs, despite the size of their intellectual production, have contributions for building organizational knowledge, but these are still far from reality. The level of commitment of the students participating in the JCs is low; the financial resources from the JCs, coming from their IFES, are limited for the JCs; the management control of the JCs is inefficient in part of the institutions analyzed, making clear the loss of production and some of them closing; the profile of the companies covered by the JCs is mostly micro and small enterprises, thus limiting learning; most of the time the contribution is focused on part of the process, not analyzing the whole for innovation; the JCs lack maturity at a broad level of knowledge for a more assertive role in providing services; the JCs act based on the Movimento Empresa Júnior (MEJ), which is not aligned to any pedagogical proposal and lacks an adequate physical infrastructure for development, inspiration, and creativity. REFERENCES Alvesson, M. (1993). Organizations as Rhetoric: Knowledge-Intensive firms and Struggle with Ambiguity (p. 30). Joumal of Management Studies. Amesse, F. & Cohendet, P. (2001). Technology transfer revisited from the perspective of the knowledgebased economy (Vol. 30, pp ). Research Policy. Antoni, M.; Nilsson-Witell, L. & Dahlgaard, J. J. (2005). Inter-project improvement in product development (Vol. 22, n.º 9, pp ). International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management. Argote L. & Ingram P. (2000). Knowledge Transfer: A Basis for Competitive Advantage in Firms. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes (Vol. 82, Nº. 1, pp ). Bartol, K. & Srivastava, A. (2002). Encouraging knowledge sharing: the role of organizational reward systems (pp ). Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies. Birley S. (1985). The role of networks of cities and growth in regional urban (pp ). J Bus Ventur. Blackler, F. (1995). Knowledge, knowledge work and organizations: an overview and interpretation (Vol. 16, n.º 6, pp ). Organization Studies. Bond, P. & Otterson, P. (1998). Creativity enhancement software: a systemic approach (Vol. 15, n.º 1-2, pp ). International Journal of Technology Management. Bourgeon, L. (2007). Staffing approach and conditions for collective learning in project teams: The case of new product development projects (Vol. 25, pp ). International Journal of Project Management. Brown, J. S. & Duguid, P. (1998). Organizing Knowledge (Vol. 40, n.º 3). Spring: California Management Review. Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Choo, C. W. (2003). Perspectives on Managing Knowledge in Organizations (Vol. 37, pp ). Cataloging Classification Quarterly. Cohen, W. & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation (Vol. 35, n.º 1, pp ). Administrative Science Quarterly. Corso, M. & Pavesi, S. (2000). How management can foster continuous product innovation (Vol.11, n.º 3, pp ). Integrated Manufacturing Systems. Cummings, A. & Oldham, G. (1997). Enhancing creativity: managing work contexts for the high potential employee (Vol. 40, n.º 1, pp ). California: Management Review. Society for Business Research Promotion 9

10 Damsgaard J. & Scheepers R. (2001). Harnessing intranet technology for organisational knowledge creation (pp. 4-15). Australian Journal of Information Systems 8 (Special Edition on Knowledge Management). D`Andrade, R.F.; Ferreira, J.J.M.; Marques, C.S.E. & Neto, J.V. (2015). Knowledge intensive business services (KIBS): A decade of development to innovation (Vol. 04, nº 05). Business and Management Review. Davenport, T. H. & Prusak, L. (1998). Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage what they Know. Boston: Harvard Business School. Ernst, D. & Kim, L. (2002). Global production networks, knowledge diffusion and local capability formation (Vol. 31, pp ). Research Policy. Filho, J. R. F. (2009). Ensaio teórico Pesquisa Bibliográfica em Estratégia de Operações. Apostila Programa de Pós-Graduação em Engenharia de Produção (p. 40). Rio de Janeiro, Niterói. Fleury, M. T. L.; Oliveira, M. M. J. & Child, J. (2001). Compartilhando conhecimento em negócios internacionais: um estudo de caso na indústria de propaganda. In: Fleury, M. T. L. & Oliveira, M. M. J. Gestão estratégica do conhecimento: integrando aprendizagem, conhecimento e competências (pp ). São Paulo: Atlas. Garvin, D. A. (1993). Building a learning organization (Vol. 71, n.º 4, pp ). Harvard Business Review. Geraghty, K. & Desouza, K. C. (2005). Optimizing Knowledge Networks (Vol. 47, n.º 6, pp ). Industrial Management. Ghoshal, S. & Nahapiet, J. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage (Vol. 23, n.º 2, pp ). Academy of Management Review. Gil, A. C. (1999). Métodos e Técnicas de Pesquisa Social. São Paulo: Atlas. Goes, J. B. & Park S. H. (1997). Interorganizational links and innovation: The case of hospital services (Vol. 40, n.º 3, pp ). Academy of Management Journal. Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties (Vol. 78, n.º 6, pp ). American Journal of Sociology. Griliches, Z. (1957). Research Costs and Social Returns: Hybrid Corn and Related Innovations. Journal of Political Economy. Grover V. & Davenport T. H. (2001). General perspectives on knowledge management: fostering a research agenda (Vol. 18, pp. 5 21). Journal of Management Information Systems. Hägerstrand, T. (1953). Innovationsförloppet ur korologisk synpunkt. Lund: C.W.K GleerupTranslated & Hägerstrand, T. (1967). Innovation Diffusion as a Spatial Process. University of Chicago Press. Hall, R. H. (1982). Organizations and Process. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall Inc. Hansen, M. (1999). The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits (Vol. 44, pp ). Administrative Science Quarterly. Hansen, M. (2000). Testing for structural change in conditional models (pp ).Journal of Econometrics. Hedlund, G. & Nonaka, I. (1993). Models of Knowledge Management in the West and Japan. In Lorange, B.; Chakravarthy, B.; Roos, J. & Ven, H. V. (Eds) Implementing Strategic Process, Change, Learning and Cooperation (pp ) London, Macmillan. Hendricks, L. A. (1999). Taxation and Long-Run Growth. Staff General Research Papers, Iowa State University, Department of Economics. Holsapple, C. & Joshi, K. D. (1999). Description and analysis of existing knowledge management frameworks. Proceedings of the Hawaiian International Conference on System Sciences, Maui. Hurley, R. & Hult, T. (1998). Innovation, market orientation and organizational learning: an integration and empirical examination (Vol. 62, pp ). Journal of Marketing. Inkpen, A. C. & Dinur, A. (1998). Knowledge management processes and international jointventures (Vol. 9, n.º 4, pp ). Organization Science. Society for Business Research Promotion 10

