International Businesses And Knowledge Transfer - Essay Example

International Businesses Introduction: Going international has been a very old trend in trade, which has been embraced by millions of businesses throughout the world for various reasons. The current trend of internationalization extends beyond business purposes, and an inclination towards transactional, transformational, and knowledge transfer patterns are rampantly embraced. In relation to this trend, Minbaeva et al., (2004, p.587) quoted, “Multinational corporations are no longer seen as repositories of their national imprint but rather as instruments whereby knowledge is transferred across subsidiaries, contributing to knowledge development.” Focusing on this construct, the current discourse will be developed using theory and literature relevant to internationalization while focusing on the main factors driving or contributing to knowledge transfer and development as well as highlight factors, if any, that inhibit this process. An overall conclusion will be drawn based on the findings from the entire study before reflecting on the entire learning and relating the same to practical experiences wherever feasible. Etemad (2013) stressed that literature points at numerous reasons why businesses decide to explore international opportunities that could be related to internal and/or external factors. Internal factors are usually related to organisational factors such as organisational goals and objectives; and external factors are related to the environmental drivers such as competition in host countries, huge business potential in international locations/markets, changing workforce demographics and economic situations etc. Based on these factors, organisations adopt different approaches to establish their businesses in international spheres. Based on these approaches, various theories have been formulated to explain the nature and reasons of internationalization of firms, some of which include Vernon’s (1966) life-cycle theory, Johanson and Vahlne’s (1977) Process theories, Bilkey and Tsar’s (1977) innovation-diffusion theories, the internalization theories (Buckley & Cason, 1976) and the Eclectic paradigm of multinationals by Dunning (1988); the latest additions include two models: AAA-framework by Ghemawat (2007) and gateway-hub model by Prahalad and Bhattacharyya (2008). Knowledge transfer is a part of knowledge management process, which has been comprehensively explained by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1994), and this forms the foundation of all knowledge-related studies in organisations. Dalkir (2005) pointed at knowledge creation and diffusion as the two most important factors that drive knowledge management. While the concept of ‘knowledge’ is very old and highly philosophised, the first scholar to put this into organisational context was Drucker (1988). Knowledge transfer is the most important part of knowledge management and the knowledge evolution cycle, which comprises of five core activities: knowledge creation, knowledge acquisition or capturing, knowledge transformation or organising, knowledge deployment or transferring, and knowledge application (Rus and Lindvall, 2002). Prahalad and Hamel (1990) emphasized the need for knowledge management to improve employees’ skills and performance as well as bring innovation and growth in business. The most important subset of knowledge management in multinational companies (MNC) is the process of knowledge transfer. Irrespective of the mode of entry into international markets, parent company and its subsidiaries as well as alliance partners depend upon the complementary capabilities of each other to establish and sustain their businesses. Overall, internationalization strategies have led businesses to evolve from mere production and profits to a more complex knowledge-and-expertise-dependent activity. Whatever be the motives of internationalization and modes of entry, knowledge transfer is seen as the eventual outcome in MNCs. In fact, Minbaeva et al., (2003) highlighted Kogut and Zander’s (1993) point that MNCs’ ability to transfer knowledge more effectively and efficiently is the key factor for their existence. Again, factors driving knowledge transfer in MNCs can be associated with their modes of entry to large extent. For instance, entry of businesses in international markets through franchising, management contract, joint venture, subsidiaries, strategic alliances, and mergers and acquisitions require knowledge transfer in order to succeed and sustain. Considering Zimmermann and Kattuman’s (2007) study that highlighted the need for knowledge in organisations concludes that dynamic resource capabilities, such as skills, knowledge and technology are the factors considered by organisations before deciding to explore international markets for their businesses. Though firms recognize their limitation in terms of resource capabilities, they also strive to establish strong knowledge management systems to create effective resource capabilities, and thus bridge the gap. Minbaeva et al., (2003) focussed on subsidiary absorptive capacity, which depends upon