Knowledge transfer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Knowledge transfer icon from The Noun Project.

Knowledge transfer refers to sharing or disseminating of knowledge and providing inputs to problem solving.[1] In organizational theory, knowledge transfer is the practical problem of transferring knowledge from one part of the organization to another. Like knowledge management, knowledge transfer seeks to organize, create, capture or distribute knowledge and ensure its availability for future users. It is considered to be more than just a communication problem. If it were merely that, then a memorandum, an e-mail or a meeting would accomplish the knowledge transfer. Knowledge transfer is more complex because:

  • knowledge resides in organizational members, tools, tasks, and their subnetworks[2] and
  • much knowledge in organizations is tacit or hard to articulate.[3]

The subject has been taken up under the title of knowledge management since the 1990s. The term has also been applied to the transfer of knowledge at the international level.[4][5]

In business, knowledge transfer now has become a common topic in mergers and acquisitions. It focuses on transferring technological platform, market experience, managerial expertise, corporate culture, and other intellectual capital that can improve the companies' competence.[6] Since technical skills and knowledge are very important assets for firms' competence in the global competition,[7] unsuccessful knowledge transfer can have a negative impact on corporations and lead to the expensive and time-consuming M&A not creating values to the firms.[8]


Argote & Ingram (2000) define knowledge transfer as "the process through which one unit (e.g., group, department, or division) is affected by the experience of another"[2] (p. 151). They further point out the transfer of organizational knowledge (i.e., routine or best practices) can be observed through changes in the knowledge or performance of recipient units. The transfer of organizational knowledge, such as best practices, can be quite difficult to achieve.

Szulanski's doctoral dissertation ("Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm") proposed that knowledge transfer within a firm is inhibited by factors other than a lack of incentive. How well knowledge about best practices remains broadly accessible within a firm depends upon the nature of that knowledge, from where (or whom) it comes, who gets it, and the organizational context within which any transfer occurs. "Stickiness" is a metaphor that comes from the difficulty of circulating fluid around an oil refinery (including effects of the fluid's native viscosity). It is worth noting that his analysis does not apply to scientific theories, where a different set of dynamics and rewards apply.[9]

Three related concepts are "knowledge utilization", "research utilization" and "implementation", which are used in the health sciences to describe the process of bringing a new idea, practice or technology into consistent and appropriate use in a clinical setting.[10] The study of knowledge utilization/implementation (KU/I) is a direct outgrowth of the movement toward evidence-based medicine and research concluding that health care practices with demonstrated efficacy are not consistently used in practice settings.

Knowledge transfer within organisations and between nations also raises ethical considerations particularly where there is an imbalance in power relationships (e.g. employer and employee) or in the levels of relative need for knowledge resources (such as developed and developing worlds).[11]

Knowledge transfer includes, but encompasses more than, technology transfer.

Knowledge transfer mechanisms[edit]

Two kinds of knowledge transfer mechanisms have been noticed in practice: Personalization and Codification.[12] Personalization refers to the one-to-one transfer of [knowledge] between two entities in person. A very good example of this is the act of teaching a person how to ride a bicycle. On the other hand, codification refers to the act of converting knowledge into knowledge artifacts such as documents, images and videos that are consumed by the knowledge recipients asynchronously.

Personalized knowledge transfer results in better assimilation of knowledge by the recipient when knowledge tacitness is higher and/or when information content in a knowledge object is high.[13] On the other hand, codification is driven by the need to transfer knowledge to large number of people and results in better knowledge reuse. Entropy of the knowledge objects can provide a measure of their information content or tacitness.

Between public and private domains[edit]

With the move of advanced economies from a resource-based to a knowledge-based production,[14] many national governments have increasingly recognized "knowledge" and "innovation" as significant driving forces of economic growth, social development, and job creation. In this context the promotion of 'knowledge transfer' has increasingly become a subject of public and economic policy. However, the long list of changing global, national and regional government programmes indicates the tension between the need to conduct 'free' research – that is motivated by interest and by private sector 'short term' objectives - and research for public interests and general common good.[15]

