The systematic capacity for technological absorption (SCTA) and international technology transfer (ITT): how some Korean firms successfully exploit Russian technology

This thesis examines issues of international technology transfer (ITT), focusing on the exploitation of foreign technology between countries with contrasting strengths and capabilities. The tendency in ITT is that it has mostly been limited to the triad countries and to some latecomer economies in East Asia. An explanation for this tendency is that the extent of this shared common ground between countries directly affects a recipient country’s capability to exploit and absorb foreign knowledge. This thesis examines cases of ITT which successfully occurred without such common grounds and offers explanations for specific cases. The conceptual framework was developed to explain how such extraordinary capabilities are created in order to overcome barriers to technological transfer. In addition, several other mechanisms and special factors are hypothesised as candidates for explaining the technology transfer process as one involving bridging and overcoming the barriers. These hypotheses are examined in relation to the Korean-Russian technology transfer, the main target of the investigation. Korea and Russia are countries that had no interaction prior to or during the Cold War period and shared little or no common ground. Nonetheless, after 1990 Korean firms have actively attempted to exploit Russian technology and some of them, though not many, have succeeded in exploiting and commercialising Russian technology. Important contextual issues for this examination are the military and mission-focused body of Russia’s technological knowledge and the often cheaper importation of Western technology. Taking these contextual issues into account, this thesis identifies two principal issues that were overcome in the cases of successful technology transfer: a) the tacitness of Russian technological knowledge and b) the locality of the Russian “context of origin” in terms of the socio-cultural, economic, and political environment. The empirical content of the thesis involves a mixed approach with document analysis, interviews, a survey, and case studies. The research results show that the public agency programme’s facilitating role as an intermediary (developed by the Korean government) creates the extra capacity to bridge the gaps involved in adapting Russian technology

Shared decision-making in trauma and emergency surgery settings. A literature review

Emergency teams are made up of professionals of different specialities, including emergency physicians, surgeons, anesthesiologists, and nurses. Such units are characterized by the need to face unexpected situations with little time to make clinical decisions. In trauma and emergency settings, clinicians must act in a coordinated way, ensuring, at the same time, proper knowledge transfer and sharing to reach the best possible result for the patient. While such dynamics must be explicit and clear within the team, involving the patient in the decision-making process may require additional tools and procedures. Indeed, the time to engage with the patient and the family to understand the patient’s wishes and treatment preferences may be limited or absent at all. While the so-called shared decision-making (SDM) stands as one of the pillars of the modern patient-centric healthcare scenario, knowledge translation and transfer dynamics may appear particularly challenging in emergency settings. Starting from an investigation of the recent literature on SDM, the paper presents a literature review of the barriers, facilitators, and knowledge translation dynamics of SDM in trauma and emergency surgery. Results assess the importance, tools, and dynamics of SDM processes

Countering Kidnapping in a Globalised World: a critical analysis of the production, transfer and application of high security knowledge

This thesis provides an investigation of the production, transfer and application of the knowledge associated with counter-kidnap. I examine the processes and contexts that shape transnational knowledge transfer and its application. As far as I am aware, this qualitative research is the first one adding an empirical detail to our understanding of these processes with respect to kidnappings for ransom. The first two parts of the thesis provide a breakdown of the information provided by formal counter-kidnap documents, other ways of transferring high-security knowledge, and their barriers. A number of formal institutions and processes exist for transferring knowledge and practices around mitigating serious crime and I explain in detail in which respects they can be problematic. The third part identifies an implementation gap, since local practices and processes impede transnational initiatives. I discuss the effects of the specific police sub-culture which hinders the transfer and application of the relevant knowledge. In the final part I review the so-called risk management companies, which represent a fairly new private field responding to kidnapping risks, both preventatively and reactively. I suggest that the emergence of these companies results from the high prices of knowledge transfer and inter-institutional barriers to that transfer, as well as the poor outcomes of the responses to kidnappings by the public sector. The overall picture emerging is that the transfer of high-security information is not as fluid as we might think. There are informal processes and practices that influence the transfer and application of knowledge and my data demonstrate the detail and complexity around the type of knowledge work police engage in

