AccessMyLibrary provides FREE access to over 30 million articles from top publications available through your library.
Create a link to this page
Copy and paste this link tag into your Web page or blog:
Abstract
The shift to more distributed forms of organizations and the prevalence of interorganizational relationships have led to an increase in the transfer of knowledge between parties with asymmetric and incomplete information about each other. Because of this asymmetry and incompleteness, parties seeking knowledge may not be able to identify qualified knowledge providers, and the appropriate experts may fail to be motivated to engage in knowledge transfer.
We propose a sender-receiver framework for studying knowledge transfer under asymmetric and/or incomplete information. We outline four types of information structures for knowledge transfer, and focus on the sender-advantage asymmetric information structure and the symmetric incomplete information structure. We develop formal game-theoretical models, show how information incompleteness and asymmetry may negatively influence knowledge transfer, and propose solutions to alleviate these negative impacts. Implications for knowledge transfer research and practice are also discussed.
Keywords: Knowledge transfer, knowledge management, incomplete information, asymmetric information, sender-receiver game
**********
Introduction
In recent years, the shift to more distributed forms of organizations and the prevalence of interorganizational relationships have presented new challenges to knowledge transfer (Baum and Greve 2001; Powell et al. 1996). Knowledge is increasingly transferred between geographically dispersed individuals and subsidiaries of multiunit organizations. Strategic alliances, outsourcing, and globalization imply knowledge transfer across organizational, cultural, and national boundaries. In such knowledge transfer, participants often have insufficient background information of each other and lack a shared language and common interests, which significantly limits their ability to assess and share knowledge (Carlile 2004).