Knowledge transfer between globally dispersed units at BMW

Abstract

Purpose -Building on the social network view and new product development perspective, the purpose of this paper is to examine how knowledge is transferred between identical, yet geographically distant units within a multinational corporation.Design/methodology/approach -An embedded case study of Bayerische Motoren Werke (BMW) examining core drivers that impact on inter-unit knowledge transfers between six events and exhibitions (E&E) units located in Europe, Asia, and Australasia.Findings -The data highlight that effective knowledge transfer between E&E units depends on a combination of key drivers, such as social network ties, absorptive capacity, learning adaptiveness, and communication channels. The findings suggest that the search for and transfer of knowledge depends foremost on the applicability of context-specific knowledge rather than its complexity.Research limitations/implications -The focus is on one specific manufacturing sector and specific drivers to knowledge transfer in this sector, limiting the generalisation of the findings. Also, the findings were drawn from a limited sample of in-depth practitioner interviews and did not integrate any outcome measures to successful knowledge transfer in their approach.Practical implications -The paper offers guidelines for firms and specifically E&E managers to observe the specificity of knowledge and how this affects its limited applicability for other identical units.Originality/value -Managers foremost need is to examine the unique context under which knowledge is acquired; only then are they in a position to decide how much knowledge transfer via different network and communication channels is needed between geographically dispersed E&E units.

Tools of Internal Communication from Knowledge Transfer Perspective

“…There are many researches conducted in the area of knowledge management and knowledge transfer/ sharing within an organization (e.g. Nesheim & Gressgard, 2014, Frank & Ribeiro, 2014, Fang, Yang & Hsu, 2013, Schleimer & Riege, 2009 as this topic is critical from many perspectives, e.g. competitiveness in the market.…”

“…Patriotta, Castellano, and Wright (2013) bring other and similar perspective: "The high-level managers recognized the benefits of knowledge transfer as a way to avoid duplication of efforts, reduce time and energy in accessing information and ready-made solutions, learn from others' best ways of doing things, and achieve global scale efficiency." There were some researches identifying the most efficient or important channel of knowledge transfer between universities and industry (Bekkers & Bodas Freitas, 2008), between countries (Marcon, 2012or Schleimer & Riege, 2009, between projects (Frank & Ribeiro, 2014) or within strategic alliances (Walter & Lechner & Kellermanns, 2007). Their findings usually stay on higher level, e.g.…”

Designing Global Sourcing Strategy for Cost Savings and Innovation: A Configurational Approach

“…While several aspects of distance have been extensively discussed in the international business literature, geographical and cultural distance are the two main dimensions of distance shown to play a major role in international business activities. Geographical distance (also called physical distance or spatial distance) is shown to have a significant effect on MNC's strategic decisions including cross-border joint venture (Zaheer and Hernandez 2011) and globally dispersed units (Schleimer and Riege 2009). The research found that geographical distance among globally dispersed activities results in difficulties in coordination and communication between teams and, hence, creates a barrier in the transfer of knowledge and innovation across teams ( Ambos and Ambos 2009;Chen and Lin 2018;Hansen et al 1999).…”

Bridging gaps to promote networked care between teams and groups in health delivery systems: a systematic review of non-health literature

“…All in all, a moderate level of spacing between teams and groups in complex social systems seems optimal in promoting interaction. 80 81 Too many gaps or too wide the spacings between groups can indicate disunity or disintegration, which makes it hard to enhance linkages. Too few gaps, and narrowness increases the risk of poorly formed localised identities or the system being overconstrained, with no breathing space between the team or group.…”