A method for assessing and developing features of a learning organization

The primary objective of this thesis is to evolve a method for assessing and developing features of a learning organization . To fulfill this, I approached the thesis by examining several research questions and using multiple research methodologies. The research questions were not all established at the outset. Rather, they evolved as features of a journey down a road less traveled. With this journey came the decision to write the thesis in the first person. The first research question was Q1: What will bridge the divide between organizational learning and the learning organization? By reviewing the extant literature on organizational learning and the learning organization, I developed a theoretical framework that linked these two streams. The framework suggests that the extent of divide between the two streams is determined by the extent of learning transfer. The learning transfer is affected by the learning barriers operating at the levels of learning (i.e., individuals, groups, and organizational). This led me to my second research question Q2: What are these barriers to learning transfer and how do they impact the levels of learning in the organization? I cumulated the dispersed literature on learning barriers, and synthesized the learning barriers into five key dimensions: Intrapersonal, relational, cultural, structural, and societal. I then used the Delphi technique on 17 individuals to investigate the impact of the learning barriers on the levels of learning. This generated two additional research questions. The third research question was Q3: How do individuals initiate a double-loop change? This deals with the little researched area of initiation of double-loop change whilst engaging with the interfaces at the levels of learning. I used multiple case studies to examine this question and found that individuals transit through four distinct stages when initiating double-loop change: 'embedded', 'embedded discomfited', 'scripted', and 'unscripted'. Once double-loop learning has been initiated at the individual level, it is important that it is transferred across the organization. Therefore, my fourth research question was Q4: How does a new shared understanding for a double-loop change develop across the organization? I did an in-depth, single case based investigation of an organization. Using Identity and Complexity theory perspectives, I tracked the evolving new shared understanding through four phases: de-identification phase, situated re-identification phase, transition phase, and identification with core ideology phase. The key insights from examining these research questions, particularly insights from examining Q3 and Q4, enabled me to suggest nine key organizational interventions necessary to overcome the learning barriers and develop a learning organization: Identifying, developing, and dispersing double-loop mastery; Enabling constructive contradictions; Creating a superordinate organizational identity; Building emotional intelligence (in individuals and groups); Ambidextrous leadership; Strategic support for experimentation; Promoting 'systems doing'; Accessibility of valid information; Institutionalizing scanning across industry boundaries. When these nine organizational interventions are implemented, they produce five new learning organization orientations: genetic diversity, organizational ideology, organizational dualism, organizational coupling, and strategic play. These five new learning organizational orientations provide the archetypes of the learning organization. I then developed an instrument to assess these five new orientations, and did a preliminary testing of the instrument. While aspects of my work overlaid with previous knowledge, new advances in knowledge were established by: Postulating a link between the streams of organizational learning and learning organization Synthesizing learning barriers into the five key dimensions, and investigating their impact on the levels of learning Understanding the stages of double-loop learning initiation by an individual, whilst engaging with the interfaces at the levels of learning Understanding the process of a new shared understanding evolving Postulating five new orientations of the learning organizatio

Learning from Other Community Renewable Energy Projects: Transnational Transfer of Multi-Functional Energy Gardens from the Netherlands to Germany

Citizen energy in general and renewable energy communities (RECs) in particular are becoming key vehicles for decentralisation, but also for the democratisation of the energy system. These initiatives are now more diverse than ever and are likely to continue to act as incubators for significant projects in the transition to a renewable energy system. Beside the legal, regulatory, and financial challenges, there are several socio-economic and regulatory barriers that hinder the implementation of community energy projects. For this reason, policy learning and the dissemination of good/best practices that are transferable also to other contexts are important. This is an aspect that has not yet attracted much investigation, and only a few studies have explored the importance of transfer activities for the implementation of REC initiatives and their motives. This article aimed to address this knowledge gap by focussing on the transfer processes of best practices initiated in a particular region and discusses how these can be adapted and transferred to other contexts. We analysed the transfer case of a community renewable energy initiative, the multifunctional energy gardens, from the Netherlands to the German federal State of Thuringia, and extracted lessons with an overall validity for the transferability of drivers and success factors. We show how examples from other contexts with similar enabling conditions can represent significant foundations on which to build an effective strategy and what framework conditions are necessary to enhance the uptake of pervasive community energy initiatives in regions with low community energy development