the ability to recognize, assimilate and implement knowledge as well as the motivation to do so; they also added that the interaction of these elements determines the success of knowledge reception and implementation. Their hypotheses conform to, or rather, are based on Szulanski’s (1996) factors that inhibit knowledge transfer: motivational and knowledge-related factors. Inhibition of knowledge transfer because of knowledge-related factors is usually due to difficulty in transferring the tacit or hidden knowledge that might be contextual and vague and do not have proper media for effective transfer. Motivational factors could be due to lack of time and resources necessary for the transfer (Minbaeva et al., 2003). In order to understand knowledge management better, it is important to know that knowledge is of two types, as explained by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995): explicit and tacit. While explicit knowledge refers to formal data, information, rules procedures etc which can be transferred through documentation, systems, technologies and processes, tacit knowledge refers to knowledge acquired and possessed by individuals through experience and learning. Practical experience and theory indicate that explicit knowledge is simpler to be transferred compared to tacit knowledge. In both cases, recipients’ motivation, commitment and learning capabilities are also important for efficient transfer; moreover, resources such as technology, communication media and processes also have an impact on knowledge management. Skyme and Amidon (1997) identified five critical factors for knowledge management: strong reason; a compelling vision; knowledge leadership; knowledge culture; continuous learning; technology infrastructure; and systematic knowledge processes (Wong & Aspinwall, 2005). To this list, Wong and Aspinwall (2005) added human resource management, motivational aids, measurement, and resources as other critical factors in knowledge management. The life-cycle theory propounded by Vernon (1966), which explains reasons for international trade in two parts: the reasons for trade are highlighted followed by reasons for investment. In general, this theory posits that companies begin by exporting their products and eventually adopt foreign direct investment (FDI) emphasizing on information, uncertainty and economies of scale. The life-cycle theory identifies three stages of a product: new, maturing, and standardisation (Jones & Wren, 2012). The new-product stage involves introduction of new product into the market, which is eventually accepted by consumers; based on the demand, production is increased and market for this standardized product is established in international arena. Increased production would increase costs related to the production process, which drives manufacturers to look for various activities that can lower these costs; these activities include overseas production with low labour and/or raw material costs, which marks the internationalization intentions of the firm. However, this theory does not consider other external factors such as environmental, political and resource aspects that also influence internationalization decisions. Setting up international manufacturing processes requires knowledge transfer from the parent company. Here, Minbaeva et al.,’s (2003) factors, subsidiary motivation and absorptive capability surface as important factors in receiving and transferring knowledge. However, the power of knowledge gained by subsidiaries could threaten the parent company’s business through employee turnover, competitors, labour union conflicts etc. Employee motivation and commitment towards knowledge transfer, acquisition and implementation are yet other important factors that drive efficient production and business. The Eclectic paradigm proposed by Dunning (1988) stresses upon FDI and international manufacturing, including aspects related to advantages of ownership, international markets and location. Grosse (2003; p.55) named this theory as the ‘kitchen sink theory,’ which provides a comprehensive explanation of internationalization decisions through the OLI-framework. Ownership (O) advantages include ownership of property and assets as well as intangible assets such as innovation, organisational capacity, knowledge and experience. Advantages of common governance such as return on investment in the new firm in terms of economies of scale, market capture, natural and human resources etc. Secondly, these firms have Location (L) advantage like protection against local market failure; avoid activities requiring negotiations, government interventions, or any other form of liaisons. These firms themselves decide pricing and quality of products and other critical aspects, which constitutes the Internalization (I) advantage. Location advantages that these firms seek include lower labour/resource and their related costs. However, this theory does not explain about initial high costs incurred by companies to set up their production units in target markets, which can otherwise be accomplished through licensing, export subsidiaries. Dunning’s (1988) approach