KNOWLEDGE
ACQUISITION AMONG ENGINEEERS IN MNCS
PhD. Fakhrorazi Ahmad
School of Management, Universiti sains Malaysia, Malaysia
e-mail: fakhrorazi.a.arshad@gmail.com
Osman Mohamad
Graduate School of Business, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Malaysia
e-mail: osman@usm.my
Hazril Izwar Ibrahim
School of Management, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Malaysia
e-mail: hazrili@yahoo.com
Submission: 09/02/2013
Accept: 23/02/2013
Abstract
The objective of this paper is to
investigate the relationship between individual’s absorptive capacity and
knowledge acquisition behavior among engineers in the electrical and electronic
(E&E) sector in Malaysia. The study utilized survey method to collect the
data. There were 305 responses for the survey. Partial least square (PLS) properties
of structural equation modeling (SEM) were used to measure the relationships
between the variables. The study found only partial support in absorptive
capacity ability to influence knowledge acquisition behavior.
Keyword: Absorptive
capacity, knowledge acquisition, engineers, MNCs.
1. INTRODUCTION
The
social cognitive theory views the organization as a collective social system
made of individual members of organization who process information and develop
knowledge within a specific organizational setting (ALBINO, GARAVELLI, &
SCHIUMA, 1999). The theory also affirm that the influence of environmental
factors in stimulating the person’s personal factors such as attitude, learning
capability and individual abilities will result to the changes in a person’s behavior such as the behavior of
innovativeness and acquisition of knowledge (BANDURA, 1986). The learning
process in MNCs is perceived as one of the important factors that contribute to
the human capital development in Malaysia since MNCs are known as technological
imprint that introduces recent technology to their employees. Besides the
learning activities, MNCs also contribute to significant FDI inflow into the
country and is recognized as one of the important drivers to accelerate the
economic growth in Malaysia (BANK NEGARA MALAYSIA, 2011).
Since
knowledge is a significant asset to any organization and it provides to a
firms’ competitive advantage, it has been viewed as source of income generation
for companies (GOH, 2002; TEERAJETGUL & CHAREONNGAM, 2008). According to Davenport et al. (1998),
knowledge can be defined as the information that is combined with experience,
context, interpretation and reflection. In a wider context, knowledge is
actually linked to the data and information in the spectrum of its
actionability and abundance (NISSEN, 2002). In other words, data and
information are substantial elements of knowledge that can be applied in many
forms. Data that initially exists with no meaning will be suddenly transformed
into a new concept called information which goes through a series of process of
integrating all of the data for it to be useful to the owners. Clarke and Rollo
(2001) expanding the meaning of data by relating it with logic and reason. When
both logic and reason interact with each other, new information will be
formed. From information, it transforms
into knowledge when it has been used and applied in decision making such as
making assessment and judgment in a certain situation.
Beijerse
(1999) further defined knowledge as a compilation of information through which
a certain function is able to be performed and perceived as competency that is
difficult to explain to others. Knowledge also has been seen as a competence
which is difficult to be described but it is embedded in one’s mind (CARNEIRO,
2000). Clarke and Rollo (2001), Carneiro (2000) and Beijerse’s (1999) viewed
knowledge as main frame of notion and understanding developed by the human
brain and it will always grow and expand through effective communication and
interaction with the information received. Niessen (2002) illustrates the
two-dimensional concepts which begin with the interrelationship between
abundance and actionability. Within this interrelationship, data, information,
knowledge, and inquisitiveness were ranked according to its’ actionability,
according to the ability of those elements transforming it selves into practice
or being applied at workplace.
Before
the interrelationship between abundance and actionability was introduced by
Niessen (2010), Clarke and Rollo (2001) conceptualized knowledge as a knowledge
hierarchy, which encompasses the concept of data, information, explicit
knowledge, tacit knowledge, insight, and wisdom. However, the elements inside
their model require matching with specific processes including aggregating the
data, processing the information, interpreting the explicit knowledge, thinking
the tacit knowledge, and finding the meaning with insight and wisdom. In other words, knowledge exists through a
blending of information with skills, understanding, and practices. Similarly,
knowledge also refers to the capability of oneself to translate the data and
information into a suitable action which is beneficial to them in a specific
situation (BEIJERSE, 1999).
2. LITERATURE
REVIEW
Since
it was introduced by Cohen and Levinthal (1989; 1990), the definition of the
construct has evolved according to different context and scope of studies.
Cohen and Levinthal (1990) define absorptive capacity as the capability to
value, assimilate, and apply the knowledge from external sources. However,
during the process of developing the absorptive capacity construct, the
individual cognitive structures and knowledge acquisition capabilities are
applied, mainly referring to a part of the organizational learning process in
an organization. Cohen and Levinthal (1990) have also claimed that absorptive
capacity of a firm is basically derived from individual absorptive capacity
because organization will never learn but individual will. Even though
organizational absorptive capacity is a not a cumulative of individual
absorptive capacity in a firm, but individual absorptive capacity still plays a
dominant role in overall firm’s absorptive capacity.
Zahra
and George (2002) had re-conceptualized the definition of the construct into a
new dimension of absorptive capacity, stating that absorptive capacity is a set
of capabilities to acquire, assimilate, transform, and exploit knowledge. Tu et
al., (2006) relate the refinement of absorptive capacity by Zahra and George
(2002) as the organizational mechanism that facilitates the process to
identify, communicate, and assimilate the relevant external and internal
knowledge.
