If you need an accessible version of this item please contact JSTOR User Support

An Empirical Investigation of the Process of Knowledge Transfer in International Strategic Alliances

Bernard L. Simonin
Journal of International Business Studies
Vol. 35, No. 5 (Sep., 2004), pp. 407-427
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3875202
Page Count: 21
  • Download PDF
  • Cite this Item

You are not currently logged in.

Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:

login

Log in to your personal account or through your institution.

If you need an accessible version of this item please contact JSTOR User Support
An Empirical Investigation of the Process of Knowledge Transfer in International Strategic Alliances
Preview not available

Abstract

This research proposes and tests a basic model of organizational learning that captures the process of knowledge transfer in international strategic alliances. Based on a cross-sectional sample of 147 multinationals and a structural equation methodology, this study empirically investigates the simultaneous effects of learning intent, learning capacity (LC), knowledge ambiguity, and its two key antecedents - tacitness and partner protectiveness - on technological knowledge transfer. In the interest of expanding our understanding of the organizational mechanisms that both hinder and facilitate learning, the concept of LC is refined into three distinct components: resource-, incentive-, and cognitive-based LC. Further, the strength of the relationships between these theoretical constructs and knowledge transfer is examined in light of the possible moderating effects of organizational culture, firm size, and the form and competitive regime of the alliance. Consistently, learning intent (as a driver) and knowledge ambiguity (as an impediment) emerge as the most significant determinants of knowledge transfer. Moreover, the effects of partner protectiveness and LC on the learning outcome are moderated by the firm's own culture towards learning, the size of the firm, the structural form of the alliance, and the fact that partners may or may not be competitors.

Page Thumbnails

  • Thumbnail: Page 
[407]
    [407]
  • Thumbnail: Page 
408
    408
  • Thumbnail: Page 
409
    409
  • Thumbnail: Page 
410
    410
  • Thumbnail: Page 
411
    411
  • Thumbnail: Page 
412
    412
  • Thumbnail: Page 
413
    413
  • Thumbnail: Page 
414
    414
  • Thumbnail: Page 
415
    415
  • Thumbnail: Page 
416
    416
  • Thumbnail: Page 
417
    417
  • Thumbnail: Page 
418
    418
  • Thumbnail: Page 
419
    419
  • Thumbnail: Page 
420
    420
  • Thumbnail: Page 
421
    421
  • Thumbnail: Page 
422
    422
  • Thumbnail: Page 
423
    423
  • Thumbnail: Page 
424
    424
  • Thumbnail: Page 
425
    425
  • Thumbnail: Page 
426
    426
  • Thumbnail: Page 
427
    427