Conceptualisation of the three-dimensional matrix of collaborative knowledge barriers

[EN] Nowadays, collaborative knowledge management (CKM) is well accepted as a decisive asset in the field of networked enterprises and supply chains. However, few knowledge management initiatives have been performed successfully because, in most cases, the barriers that hinder the CKM process are unknown and misunderstood. Currently, the research reveals different uni- and bi-dimensional barriers' classifications, however multi-dimensional approaches provide a better view of the complexity in the area of CKM. Therefore, this paper proposes the three-dimensional matrix of collaborative knowledge barriers taking into account: (i) perspectives; (ii) levels and (iii) barriers blocks to provide a reference way to audit the CKM barriers, and thus, in further research, focus on the corrections and adjustments to guarantee the success while implementing a CKM project.Sanchis, R.; Sanchis Gisbert, MR.; Poler, R. (2020). Conceptualisation of the three-dimensional matrix of collaborative knowledge barriers. Sustainability. 12(3):1-25. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12031279S125123Rajabion, L., Sataei Mokhtari, A., Khordehbinan, M. W., Zare, M., & Hassani, A. (2019). The role of knowledge sharing in supply chain success. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, 17(6), 1222-1249. doi:10.1108/jedt-03-2019-0052Sanguankaew, P., & Vathanophas Ractham, V. (2019). Bibliometric Review of Research on Knowledge Management and Sustainability, 1994–2018. Sustainability, 11(16), 4388. doi:10.3390/su11164388Zhang, J., Dawes, S. S., & Sarkis, J. (2005). Exploring stakeholders’ expectations of the benefits and barriers of e‐government knowledge sharing. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 18(5), 548-567. doi:10.1108/17410390510624007Riege, A. (2005). Three‐dozen knowledge‐sharing barriers managers must consider. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(3), 18-35. doi:10.1108/13673270510602746Yih‐Tong Sun, P., & Scott, J. L. (2005). An investigation of barriers to knowledge transfer. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(2), 75-90. doi:10.1108/13673270510590236Solli-Sæther, H., Karlsen, J. T., & van Oorschot, K. (2015). Strategic and Cultural Misalignment: Knowledge Sharing Barriers in Project Networks. Project Management Journal, 46(3), 49-60. doi:10.1002/pmj.21501Kukko, M. (2013). Knowledge sharing barriers in organic growth: A case study from a software company. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 24(1), 18-29. doi:10.1016/j.hitech.2013.02.006Mazorodze, A. H., & Buckley, S. (2019). Knowledge management in knowledge-intensive organisations: Understanding its benefits, processes, infrastructure and barriers. SA Journal of Information Management, 21(1). doi:10.4102/sajim.v21i1.990Vuori, V., Helander, N., & Mäenpää, S. (2018). Network level knowledge sharing: Leveraging Riege’s model of knowledge barriers. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 17(3), 253-263. doi:10.1080/14778238.2018.1557999Bacon, E., Williams, M. D., & Davies, G. (2020). Coopetition in innovation ecosystems: A comparative analysis of knowledge transfer configurations. Journal of Business Research, 115, 307-316. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.11.005General Perspectives on Knowledge Management: Fostering a Research Agenda. (2001). Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1), 5-21. doi:10.1080/07421222.2001.11045672Gupta, S., & Bostrom, R. (2006). Using peer-to-peer technology for collaborative knowledge management: concepts, frameworks and research issues. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 4(3), 187-196. doi:10.1057/palgrave.kmrp.8500103Bosua, R., & Scheepers, R. (2007). Towards a model to explain knowledge sharing in complex organizational environments. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 5(2), 93-109. doi:10.1057/palgrave.kmrp.8500131Brandt, D., & Hartmann, E. (1999). Editorial: Research topics and strategies in sociotechnical systems. