On the Combinatory Nature of Knowledge Transfer Conditions: A Mixed Method Assessment

Abstract

Organisations are increasingly creating inter-organisational ecosystem partnerships to innovate openly. Despite effective knowledge management significantly supporting ecosystem infrastructures, empirical insights into the importance of and interdependencies between conditions for successful knowledge exchange across ecosystem contexts remain unexplored within existing literature. This study implements a mixed-method approach to ascertain which conditions are responsible for knowledge transfer success across innovation ecosystems. Interpretive Structural Modelling was employed to analyse questionnaires with key ecosystem stakeholders, in order to impose a hierarchical structure upon the conditions. The configurational nature of these conditions, and their combinations into solutions for success was ascertained through analysing semi-structured interviews using fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis. Results reveal multiple, mutually exclusive pathways to knowledge transfer success, grouped into three solution types, increasing understanding of the interrelated nature of the knowledge transfer conditions. Limitations and implications for future research are provided.

Multi-homing in B2B services: a psychological perspective

“…the factors identified in the qualitative study) and multi-homing behavior. Thus, a mixed-methods approach (beginning with a qualitative approach and concluding with a quantitative study) becomes particularly advantageous when the theoretical work is inconclusive, fragmented, or ambiguous (Bacon et al , 2021). In comparison to a single-method study, this design produces comprehensive findings and provides a significantly greater understanding of the fundamental theoretical research issue at hand (Geiger and Hüffmeier, 2020).…”

Implications of Computational Thinking Knowledge Transfer for Developing Educational Interventions

“…The typification of the forms of KT is still under debate; however, contemporary perspectives are based on the basis that their structure offers coincident or similar elements, in the sense that, in a traditional way, they are based on identifying specific stimuli, characteristics of the context, domain of knowledge, and psychological tasks (Bacon et al, 2021). Taking this as a reference, the main taxonomies in relation to KT are grouped into four:…”

The Role of Mobile Money Innovations in the Effect of Inequality on Poverty and Severity of Poverty in Sub-Saharan Africa

“…Second, on the scholarly front, the extant literature on nexuses between financial inclusion, mobile banking, poverty and inequality has focused on inter alia: (i) the nexus between financial inclusion and inclusive development (Carrado & Carrado, 2017;Meniago & Asongu, 2018;Pal et al, 2020;Qasim & Abu-Shanab, 2016;Sarma & Pais, 2011);(ii) the linkage between information technology and inclusive development Asongu & Odhiambo, 2019);(iii) the connection between financial access and information technology (Bongomin et al, 2018;Gosavi, 2018;Peruta, 2017); (iv) nexuses underlying financial access, information technology and inclusive development (Abor et al, 2018;Yousefi, 2011); (v) linkages between information technology, financial inclusion, inequality and poverty (Adams & Akobeng, 2021;Asongu et al, 2021b;Ekeocha & Iheonu, 2021) and (vi) digital transformation for sustainable societies in the twenty-first century (Bacon et al, 2023;David-West et al, 2021;Dhar & Bose, 2023;Margherita & Braccini, 2023;Pappas et al, 2023;Vassilakopoulou & Hustad, 2023;Vimalkumar et al, 2021). The attendant five strands are expanded in the same chronology as highlighted in Section 2.1.…”