explains that it is only FDI mode of entry that has Ownership, Internalization and Location advantages unlike Export that does not have location advantage and licensing that does not have internalization as well as location advantages. From the OLI perspective, as seen in an international joint venture partnership with a parent company in host country through inward FDI, the parent company’s intangible assets such as experience, knowledge, research and development in addition to location advantages of the parent company will be required for the joint venture to succeed (Nakamura, A & Nakamura, M, 2004). Motivation and commitment of parent company will decide the effectiveness of knowledge transfer. However, Rugman (2010) explained that the discussion on location advantages and choice of entry mode is very complex. Along with ownership advantages of natural resources and property, the FDI mode provides ownership and control of knowledge possessed by human resources of the local areas in foreign locations, which is also a key consideration for parent companies to invest in FDI. However, this knowledge advantage can be threatened by rivals in this foreign location. Internalization approach proposed by Buckley and Casson (1976, 2009) is based on two main ideologies: profit maximisation and protection against market imperfections. These basic foundations help organisations to increase their involvement in international markets while sustaining profits and growth. Organisations prefer to internalize their core attributes and advantages due to less reliable intermediate product markets, which include knowledge, expertise, brand value and resources. Due to these differences, companies find it difficult to determine the actual costs, which will incur greater transaction costs due to middlemen. However, firms take this approach to retain administrative control in international markets. Many MNCs adopt this approach, especially, to set up their businesses in the less developed countries through FDI, licensing, joint-ventures or even strategic alliances with specific rules of control, all of which require potential diffusion of knowledge (Rugman, 2010). For example, many technology-based firms from the developed markets such as the US and Europe have set up their training centres in emerging Asian and African countries to impart technical knowledge and training while utilizing the latter’s low-cost labour and property (Li, 2007). From an organisational behaviour perspective, internalization within MNCs is achieved through organisational learning and knowledge management, from a resource-based view perspective (Szulanski, 1996). Internalization creates resources with strong knowledge and expertise that are under the stronghold of management. However, effective internalization can be achieved only through efficient management systems, organisational culture and effective leadership. Knowledge transfer in subsidiaries can be achieved through efficient communication channels; organisational structure and environment that are conducive to learning; and leadership that can effectively identify learning opportunities and motivate the staff to learn and implement. Retention of control by the management would mean organisational systems, policies and procedures are adopted from the parent company, which usually creates conflicts in people management and provides lesser empowerment (Szulanski, 1996); such strong control usually leads to lower productivity and commitment as well as lack of innovation. Process theory, proposed by Johanson and Wiedersheim-Paul (1975) and later extended by Johanson and Vahlne (1977), explains that internationalization of firms is a gradual process that is aimed at continuous improvisation withholding complete control and also knowledge of foreign markets thereby getting accustomed to foreign cultures, trading patterns, customer needs and behaviours etc. this entire process of setting up international production is a step-wise process, moving up from low-risk and low-commitment to setting up international sales and manufacturing processes. The key focus of process theory is on experiential knowledge and application in the foreign market. This theory is based on four constructs: increasing value of resources with least risk factors; increased market knowledge; experiential learning; and learning that leads to efficiency. These activities are time-bound and so is the internationalization process (Pauwels, Lommelen & Matthyssens, 2004). Extending their explanation, Vahlne and Nordstrom (1993) highlight that the reasons driving organisations to expand internationally continue to change and become more complex with advancing technologies and impact of globalization as well as with changing economies of scale. The process theories address issues that are not included in the Eclectic paradigm and internalization approach, such as cultural aspects, trading patterns, customer needs and behaviours, all of which require efficient knowledge transfer and learning for both parent company and its subsidiaries. Organisation-level factors such as culture and structure, and HR policies and procedures