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing, 9(3), 241-243. doi:10.1002/(sici)1520-6564(199922)9:33.0.co;2-bKim, S., & Lee, H. (2006). The Impact of Organizational Context and Information Technology on Employee Knowledge-Sharing Capabilities. Public Administration Review, 66(3), 370-385. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00595.xArgote, L., Beckman, S. L., & Epple, D. (1990). The Persistence and Transfer of Learning in Industrial Settings. Management Science, 36(2), 140-154. doi:10.1287/mnsc.36.2.140Gupta, N., Ho, V., Pollack, J. M., & Lai, L. (2016). A multilevel perspective of interpersonal trust: Individual, dyadic, and cross-level predictors of performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(8), 1271-1292. doi:10.1002/job.2104Gray, B., & Wood, D. J. (1991). Collaborative Alliances: Moving from Practice to Theory. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27(1), 3-22. doi:10.1177/0021886391271001Roberts, N. C., & Bradley, R. T. (1991). Stakeholder Collaboration and Innovation: A Study of Public Policy Initiation at the State Level. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27(2), 209-227. doi:10.1177/0021886391272004Scheff, J., & Kotler, P. (1996). Crisis in the Arts: The Marketing Response. California Management Review, 39(1), 28-52. doi:10.2307/41165875Gulati, R., & Gargiulo, M. (1999). Where Do Interorganizational Networks Come From? American Journal of Sociology, 104(5), 1439-1493. doi:10.1086/210179Maitlo, A., Ameen, N., Peikari, H. R., & Shah, M. (2019). Preventing identity theft. Information Technology & People, 32(5), 1184-1214. doi:10.1108/itp-05-2018-0255Bolloju, N., Khalifa, M., & Turban, E. (2002). Integrating knowledge management into enterprise environments for the next generation decision support. Decision Support Systems, 33(2), 163-176. doi:10.1016/s0167-9236(01)00142-7Hanisch, B., Lindner, F., Mueller, A., & Wald, A. (2009). Knowledge management in project environments. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(4), 148-160. doi:10.1108/13673270910971897Yew Wong, K., & Aspinwall, E. (2004). Characterizing knowledge management in the small business environment. Journal of Knowledge Management, 8(3), 44-61. doi:10.1108/13673270410541033Knowledge Acquisition and Sharing for Requirement Engineeringhttps://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/28916Practical Tools and Methods for Corporate Knowledge Management—Sharing and Capitalising Engineering Know-How in the Concurrent Enterprisehttps://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/IST-1999-12685Szulanski, G. (1996). Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), 27-43. doi:10.1002/smj.4250171105Wehn, U., & Almomani, A. (2019). Incentives and barriers for participation in community-based environmental monitoring and information systems: A critical analysis and integration of the literature. Environmental Science & Policy, 101, 341-357. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2019.09.002Schiavone, F., & Simoni, M. (2011). An experience‐based view of co‐opetition in R&D networks. European Journal of Innovation Management, 14(2), 136-154. doi:10.1108/14601061111124867Li, Y., Liu, Y., & Liu, H. (2010). Co-opetition, distributor’s entrepreneurial orientation and manufacturer’s knowledge acquisition: Evidence from China. Journal of Operations Management, 29(1-2), 128-142. doi:10.1016/j.jom.2010.07.006McGaughey, S. L., Liesch, P. W., & Poulson, D. (2000). An unconventional approach to intellectual property protection: the case of an Australian firm transferring shipbuilding technologies to China. Journal of World Business, 35(1), 1-20. doi:10.1016/s1090-9516(99)00031-0Ilvonen, I., & Vuori, V. (2013). Risks and benefits of knowledge sharing in co-opetitive knowledge networks. International Journal of Networking and Virtual Organisations, 13(3), 209. doi:10.1504/ijnvo.2013.063049Martinez-Noya, A., Garcia-Canal, E., & Guillen, M. F. (2012). R&D Outsourcing and the Effectiveness of Intangible Investments: Is Proprietary Core Knowledge Walking out of the Door? Journal of Management Studies, 50(1), 67-91. