Showing papers by "Andrew C. Inkpen published in 1998"

Knowledge Management Processes and International Joint Ventures

Abstract: The management and processing of organizational knowledge are increasingly being viewed as critical to organizational success. By exploring how firms access and exploit alliance-based knowledge, the authors provide evidence to support the argument that the firm is a dynamic system of processes involving different types of knowledge. Using data from a longitudinal study of North American-based joint ventures (JVs) between North American and Japanese firms, they address three related research questions: (1) what processes do JV partners use to gain access to alliance knowledge; (2) what types of knowledge are associated with the different processes and how should that knowledge be classified; and (3) what is the relationship between organizational levels, knowledge types, and the transfer of knowledge? Although many generalizations have been drawn about the merits of knowledge-based resources and the creation of knowledge, few efforts have been made to establish systematically how firms acquire and manage new knowledge. Moreover, prior alliance research has not addressed in detail the nature of alliance knowledge and how knowledge is managed in the alliance context. The authors examine the processes used by alliance partners to transfer knowledge from an alliance context to a partner context. They identify four key processes-technology sharing, alliance-parent interaction, personnel transfers, and strategic integration-that share a conceptual underpinning and represent a knowledge connection between parent and alliance. Each of the four processes is shown to provide an avenue for managers to gain exposure to knowledge and ideas outside their traditional organizational boundaries and to create a connection for individual managers to communicate their alliance experiences to others. Although all of the knowledge management processes are potentially effective, the different processes involve different types of knowledge and different organizational levels. The primary types of knowledge associated with each process are identified and then linked with the organizational level affected by the transfer process. From those linkages, several propositions about organizational knowledge transfer and management are developed. The results suggest that although a variety of knowledge management strategies can be viable, some strategies lead to more effective knowledge transfer than others.

Learning and knowledge acquisition through international strategic alliances

Abstract: Executive Overview Global competition is forcing firms to rethink the question of how new organizational knowledge is acquired. New knowledge provides the foundation for new skills, which in turn can lead to competitive success. However, few firms systematically manage the process of knowledge acquisition. This paper explores international strategic alliances and their potential for learning and knowledge acquisition. In bringing together firms with different skills, knowledge bases, and organizational cultures, alliances create unique learning opportunities for the partner firms. Based on the assumption that organizational learning is both a function of access to new knowledge and the capabilities for using and building on such knowledge, the paper focuses on alliance knowledge accessibility and firm learning effectiveness.

Are Japanese Managers More Long-Term Oriented Than United States Managers?

Abstract: The notion that Japanese managers are more long-term oriented than Western managers has received a great deal of attention. For example, Vogel (1979) argued that Japanese managers are willing to defer maximizing immediate profits to increase market share. Campbell (1994) suggested that Japan's top managers have generally been focused on the long-term success of the company, rather than the short-term wealth of the shareholders. According to Abbeglen and Stalk (1985), Japanese companies are much less focused on short-term profitability than US companies. Instead, Japanese companies focus on growth through aggressive financial policies and an emphasis on marketing and product development. By focusing on market share and building customer relationships, long-term financial success becomes more likely. In this paper, we examine individual characteristics of Japanese and United States managers, with a focus on managerial time horizons. Time horizon is defined as the predisposition toward a future focus of an individual decision maker. The future focus can vary from a short period to a long period in time. The issue of managerial time horizons is especially important because the time horizons of US managers are widely believed to be short relative to their foreign competitors (Mannix/Loewenstein 1994). As well, for managers involved in cross-cultural negotiations and interactions, understanding managerial behavior is critical. While other studies have examined time horizon at the firm level, as far as we could determine, this is the first attempt to empirically explore the conventional wisdom that Japanese managers are more long-term oriented than their US counterparts. Conceptual Background Over the last two decades, US firms have lost their global dominance in many industries. This decline has often been attributed to the short time horizones of US managers. This issue has been widely discussed and documented in the business press (e.g., Business Week 1984, Dobrzynski et al. 1986, Drucker 1986, Hector 1988, Lohr 1992, Faltermayer 1990). The alleged short time horizons of US managers has caused such concern that the US. Congress held hearings on the subject.(2) The Council on Competitiveness and Harvard Business School sponsored a research report on a similar theme.(3) Evidence has been marshaled on both sides. US managers have been criticized for their "short-termism" (Banks/Wheelwright 1979, Choate/Linger 1986, Hayes/Abernathy 1980, Onkvisit/Shaw 1991), with declining global market shares of US companies used as evidence. Because aggregate spending on industrial R&D expenses (a future oriented expense) has not significantly changed, other researchers have argued that US management is not characterized by "short-termism" (Bruce/Taylor 1991, Geber 1988, Logue 1985). The short-term behavior of US managers is often attributed to capital market demands (Loescher 1984). If stockholders in US firms are primarily interested in quarterly earnings, these stockholders may liquidate their stockholdings when managers make long-term investments that depress current quarter earnings. Thus, managers with an eye on the stock price would forgo making investments that only pay off in the long run. One could argue that in a free market economy, taking a short-term view of investments for the future should not matter. In a strict Darwinian sense, the myopic firms would be eliminated by the market (if the market valued long-term decision making) and the long-term oriented firms would be rewarded. However, it is not clear how certain structural factors such as national culture affect resource allocation decisions in corporations. Hill (1995), for example, discussed how institutional structures in certain countries help in minimizing transaction costs. Along similar lines, agency costs may be a function of culture. Researchers studying the time horizon issue (e.g., Hall 1991, Poterba/Summers 1991) have focused their attention on corporate level behavior like research and development expenditures or capital expenditures of the firm. …