can promote or impede knowledge transfer in subsidiaries. For instance, subsidiaries that employ these factors in accordance with local and national preferences instead of parent company procedures will be more successful in knowledge transfer and employee commitment towards knowledge acquisition and execution (Wang & Noe, 2010). Unlike internalization approach, which entails complete control to parent company, the process approach enables subsidiaries to adapt to and adopt national and local preferences while retaining the goals and objectives of parent company. Considering the process theory of internationalization, which involves acquisition, integration and utilization of knowledge in international operation in incremental steps, knowledge thus gained facilitates various decision-making processes. Dobrai et al., (2012) emphasize that expatriate managers would require high cultural awareness and should be able to identify similarities and differences in attitudes and values of employees in order to harness tacit knowledge. The critical players of knowledge transfer Bartlett and Ghoshal (1989) asserted that organisation and structure of international organisations determine effectiveness of knowledge transfer to a large extent (Minbaeva et al., 2003). The diffusion of innovations model propounded by Roger (1962) explains that internationalization is regarded as innovation by organisations that want to try to establish in new markets, which Bilkey and Tesar (1977) regarded as a sequence of innovative processes and are driven by push or pull forces. However, different propositions related to this concept exist in literature. This model seems to reinforce the fact that organisations tend to continuously learn and evolve. Also, such evolution strongly depends upon the attitudes, experiences, inclination and objectives of management teams that are involved in internationalization process. Moreover, the knowledge and experience of executive personnel push the enterprise into international markets, a step perceived as innovation by these personnel. However, Szulanksi (1996) argued that knowledge transfer also largely depends upon the characteristics of everyone involved. In addition, the firm’s ability to extract, combine and transfer this knowledge is also equally important for effective diffusion. Organisations have adopted strategic alliance mode by developing technology and new product but with little success. The reasons are attributed to pace of technological changes, which is negatively affecting diffusion rates; also, potential adopters do not favour technology that becomes outdated very soon. Hence, researchers on innovation-diffusion models emphasize the need for increased innovativeness besides strong relationship between the alliance partners (Kotabe & Swan, 1995; Minbaeva, 2005). Again, effectiveness of diffusion largely depends upon management culture that supports and encourage innovation at individual level, knowledge systems, and motivation and commitment of individuals at both ends (Wasko & Teigland, 2009). Zimmermann and Kattumann (2007) stressed that some studies in the past highlighted the fact that resource and capability constraints restricted firms from going international; however, not much attention was provided towards this aspect in international business studies. Initially, it was emphasized that firms adopt strategies towards betterment of business based on external driving factors such as customers’ needs and competitors’ activities; however, such approach would require continuous monitoring of external environment and also adapt its internal resources to these external factors. On the contrary, resource-based approach, advocated intensely by Barney (1997), focuses on internal environment, specifically resources, which can be beneficial in changing the industry by utilizing their unique strengths and bringing tremendous innovation. Here, firms focus on acquiring the best talent and assets, and developing unique capabilities that are hard to imitate by rivals. These resources include tangible ones such as capital resources, infrastructure and facilities, locations, technology, control systems; and intangible resources such as human capital, leadership and management skills, procedures and practices, skills and innovation, brand image, and relationship with stakeholders. Such an approach, represented by the VRIO framework: Value, Rare, Inimitable, and Organisation, will not only sustain in changing environment and needs but also induce change itself (Frynas & Mellahi, 2011). Prahalad and Hamel (1990) added the component of core competencies focusing on specific attributes that provide competitive advantage to the firm; these include technologies and individual skills. Such core competencies facilitate wider market access; add value to end products and customer satisfaction; and should be difficult to imitate. From employee motivation perspective, knowledge transfer and execution largely depend upon individuals’ attitudes and behaviours, which are again dependent upon age, gender, education, job role. Individuals’ values towards knowledge and learning are also a