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01086.xROSEN, B., FURST, S., & BLACKBURN, R. (2007). Overcoming Barriers to Knowledge Sharing in Virtual Teams. Organizational Dynamics, 36(3), 259-273. doi:10.1016/j.orgdyn.2007.04.007Hislop, D. (2005). The effect of network size on intra-network knowledge processes. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 3(4), 244-252. doi:10.1057/palgrave.kmrp.8500073Abou-Zeid, E.-S. (2005). A culturally aware model of inter-organizational knowledge transfer. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 3(3), 146-155. doi:10.1057/palgrave.kmrp.8500064Balle, A. R., Steffen, M. O., Curado, C., & Oliveira, M. (2019). Interorganizational knowledge sharing in a science and technology park: the use of knowledge sharing mechanisms. Journal of Knowledge Management, 23(10), 2016-2038. doi:10.1108/jkm-05-2018-0328Baccarini, D., Salm, G., & Love, P. E. D. (2004). Management of risks in information technology projects. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 104(4), 286-295. doi:10.1108/02635570410530702Sherehiy, B., Karwowski, W., & Layer, J. K. (2007). A review of enterprise agility: Concepts, frameworks, and attributes. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 37(5), 445-460. doi:10.1016/j.ergon.2007.01.007Peltokorpi, V. (2006). Knowledge sharing in a cross-cultural context: Nordic expatriates in Japan. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 4(2), 138-148. doi:10.1057/palgrave.kmrp.8500095Solitander, M., & Tidström, A. (2010). Competitive flows of intellectual capital in value creating networks. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 11(1), 23-38. doi:10.1108/14691931011013316Khamseh, H. M., & Jolly, D. (2014). Knowledge transfer in alliances: the moderating role of the alliance type. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 12(4), 409-420. doi:10.1057/kmrp.2012.63Corallo, A., Lazoi, M., & Secundo, G. (2012). Inter-organizational knowledge integration in Collaborative NPD projects: evidence from the aerospace industry. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 10(4), 354-367. doi:10.1057/kmrp.2012.25Salvetat, D., Géraudel, M., & d’ Armagnac, S. (2013). Inter-organizational knowledge management in a coopetitive context in the aeronautic and space industry. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 11(3), 265-277. doi:10.1057/kmrp.2012.6Baba, M. L., Gluesing, J., Ratner, H., & Wagner, K. H. (2004). The contexts of knowing: natural history of a globally distributed team. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(5), 547-587. doi:10.1002/job.259Korbi, F. B., & Chouki, M. (2017). Knowledge transfer in international asymmetric alliances: the key role of translation, artifacts, and proximity. Journal of Knowledge Management, 21(5), 1272-1291. doi:10.1108/jkm-11-2016-0501Faerman, S. R., McCaffrey, D. P., & Slyke, D. M. V. (2001). Understanding Interorganizational Cooperation: Public-Private Collaboration in Regulating Financial Market Innovation. Organization Science, 12(3), 372-388. doi:10.1287/orsc.12.3.372.10099Jaworski, B. J. (1988). Toward a Theory of Marketing Control: Environmental Context, Control Types, and Consequences. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 23-39. doi:10.1177/002224298805200303Cooke-Davies, T. (2002). The «real» success factors on projects. International Journal of Project Management, 20(3), 185-190. doi:10.1016/s0263-7863(01)00067-9Santos, V. R., Soares, A. L., & Carvalho, J. Á. (2012). Knowledge Sharing Barriers in Complex Research and Development Projects: an Exploratory Study on the Perceptions of Project Managers. Knowledge and Process Management, 19(1), 27-38. doi:10.1002/kpm.1379Tiwari, S. R. (2015). Knowledge Integration in Government-Industry Project Network. Knowledge and Process Management, 22(1), 11-21. doi:10.1002/kpm.1460Mariotti, F. (2007). Learning to share knowledge in the Italian motorsport industry. Knowledge and Process Management, 14(2), 81-94. doi:10.1002/kpm.275Ardichvili, A. (2008). Learning and Knowledge Sharing in Virtual Communities of Practice: Motivators, Barriers, and Enablers. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 10(4), 541-554. doi:10.1177/1523422308319536Levy, M., Loebbecke, C., & Powell, P. (2003). SMEs, co-opetition and knowledge sharing: the role of information systems. European Journal of Information Systems, 12(1), 3-17. doi:10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000439Gabelica, C., Bossche, P. V. den, Segers, M., & Gijselaers, W. (2012). Feedback, a powerful lever in teams: A review. Educational Research Review, 7(2), 123-144. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2011.11.003Zakaria, N., Amelinckx, A., & Wilemon, D. (2004). Working Together Apart? Building a Knowledge-Sharing Culture for Global Virtual Teams. Creativity and Innovation Management, 13(1), 15-29. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8691.2004.00290.xKatz, R., & Allen, T. J. (1982). Investigating the Not Invented Here (NIH) syndrome: A look at the performance, tenure, and communication patterns of 50 R & D Project Groups. R&D Management, 12(1), 7-20. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9310.1982.tb00478.xGupta, A. K., & Govindarajan, V. (2000). Knowledge flows within multinational corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 21(4), 473-496. doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0266(200004)21:43.0.co;2-iBarkema, H. G., & Vermeulen, F. (1997). What Differences in the Cultural Backgrounds of Partners Are Detrimental for International Joint Ventures? Journal of International Business Studies, 28(4), 845-864. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490122Sanchis, R., & Poler, R. (2019). Enterprise Resilience Assessment—A Quantitative Approach. Sustainability, 11(16), 4327. doi:10.3390/su11164327Vaara, E., Sarala, R., Stahl, G. K., & Björkman, I. (2010). The Impact of Organizational and National Cultural Differences on Social Conflict and Knowledge Transfer in International Acquisitions. Journal of Management Studies, 49(1), 1-27. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00975.xRichards, D., Busch, P., & Venkitachalam, K. (2007). Ethnicity-based cultural differences in implicit managerial knowledge usage in three Australian organizations. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 5(3), 173-185. doi:10.1057/palgrave.kmrp.8500145Seely Brown, J., & Duguid, P. (s. f.). Structure and Spontaneity: Knowledge and Organization. Managing Industrial Knowledge: Creation, Transfer and Utilization, 44-67. doi:10.4135/9781446217573.n3Nonaka, I., & Konno, N. (1998). The Concept of «Ba»: Building a Foundation for Knowledge Creation. California Management Review, 40(3), 40-54. doi:10.2307/41165942Bocquet, R., & Mothe, C. (2010). Knowledge governance within clusters: the case of small firms. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 8(3), 229-239. doi:10.1057/kmrp.2010.14Janssens, M., Lambert, J., & Steyaert, C. (2004). Developing language strategies for international companies: the contribution of translation studies. Journal of World Business, 39(4), 414-430. doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2004.08.006Aga, D. A., Noorderhaven, N., & Vallejo, B. (2016). Transformational leadership and project success: The mediating role of team-building. International Journal of Project Management, 34(5), 806-818. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.02.012Panahi, S., Watson, J., & Partridge, H. (2015). Information encountering on social media and tacit knowledge sharing. Journal of Information Science, 42(4), 539-550. doi:10.1177/0165551515598883Bisbal, J., Lawless, D., Bing Wu, & Grimson, J. (1999). Legacy information systems: issues and directions. IEEE Software, 16(5), 103-111. doi:10.1109/52.795108Holsapple, C. W., & Joshi, K. D. (2002). Knowledge Management: A Threefold Framework. The Information Society, 18(1), 47-64. doi:10.1080/01972240252818225Lee, M. R., & Chen, T. T. (2012). Revealing research themes and trends in knowledge management: From 1995 to 2010. Knowledge-Based Systems, 28, 47-58. doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2011.11.016Sieber, J. E. (1988). Data sharing: Defining problems and seeking solutions. Law and Human Behavior, 12(2), 199-206. doi:10.1007/bf01073128Pauleen, D. J., & Wang, W. Y. C. (2017). Does big data mean big knowledge? KM perspectives on big data and analytics. Journal of Knowledge Management, 21(1), 1-6. doi:10.1108/jkm-08-2016-033

