Coordinating Flows of Organisational Knowledge: The Role of the Corporate University

This paper seeks to advance the understanding of the corporate university phenomenon by addressing the role that a corporate university plays in coordinating the flows of organisational knowledge. Drawing on the longitudinal in-depth case study of Severstal Corporate University, we illustrate how a corporate university contributes to dynamic knowledge management in the company by serving as a coordinator of its knowledge flows. The study provides evidence of how a corporate university — by performing three different knowledge-coordinating roles — operates as a corporate function to support evolving business strategies during different periods of organisational development. The findings suggest the following roles of a corporate university are related to the coordination of knowledge flows: knowledge-harmonising, knowledge-disseminating, and knowledge-centralising. As a result of the study, a corporate university appears as a dynamic concept with development stages that can be explained from a teleological rather than life cycle perspective. That is, a corporate university’s development is driven by its changing purpose and goals that are constructed and reconstructed according to the evolving knowledge needs of its parent company

Knowledge transfer: The case of the Norwegian technology agreements

The present article explores the impact of the Norwegian Technology agreements initiated to create technology transfer from international oil companies to domestic off-shore industries through R&D ventures. A principal-agency perspective is used for structuring the problem and for interpretation of observations. The agreements were found to initiate a variety of R&D ventures. It was observed, however, that the contractual incentive structure allowed for opportunistic behavior to be exerted by the international oil companies in their technology transfer tasks.technology transfer incentives strategic response

The incentive fallacy in cooperative arrangements: A case study

The question "Why do cooperative arrangements fail?" represents the point of departure for the research reported in this paper. Common characteristics of such arrangements and the underlying mode of governance are discussed. A specific case of failure in cooperation (joint venture) is described and analyzed by using the introduced perspective. Managerial and theoretical implications are highlighted.cooperative arrangements mode of governance incentives

The case of oil and gas companies in Norway

Applying a social constructivist approach, this paper examines the extent to which critical events in the oil and gas industry influence knowledge and knowledge transfer of corporate social responsibility (CSR). Public archive data and semi-structured interviews with key informants in the companies as well as with outside actors were applied to trace the critical events, influencing actors and consequences. Our findings reveal that types of events and influencing actors changed over the years, as has the content of CSR. Social dialogues and partnerships became tools for knowledge creation and new perspectives on “secondary” risk management as much as for tools to improve the environmental and social impact of the companies’ activities. An implication of this situation seems to be that CSR is seen as a secondary risk assignment and as a competitive advantage with a knowledge spillover risk to other companies.Norges Forskningsrå

Consequences of critical events for the social contruction of corporate social responsibility

Applying a social constructivist approach, this paper examines the extent to which critical events in the oil and gas industry influence knowledge and knowledge transfer of corporate social responsibility (CSR). Public archive data and semi-structured interviews with key informants in the companies as well as with outside actors were applied to trace the critical events, influencing actors and consequences. Our findings reveal that types of events and influencing actors changed over the years, as has the content of CSR. Social dialogues and partnerships became tools for knowledge creation and new perspectives on “secondary” risk management as much as for tools to improve the environmental and social impact of the companies’ activities. An implication of this situation seems to be that CSR is seen as a secondary risk assignment and as a competitive advantage with a knowledge spillover risk to other companies