critical factor in knowledge transfer (Martins, E.C and Martins, N, 2002). The latest paradigm in internationalization is the AAA framework put forth by Ghemawat (2007), which explains that companies seeking to harness the advantages of international locations should adopt any one or more of three strategies: Adaptation, Aggregation and Arbitrage. Most companies adopt these strategies singly or in combination at different stages depending upon their business objectives. Ghemawat (2007) quotes the example of IBM, which spread throughout the world doing its business in all locations by adapting to the local differences; secondly, IBM created clusters of regions to foster coordination; and its spread was strategically directed to exploit advantages of location in terms of wages, skills, and markets. Such a huge spread of this globalized MNC certainly requires intense knowledge transfer for various reasons including coordination, innovation and diffusion, customer preferences, human resource management and technological advancements. Management, coordination and control of globalized companies are accomplished through decentralization, which Prahalad and Bhattacharyya (2008) referred to as the gateway-hub model. Businesses based on this model thrived more because of futuristic aspirations rather than individuals’ preferences dictated by culture or values. This provides another strong reason for businessmen to consider internationalization keeping in mind the needs of marketplace and business locations that are a better bet for efficiency and profitability. Adopting this approach, businesses like McDonald’s and Starbucks, are building businesses based on their brand image and maintaining uniformity in training, resources and infrastructure across the globe. To conclude, it would be apt to mention that internationalization process has certainly fostered immense knowledge transfer across the globe. Multinational companies have been evolving and adopting different methods to enter the international arena in accordance with their business objectives. Availability of required resources, technologies, and knowledge are other factors driving their decisions related to internationalization. Most importantly, increasing economic transactions, diversity of products and services, advancing technologies, governance modules and resource capabilities influenced by globalization have supported internationalization to a larger extent. Multiple dimensions of internationalization have been, and are being, conceptualized into numerous theories explaining the modes of entry and business model adopted; innovative methods of doing business in international market continue to evolve. Companies that are able to identify and understand various critical factors to their businesses continue to thrive and others perish. Overall, this discourse highlights three critical factors in international business: resources, knowledge and their management. Part II: Reflections: Studies related to international business are highly complex considering the numerous ways international businesses have evolved, and failed. Moreover, the complex theories related to this study seemed quite difficult to understand, probably because literature does not provide a chronological sequence of evolution related to these theories. Moreover, more of study and research concerning internationalization seems to have taken place during the end of previous century compared to current times. Theory or constructs formed based on current internationalization trends seemed more comprehendible. Overall, the entire learning from internationalization of businesses highlights the fact that organisations were able to successfully establish in international markets only through effective knowledge management. Few theories like life-cycle theory, Eclectic paradigm, and internalization theory indicate that earlier the core objectives of international businesses were profit making and productivity efficiency rather than any attempts to share knowledge; however, sharing knowledge eventually became inevitable for their sustenance. The process theories and innovation-diffusion theory give considerable thought to knowledge transfer activity in MNCs. The AAA framework and the gateway-hub models emphasize the need for knowledge transfer across subsidiaries. Throughout the study, I was able to relate to these models in a better manner, although the aspect of knowledge transfer was clear through knowledge management literature. The task of understanding knowledge transfer in context of the theories was difficult; and this probably requires much more detailed study compared to what was undertaken during this discourse. Nevertheless, this study has diverted my understanding related to international business towards a new perspective, which kept emerging as a very important factor throughout the course. This perspective is related to the resource management, which has been very well explained through resource-based view model. Although the significance of resources has not been explicitly mentioned in most of the other theories, it still remains at the core according to my