The European bus system of the future: Research and innovation

The development of a new generation of bus systems was the goal of the European Bus System of the Future (EBSF) project, funded by the European Commission within the 7th Framework Program. To accomplish this, a series of very different innovative solutions for buses (such as new vehicle layouts, advanced remote maintenance systems, improved on-board communication systems, more performing bus stops and eco-efficient engines) were simultaneously tested in seven Use Cases (UCs) in Europe (Bremerhaven, Brunoy, Budapest, Gothenburg, Madrid, Rome and Rouen). All the tested measures had to increase the attractiveness and improve the image of the mode. The efficiency of all of them was assessed as well as their transferability to other European contexts. The paper describes the tested solutions and focuses on the assessment methodology, the main results achieved and the drivers and barriers for the transfer of such solutions across Europe

From ivory tower to factory floor? How universities are changing to meet the needs of industry

While policy recognises the need to facilitate university-industry technology transfer (UITT), international studies indicate that the setup and effectiveness of the associated instruments is highly context-specific. We examine the reorientation of Irish universities in the direction of facilitating UITT, with a substantive focus on the role of Ireland's technology transfer offices. This paper also questions how academic research is changing in line with policy rhetoric. We find that Irish university research and the management of its output are changing in a manner that is not incompatible with UITT, although with significant resource and skills constraints. These findings hold important lessons for national economic and innovation systems of comparable size, with a development trajectory shaped by foreign direct investment

Multiple Perspectives on the Challenges for Knowledge Transfer between Higher Education Institutions and Industry

YesKnowledge transfer (KT) has been identified as an essential element of innovation, driving competitive advantage in increasingly knowledge-driven economies and as a result recent UK Government reports have sought to increase awareness of the importance of KT within higher education institutions (HEIs). There is therefore a need for relevant empirical research that examines, from multiple perspectives, how KT policy is translated into practice within HEI contexts. This paper responds to this need by presenting an in-depth qualitative case study based on over 50 semi-structured interviews with university-based academic and non-academic participants and representatives of small firms involved in InfoLab21, a high profile `centre of excellence¿ for research, development and commercialisation of ICT in Northwest England, UK. The study considers what the key practices of KT are and what promotes and/or hinders their development. Four overarching themes are identified: i) motivation and reward mechanisms; ii) process management and evaluation; iii) clustering and brokerage; and iv) trust and bridge building. Each theme is considered from multiple perspectives and areas for further research are suggested

Knowledge transfer processes in PFI: identification of barriers and enablers

Increasingly, the UK’s Private Finance Initiative has created a demand for construction companies to transfer knowledge from one organization or project to another. Knowledge transfer processes in such contexts face many challenges, due to the many resulting discontinuities in the involvement of organisations, personnel and information flow. This paper empirically identifies the barriers and enablers that hinder or enhance the transfer of knowledge in PFI contexts, drawing upon a questionnaire survey of construction firms. The main findings show that knowledge transfer processes in PFIs are hindered by time constraints, lack of trust, and policies, procedures, rules and regulations attached to the projects. Nevertheless, the processes of knowledge transfer are enhanced by emphasising the value and importance of a supportive leadership, participation/commitment from the relevant parties, and good communication between the relevant parties. The findings have considerable relevance to understanding the mechanism of knowledge transfer between organizations, projects and individuals within the PFI contexts in overcoming the barriers and enhancing the enablers. Furthermore, practitioners and managers can use the findings to efficiently design knowledge transfer frameworks that can be used to overcome the barriers encountered while enhancing the enablers to improve knowledge transfer processes