The underlying assumption that there is a potential for increased collaboration between industry and universities is also underlined in much of the current innovation literature. In particular the Open Innovation approach to developing business value is explicitly based on an assumption that Universities are a "vital source for accessing external ideas". Moreover, Universities have been deemed to be "the great, largely unknown, and certainly underexploited, resource contributing to the creation of wealth and economic competitiveness."[16]

Universities and other public sector research organisations (PSROs) have accumulated much practical experience over the years in the transfer of knowledge across the divide between the domains of publicly produced knowledge and the private exploitation of it. Many colleges and PSROs have developed processes and policies to discover, protect and exploit intellectual property (IP) rights, and to ensure that IP is successfully transferred to private corporations, or vested in new companies formed for the purposes of exploitation. Routes to commercialization of IP produced by PSROs and colleges include licensing, joint venture, new company formation and royalty-based assignments.

Organisations such as AUTM in the US, the Institute of Knowledge Transfer in the UK, SNITTS in Sweden and the Association of European Science and Technology Transfer Professionals in Europe have provided a conduit for knowledge transfer professionals across the public and private sectors to identify best practice and develop effective tools and techniques for the management of PSRO/college produced IP. On-line Communities of Practice for knowledge transfer practitioners are also emerging to facilitate connectivity (such as The Global Innovation Network and the knowledge Pool).

Business-University Collaboration was the subject of the Lambert Review in the UK in 2003.

Neuro-education seeks to improve quality of didactic methods and reduce the so called research practice gap.[17]

In the knowledge economy[edit]

In the knowledge-based economy, learning becomes extremely important in determining the fate of individuals, firms and national economies.[1]

Knowledge transfer can also be achieved through investment programme, both intentionally and unintentionally in the form of skills, technology, and ‘tacit knowledge’ including management and organisational practices. For example, foreign investment in African countries have shown to provide some knowledge transfer.[18]

In landscape ecology[edit]

By knowledge transfer in landscape ecology, means a group of activities that increase the understanding of landscape ecology with the goal of encouraging application of this knowledge. Five factors will influence knowledge transfer from the view of forest landscape ecology: the generation of research capacity, the potential for application, the users of the knowledge, the infrastructure capacity, and the process by which knowledge is transferred (Turner, 2006).

Types of knowledge[edit]

Knowledge is a dominant feature in our post-industrial society, and knowledge workers are important in many enterprises. Blackler[19] expands on a categorization of knowledge types that were suggested by Collins (1993):

  • Embrained knowledge is that which is dependent on conceptual skills and cognitive abilities. We could consider this to be practical, high-level knowledge, where objectives are met through perpetual recognition and revamping. Tacit knowledge may also be embrained, even though it is mainly subconscious.
  • Embodied knowledge is action oriented and consists of contextual practices. It is more of a social acquisition, as how individuals interact in and interpret their environment creates this non-explicit type of knowledge.
  • Encultured knowledge is the process of achieving shared understandings through socialization and acculturation. Language and negotiation become the discourse of this type of knowledge in an enterprise.
  • Embedded knowledge is tacit and resides within systematic routines. It relates to the relationships between roles, technologies, formal procedures and emergent routines within a complex system. In order to initiate any specific line of business knowledge transition helps a lot.
  • Encoded knowledge is information that is conveyed in signs and symbols (books, manuals, data bases, etc.) and decontextualized into codes of practice. Rather than being a specific type of knowledge, it deals more with the transmission, storage and interrogation of knowledge.

Knowledge transfer platforms[edit]

A recent trend is the development of online platforms aiming to optimize knowledge transfer and collaboration.[20][21][22] For instance, the implementation of discussion forums for enabling meaningful conversation, knowledge acquisition and peer engagement could pave the way for a knowledge‐sharing culture as opposed to a knowledge‐hoarding culture.[23]


What complicates knowledge transfer? There are many factors, including:

  • The inability to recognize & articulate "compiled" or highly intuitive competencies - tacit knowledge idea[3]
  • Different views on explicitness of knowledge [24]
  • Geography or distance[25]
  • Limitations of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs)[26]
  • Lack of a shared/superordinate social identity[27]
  • Language
  • Areas of expertise
  • Internal conflicts (for example, professional territoriality)
  • Generational differences
  • Union-management relations
  • Incentives
  • Problems with sharing beliefs, assumptions, heuristics and cultural norms.
  • The use of visual representations to transfer knowledge (Knowledge visualization)
  • Previous exposure or experience with something
  • Misconceptions
  • Faulty information
  • Organizational culture non-conducive to knowledge sharing (the "Knowledge is power" culture)
  • Motivational issues, such as resistance to change and power struggles [28]
  • Lack of trust
  • Capabilities of the receptor to interpret and absorb knowledge [28]
  • Context of the knowledge (tacit, context-specific knowledge) [28]