grasp. Resource-based view posits that resources that are valuable, rare, inimitable and organisational can be of great significance in enhancing resource capabilities that drive and sustain business outcomes. Through business owners struggle to retain their resources, it would be impossible to retain all of them for longer time due to various factors such as competitors, changing technology, changing customers’ and employees’ needs etc. So, the resources that could be grouped in the VRIO framework will eventually not fit due to these changes, a reason which necessitates continuous adaptation and adjustments. The AAA framework answers this gap to large extent, which explains why and how large MNCs have succeeded and expanded in international markets. The gateway-hub model seems absolute right fit in current dynamic international market and decentralized management that embraces local regulatory, cultural and political aspects is yet another sensible approach in globalized marketplace for MNCs. The focus of this discourse was on knowledge transfer within MNCs for which Minbaeva et al., (2003) attribute motivational factors and absorptive capacity of the recipient or subsidiary organisations. I could understand that the nature of the MNC and its relationship with its subsidiaries plays an important role in determining the motivational factors and absorptive capacity. This is probably the reason why mode of entry, which establishes a specific type of relationship with subsidiaries, is important in understanding the extent and effectiveness of knowledge transfer. For instance, effective knowledge transfer is inhibited by internalizing knowledge and innovation, which vests all control with the parent company. Such tacitness is instilled in the organisational culture and therefore staff will not be open to share their knowledge with partners. Moreover, previous experience of the staff and leadership is important to receive necessary know-how in the absence of which knowledge transfer will be ineffective. The training process and trainers’ understanding and experience also matter in effective knowledge transfer. From training or knowledge-imparting perspective, the aspect that was not covered in the study is trainers’ cultural awareness. Hofstede’s (1980) cultural-dimensions perspective that was previously studied would be an important topic to be applied in international business context. A trainer needs to possess cultural awareness of relevant culture where training is being imparted. In fact, this concept applies to leadership team from parent company that is deployed in foreign locations for managing business. It is important to understand characteristics of local staff in terms of their cultural preferences, values, habits, and needs in order to effectively manage and also motivate them towards continuous learning. This is probably a factor highlighted by Simonin (1999, cited by Minbaeva, 2003) that can address motivation to acquire knowledge. Lack of cultural sensitivity and awareness to handle people from different cultures can significantly inhibit knowledge transfer as well as fail to earn the staff’s motivation and commitment. Overall, the vast learning acquired from this course has improved my understanding but can be enriched with more extensive reading. Currently, international business is the trend and an outcome of globalization, which reinforces the need for more and more learning of aspects relevant to international business and management. In addition, if I were to extend this learning, I feel other aspects of knowledge management such as creation, capture, execution need to be studied in depth, which was not possible through this study. I would be able to interpret the theories and their constraints in a better manner; an extensive evaluation of various existing and failed MNCs with respect to theoretical models adopted would also provide better understanding of the theories. Another important mode of business that needs to be understood and applied in theoretical perspective, which was not possible in this discourse due to lack of time, is the e-commerce; this, I believe will introduce me to new concepts/models of knowledge management and its stakeholders, which I hope to accomplish in due course. References Buckley, P.J and Casson, M.C. 2009. The internalisation theory of the multinational enterprise: A review of the progress of a research agenda after 30 years. Journal of International Business Studies, 40, 1563-1580. Dalkir, K. 2005. Knowledge management in theory and practice. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann. Dobrai, K, Farkas, F, Karoliny, Z and Poor, J. 2012. Knowledge transfer in multinational companies: Evidence from Hungary. Acta Polytechnica Hungarica, 9 (3), 149-161. Drucker, P.F., 1988. "The coming of the new organisation," Harvard Business Review, 45-53. Ghemawat, P. 2007. Managing differences: The central challenge of global strategy. Harvard Business Review, 85 (3) 59-68. Grosse, R. 2003. The eclectic theory in Latin America. In Dunning, J.H and Gray, P’s Extending the eclectic paradigm in international business: Essays in honor of J Dunning. Chetenham, GL: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. (55-68). Hofstede, G. 1980. Motivation, leadership and organisation: Do American theories apply abroad? Organisational Dynamics, 9(1), 42-62.Available from, http://alangutterman.typepad.com/files/motivation-ldrshp-and-orgn-do-american-theories.pdf (Accessed 4 April 2014). Kotabe, M and Swan, K.S. 1995. The role of strategic alliances in high-technology new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 16, 621-636. Available from www.researchgate.net/...strategic_alliances.../d912f510beb6ec0a36.pdf (Accessed 1 April 2014) Etemad, H. 2013. Introduction and overview. In Etemad, H’s (Ed.) The process of internationalization in emerging SMEs and emerging economies. Cheltenham, GL: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. (1-38). Frynas, J.G and Mellahi, K. 2011. Global strategic management. 2nd ed. NY: Oxford University Press. Jones, J and Wren, C. 2012. Foreign direct investment and the regional economy. Hampshire, England: Ashgate Publishing. Li, Ping, P. 2007. Toward an integrated theory of multinational evolution: The evidence of Chinese multinational enterprises as latecomers. Journal of International Management, 13 (3), 296-318. Martins, E.C and Martins, N. 2002. An organisational culture model to promote creativity and innovation. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology. 28(4), 58-65. Available from, http://www.researchgate.net/publication/47739393_An_organisational_culture_model_to_promote_creativity_and_innovation/file/79e4150f4ea97917ed.pdf (Accessed 2 April 2014). Minbaeva, D, Pedersen, T, Bjorkman, I, Frey, C.F, and Park, H.J. 2003. MNC knowledge transfer, subsidiary absorptive capacity, and HRM. Journal of International Business Studies. 34, 586-599. http://www.palgrave-journals.com/jibs/journal/v34/n6/full/8400056a.html (Accessed 1 April 2014). Minbaeva, D. 2005. HRM practices and MNC knowledge transfer. Personnel Review, 34(1), 125-144. Nakamura, A and Nakamura, M. 2004. Firm performance, knowledge transfer and international joint ventures. International Journal of Technology Management. 27(8) 731-746. Available from http://strategy.sauder.ubc.ca/nakamura/nakamura_IJTM_2004.pdf (Accessed 1 April 2014). Nonaka, I and Taekuchi, H. 1995. The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press. Pauwels, P, Lommelen, T and Matthyssens, P. 2004. The internationalization process of the firm: progression through institutionalization, exploitative and exploratory learning. Paper presented at Academy of International Business, Stockholm, Sweden. Available from http://arno.unimaas.nl/show.cgi?fid=12673 (Accessed 2 April 2014). Pedersen, T, Petersen, B and Sharma, D. 2003. Knowledge transfer performance of multinational companies. Management International Review, 2(3), 69-90. Available fromhttp://openarchive.cbs.dk/bitstream/handle/10398/6609/tp_knowledge20transfer.pdf?sequence=1 (Accessed 2 April 2014). Prahalad, C.K and Hamel, G. 1990. The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review. 68(3); 79-90. Available from https://faculty.fuqua.duke.edu/~charlesw/s591/willstuff/oldstuff/PhD_2007-2008/Papers/C08/Prahalad_Hamel_1990.pdf (Accessed 2 April 2014) Prahalad, C.K and Bhattacharyya, H. 2008. Twenty hubs and No HQ. Strategy + Business. 50; 24-29. Rugman, A.M., 2010. Reconciling internalization theory and the eclectic paradigm. The Multinational Business Review, 18(1), 1-12. Available from http://centaur.reading.ac.uk/6112/1/mbr_18_2_-1_final.pdf (Accessed 3 April 2014) Rus, I. and Lindvall, M. 2002. ‘Guest Editors' Introduction: Knowledge management in software engineering’, IEEE Software 19(3), 26-38. Szulanski, G. 1996. Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17 (2), 27-44. Vahlne, J-E and Nordstrom, K.A. 1993. The internationalization process: Impact of competition and experience. International Trade Journal, 2(5), 529-548. Available from,https://www.iei.liu.se/fek/frist/723g17/pwom_2008_filarkiv/1.104715/VahlneNordstrm.pdf (Accessed 2 April 2014). Wang, S and Noe, R.A. 2010. Knowledge sharing: A review and directions for future research. Human Resource Management Review. 20 (2), 115-131.Available from http://www.ucdenver.edu/academics/colleges/CLAS/Centers/writing/Documents/HR_Managament.pdf (Accessed 2 April 2014) Wasko, M., and Teigland, R. 2009. Knowledge transfer in MNCs: Examining how intrinsic motivations and knowledge sourcing impact individual centrality and performance. Journal of International Management, 15(1), 15-31. Wong, K.Y and Aspinwall, E. 2005. An empirical study of the important factors for knowledge-management adoption in the SME sector. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(3), 64-82. Available from http://lpis.csd.auth.gr/mtpx/km/material/JKM-9-3c.pdf (Accessed 2 April 2014). Zimmermann, C and Kattuman, P.A. 2007. On considering internationalization: How do perceived resource-based constraints matter? Working paper series 07, Cambridge Judge Business School, Cambridge. Available from https://www.clsbe.lisboa.ucp.pt/resources/documents/PROFESSORES/seminarios/Paper_08Oct2007.pdf (Accessed 2 April 2014). Read More