2004
DOI: 10.1002/mde.1198
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Empirical evidence regarding the tension between knowledge sharing and knowledge expropriation in collaborations

Abstract: Interfirm collaborations can raise a fundamental dilemma. To create value, collaborators may have to adopt a variety of practices to facilitate knowledge transfer. Deploying these practices may increase the likelihood that economically valuable knowledge, which is (1) beyond the scope of the collaboration, and (2) difficult to legally protect, is expropriated. How can firms manage this dilemma? The purpose of this paper is to empirically examine the veracity of a chain of propositions addressing this dilemma b… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

5
132
0
2

Year Published

2010
2010
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 178 publications
(139 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
5
132
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Prior research has shown that companies are often unwilling to collaborate if they have ex-ante knowledge appropriation concerns. 8 These concerns are explicitly addressed by IMEC by negotiating upfront bilateral IP agreements with the ecosystem partners based on an underlying IP-model.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Prior research has shown that companies are often unwilling to collaborate if they have ex-ante knowledge appropriation concerns. 8 These concerns are explicitly addressed by IMEC by negotiating upfront bilateral IP agreements with the ecosystem partners based on an underlying IP-model.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In contrast to most existing relevant studies (e.g., Heiman and Nickerson., 2004;Kogut and Zander, 1993;Mowery et al, 1996) the estimation results lend only weak support for the significance of knowledge tacitness, with higher tacitness (as measured by noncodifiabiity, COD) favouring the choice of in-house over equity-based alliance in Model 1. Similarly, social distribution (embeddedness) of knowledge is only weakly significant for the choice between in-house and contract-based alliance in Model 1, where, broadly in line with the 'received wisdom' of relevant theoretical (Langlois and Foss, 1999) and empirical (e.g., Heiman and Nickerson, 2004) work, the more socially distributed the knowledge is the more likely in-house is to be chosen as the organization mode.…”
Section: Knowledge Tacitness and Social Distributionmentioning
confidence: 73%
“…Similarly, social distribution (embeddedness) of knowledge is only weakly significant for the choice between in-house and contract-based alliance in Model 1, where, broadly in line with the 'received wisdom' of relevant theoretical (Langlois and Foss, 1999) and empirical (e.g., Heiman and Nickerson, 2004) work, the more socially distributed the knowledge is the more likely in-house is to be chosen as the organization mode. Finally, the limitations of the measures of knowledge tacitness employed here should be noted, since both codifiability and teachability are rather indirect measures of the learning/knowledge transfer which is the essence of knowledge tacitness.…”
Section: Knowledge Tacitness and Social Distributionmentioning
confidence: 79%
See 2 more Smart Citations