11 Jenssen, J. I. (1999). Entrepreneurial networks. AStudy of the Impact ofnetwork andresource Access on the Start-up of New Organizations. Bergen, Norway: Norwegian School. Lakomski, G. (2003). Moving knowledge: the problem of transfer and how to reframe it (pp ).Barcelona, Spain: Proceedings of the Third European Conference on Organisational Knowledge, Learning and Capabilities. Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning. Legitimate peripheral participation. University of Cambridge Press. Leonard-Barton, D. (1998). Nascentes do Saber: Criando e sustentando as fontes de inovação. Rio de Janeiro: Fundação Getúlio Vargas. Loureiro, J. L. (2003). Gestão do Conhecimento. Lisboa: Centro Atlântico. Løwendahl, B. R. (1997). Strategic Management of Professional Service Firms. Copenhagen Business School Press. Mansfield, E. (1968). The economics of technological change. New York: Norton. Marsh, S. J. & Stock, G. N. (2006). Creating dynamic capability: the role or intertemporal integration, knowledge retention and interpretation (Vol. 23, pp ). Journal of Product Innovation Management. Miles, I. (1995). Knowledge-Intensive BusinessServices: users, carries and sources of innovation. Disponível em Acesso em 27 de jan. de Minzberg, H. (1979). The Structure of Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Nonaka, I. & Konno, N. (1998). The concept of Ba : building a foundation for knowledge creation (pp ). California: Management Review, Spring. Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company. Oxford University Press. Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. University of Chicago Press. Porter, M. E. & Millar, V. E. (1985). How information gives you competitive advantage (pp ). Harvard Business Review. Research Councils [RCUK] (2006b). Independent external challenge report to Research Councils UK knowledge transfer in the eight Research Councils. London: RCUK. Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press. Ryan, G. (1943). The Diffusion of Hybrid Seed Corn in Two Iowa Communities (p. 15). Rural Sociology 8. Senker, J. (1995). Tacit knowledge and models of innovation (Vol. 4, n.º 2, pp ). Industrial and Corporate Change. Serrano, A. & Fialho, C. (2003). Gestão do conhecimento: o novo paradigma das organizações. Lisboa: FCA Editora de Informática. Silva, R. V. & Neves, A. (2003). Gestão de empresas na Era do Conhecimento. Lisboa: Sílabo. Singley, M. K. & Anderson, J. R. (1989). The transfer of cognitive skill. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press. Sorenson, O. (2006). Editorial Objectives: Organizations and Social Networks (Vol. 52, n.º 10, p. iv). Management Science, INFORMS. Spender, J. C. (1996). Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm (Vol. 17, pp ). Strategic Management Journal. Strach, P. & Everett, A. M. (2006). Brand corrosion: mass-marketing s threat to luxury automobile brands after merger and acquisition (Vol. 15, n.º 2, pp ). Journal of Product & brand Management. Sveiby, K. E. (1997). The new organizational wealth: managing and measuring knowledgebased assets. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc. Sveiby, K. E. (1998). A nova riqueza das organizações: gerenciando e avaliando patrimônios de conhecimento. Rio de Janeiro: Campus. Sveiby, K. E. (2000). Capital intelectual: la nueva riqueza de las empresas - Como medir y gestionar los activos intangibles para crear valor. Paris: Maxima Laurent du Mesnil Éditeur. Society for Business Research Promotion 11

12 Szulanski, G. (1996). Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm (Vol. 17, pp ). Strategic Management Journal. Tanriverdi, H. (2001). Performance Effects of Corporate Diversification: Roles of Knowledge Resources, Knowledge Management Capability and Information Technology. Massachusetts: Boston University. Tushman, M. L. & Scanlan, T. J. (1981). Boundary spanning individuals: The role in information transfer and their antecedents (Vol. 22, pp ). Cybernetics and Systems, An International Journal. Tushman, M. L. (1977). Special boundary roles in the innovation process (Vol. 22, pp ). Administrative Science Quarterly. Vergara, S. C. (2000). Projetos e relatórios de pesquisa em administração. São Paulo: Atlas. Society for Business Research Promotion 12