Everett Rogers pioneered diffusion of innovations theory, presenting a research-based model for how and why individuals and social networks adopt new ideas, practices and products. In anthropology, the concept of diffusion also explores the spread of ideas among cultures.


  • Identifying the knowledge holders within the organization
  • Motivating them to share
  • Designing a sharing mechanism to facilitate the transfer
  • Executing the transfer plan
  • Measuring to ensure the transfer
  • Applying the knowledge transferred
  • Monitoring and evaluating


Incorrect usage[edit]

Knowledge transfer is often used as a synonym for training. Furthermore, information should not be confused with knowledge, nor is it, strictly speaking, possible to "transfer" experiential knowledge to other people.[29] Information might be thought of as facts or understood data; however, knowledge has to do with flexible and adaptable skills—a person's unique ability to wield and apply information. This fluency of application is in part what differentiates information from knowledge. Knowledge tends to be both tacit and personal; the knowledge one person has is difficult to quantify, store, and retrieve for someone else to use.

Knowledge transfer (KT) and knowledge sharing (KS) are sometimes used interchangeably or are considered to share common features. Since some KM researchers assume that these two concepts are rather similar and have overlapping content, there is often confusion, especially among researchers and practitioners, about what a certain concept means. For this reason, terms such as KM and KT get used incorrectly without any respect to their real meaning and these meanings can change from paper to paper.[30]

See also[edit]


  2. ^ a b Argote, L.; Ingram, P. (2000). "Knowledge transfer: A Basis for Competitive Advantage in Firms". Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 82 (1): 150–169. doi:10.1006/obhd.2000.2893. S2CID 7893124.
  3. ^ a b Nonaka, I.; Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge-Creating Company. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  4. ^ "Languages create barrier in scientific knowledge transfer - The Economic Times". The Economic Times. 2016-12-30. Retrieved 29 January 2017.
  5. ^ "INTERNATIONAL KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER - Investigations of European Practices" (PDF). Retrieved 29 January 2017.
  6. ^ Fong Boh, Wai; Nguyen, T.T.; Xu, Yun (2013-02-15). "Knowledge transfer across dissimilar cultures". Journal of Knowledge Management. 17 (1): 29–46. CiteSeerX doi:10.1108/13673271311300723. ISSN 1367-3270.
  7. ^ Calipha, Rachel; Brock, David M.; Rosenfeld, Ahron; Dvir, Dov (2018-08-20). "Acquired, transferred and integrated knowledge: a study of M&A knowledge performance". Journal of Strategy and Management. 11 (3): 282–305. doi:10.1108/jsma-07-2017-0049. ISSN 1755-425X.
  8. ^ Ng, Artie W.; Chatzkel, Jay; Lau, K.F.; Macbeth, Douglas (2012-07-20). "Dynamics of Chinese emerging multinationals in cross‐border mergers and acquisitions". Journal of Intellectual Capital. 13 (3): 416–438. doi:10.1108/14691931211248963. ISSN 1469-1930.
  9. ^ Szulanski, Gabriel (1996). "Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm". Strategic Management Journal. 17: 27–43. doi:10.1002/smj.4250171105.
  10. ^ Greenhalgh, T.; Robert, G.; Macfarlane, F.; Bate, P.; Kyriakidou, O. (2004). "Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: Systematic review and recommendations". Milbank Quarterly. 82 (4): 581–629. doi:10.1111/j.0887-378x.2004.00325.x. PMC 2690184. PMID 15595944.
  11. ^ Harman, C.; Brelade, S. (2003). "Doing the Right Thing in a Knowledge Transfer". Knowledge Management Review. 6 (1): 28–31.
  12. ^ Hansen, T.N; Nohria, N; Tierney, T (1999). What's your strategy for managing knowledge?. Harvard Business Review. 77. pp. 106–116. ISBN 9781136005459. PMID 10387767.
  13. ^ Sudhindra, S; Ganesh, L.S; Arshinder, Kaur (2017). "Knowledge transfer: An information theory perspective". Knowledge Management Research and Practice. 15 (3): 400–412. doi:10.1057/s41275-017-0060-z. S2CID 64734624.
  14. ^ OECD (1999), Managing national innovation systems, OECD publications service, Paris
  15. ^ H.Rubin, Tzameret (2014). "The Achilles Heel of a Strong Private Knowledge Sector: Evidence from Israel" (PDF). The Journal of Innovation Impact. 7: 88–99.
  16. ^ Holland, G. (1999). "Foreword". In Gray, H.; The Society for Research into Higher Education (eds.). University and the creation of wealth. Open University Press.
  17. ^ "The research-practice gap". ACM Interactions. Association for Computing Machinery - Advancing Computing as a Science & Profession.
  18. ^ Calabrese, Linda. "Chinese investment and knowledge transfer in Africa". DEGRP.
  19. ^ Blackler, F. (1995). "Knowledge, Knowledge Work and Organizations: An Overview and Interpretation". Organization Studies. 16 (6): 1021–1046. doi:10.1177/017084069501600605. S2CID 51477297.
  20. ^ Schmidt, Danilo Marcello; Böttcher, Lena; Wilberg, Julian; Kammerl, Daniel; Lindemann, Udo (2016-01-01). "Modeling Transfer of Knowledge in an Online Platform of a Cluster". Procedia CIRP. 26th CIRP Design Conference. 50: 348–353. doi:10.1016/j.procir.2016.05.036. ISSN 2212-8271.
  21. ^ Birkenmeier, Beat; Ulmer, Dominik (August 2002). Development of a central Knowledge Transfer Platform in a highly decentralised environment. euroCRIS. ISBN 9783933146847.
  22. ^ nczyzcpa (2013-09-29). "Lodz Knowledge Transfer Platform". Retrieved 2019-05-25.
  23. ^ Castro, Vincent Bicudo de; Sridharan, Bhavani; Watty, Kim; Safari, Maryam. "The impact of learner engagement on performance outcomes: a longitudinal study in accounting education". Accounting & Finance. n/a (n/a). doi:10.1111/acfi.12640. ISSN 1467-629X.
  24. ^ Dubickis, M.; Gaile-Sarkane, E. (2017). Tacit vs Explicit Knowledge Dichotomy: State-of-the-Art Review for Technology Transfer Purposes. Financial Environment and Business Development. Eurasian Studies in Business and Economics. 4. pp. 423–433. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-39919-5_31. ISBN 978-3-319-39918-8.
  25. ^ Galbraith, C. S. (1990). "Transferring core manufacturing technologies in high-technology firms". California Management Review. 32 (4): 56–70. doi:10.2307/41166628. JSTOR 41166628. S2CID 154524848.
  26. ^ Roberts, Joanne (2000). "From Know-how to Show-how: Questioning the Role of Information and Communication Technologies in Knowledge Transfer". Technology Analysis & Strategic Management. 12 (4): 429–443. doi:10.1080/713698499. S2CID 154715927.
  27. ^ Kane, A. A.; Argote, L.; Levine, J. (2005). "Knowledge transfer between groups via personnel rotation: Effects of social identity and knowledge quality". Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 96 (1): 56–71. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2004.09.002.
  28. ^ a b c Nieves, Julia; Osorio, Javier (2013). "The role of social networks in knowledge creation". Knowledge Management Research & Practice. 11 (1): 62–77. doi:10.1057/kmrp.2012.28. ISSN 1477-8238. S2CID 62595085.
  29. ^ Stake, Robert E. (2005). "Qualitative Case Studies". In Denzin, Norman K.; Lincoln Yvonna S. (eds.). The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage. p. 456.
  30. ^ Tangaraja, G., Mohd Rasdi, R., Abu Samah, B. & Ismail, M. (20 April 2016). "Knowledge sharing is knowledge transfer: a misconception in the literature" (PDF). Journal of Knowledge Management. 20 (4): 653–670. doi:10.1108/jkm-11-2015-0427. ProQuest 1826809483.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Further reading[edit]

External links[edit]