Absorptive
capacity is unique as it is applicable in multiple-level construct, either at
individual, organization, or intra-firm level. However, initially, absorptive
capacity started at the individual level that emerged with the prior related
knowledge of individuals and the diversity of their background (COHEN &
LEVINTHAL, 1990). It was argued that the
firm’s ability to absorb knowledge will strongly depend on the ability of the
individuals in organization to absorb knowledge, in addition to the
characteristics of individual members in that organization.
Cohen
and Levinthal (1990) clearly stressed that the organization’s absorptive
capacity always rely on the individual absorptive capacity of their employees.
In brief, the individual absorptive capacity can provide significant impact to
the firm’s learning process especially when that particular firm is involved in
knowledge transfer activities (TANG, MU, & MACLACHLAN, 2010). So, it is
important to extend the concept of absorptive capacity to the individual level
especially in cognitive domain because it can reflect the organizational
competitive advantage and performance. Due to the importance of individual
absorptive capacity to the organization, prior investment to develop the
individual absorptive capacity is necessary in order to improve the firm’s
performance and competitive advantage.
With
regard to the concept of individual absorptive capacity, Hamel (1991) argues
that in an organization, the individual capacity to absorb knowledge is not
equally distributed. Everybody has different capability to absorb knowledge
because individual capabilities rely on prior related knowledge such as prior
educational background and exposure to that particular field, and the
motivation of the individual workers. Under certain condition, the compulsory
skill to observe, interpret, apply, and improve the knowledge only belong to
certain employees, while others might not possess those skills (HAMEL, 1991).
When this occurs, the effectiveness of
knowledge transfer activities in either inter or intra-firm knowledge transfer
will be lower in view of the fact that individual employees in a firm play a
vital role in overall knowledge transfer process (TANG et al., 2010). This
statement is supported by Kwok and Gao (2006) stating that individuals who
possess better absorptive capacity will be more competent in learning,
assimilating, and utilizing knowledge. Hence, the initiative to strengthen the
individual absorptive capacity in organization is important in order to
stimulate the organizational absorptive capacity that results in better outcome
for the organization such as better organizational performance and
the-state-of-the-art of innovation (PARK, SUH & YANG, 2007; LICHTENTHALER,
2009; VINDING, 2006; ARBUSSA & COENDERS, 2007).
Past
research in the field of international business studies has established the
benefit of MNC spillover effects to developing nations through the spillover of
advance technologies, knowledge, and skills to individuals, firms, and
industries (TEECE, 1980). The technology, knowledge, and skill spillover however
relies heavily on the effectiveness of knowledge acquisition activities among
local employees. MNCs normally expand their operations through transferring
knowledge from headquarters to subsidiaries (MINBAEVA et al., 2003). However,
the transfer process requires reciprocity from both MNCs and their employees.
On the recipient side, the effectiveness of knowledge acquisition is identified
as the main driver for successful knowledge transfer within MNCs.Similarly,
intra-organizational knowledge transfer is also related to the extent to which
individuals acquire and apply the knowledge they have obtained (MINBAEVA et
al., 2003). This directly reflects to the role of individuals in knowledge
transfer process that is conceptualized as knowledge acquisition process. This
process is also related to the capabilities of acquiring, integrating, storing,
sharing, and applying knowledge that is crucial in building and sustaining the
competitive advantage of a firm (ANH, BAUGHN, HANG, & NEUPERT, 2006). In
order to perform knowledge acquiring activity, firms need to rely on the
availability of domain expert from among their employees in the firm.
Generally,
knowledge acquisition is an activity within the knowledge management domain
that has been widely practiced among firms, especially to those who want to
gain a specific knowledge in a very specific context from the targeted
activities. According to Huber (1991), knowledge acquisition is the process by
which knowledge is obtained. Specifically, knowledge acquisition is defined as
“the acquiring of information directly from domain experts” (MYKYTYN et al.,
1994, p. 98). It is also refers to the involvement of the employees in certain
activities that enables the employees to recognize and acquire the tacit or
explicit knowledge (ZAHRA & GEORGE, 2002). During that process, it also
requires organizational members to identify the value of knowledge, acquire,
and apply it for daily tasks in their organization (COHEN & LEVINTHAL,
1990; TODOROVA & DURISIN, 2007).
Even
though scholars in international business view knowledge acquisition as an
organizational level constructs applied by firms and not by individuals (LYLES
& SALK, 2007; INKPEN, 2000; RANFT & LORD, 2000; TSANG, NGUYEN, &
ERRAMILLI, 2004; HAU & EVANGALISTA, 2007; EVANGALISTA & HAU, 2009);
however, the knowledge acquisition constructs originating from these
perspective only focused on issues regarding international joint-ventures and
the activity between head-quarters and their subsidiaries. Furthermore, the
abovementioned studies only measured knowledge acquisition process occurring at
the organizational level only.
On
the contrary, past research by Anderson (1987), Kanfer & Ackerman (1989), Mykytyn
et al. (1994), Ackerman, Kanfer, & Goff (1995), Anderson, Fincham, &
Douglas (1997), Politis (2003), Junaidah (2007), and Liu & Liu (2008), view
knowledge acquisition as an individual level constructs applicable and
measurable at the individual level. This perspective originates from Polanyi
(1967) who stated that organizational knowledge is actually rooted in
individuals and must be acquired at individual level before it is transformed
into organizational knowledge. Likewise, Tosi et al. (2003, p.32) assert that
knowledge acquisition as “an overt act of the person that can be observed and
measured”. In addition, Bourdieu (1990) also agree that knowledge acquisition
is an individual behavior derived from an individual’s interaction with tasks,
resources, and people within a particular situation. Furthermore, knowledge acquisition
is suitable to be measured as individual behavior and analyzed at individual
level since individuals in firms are the one who acquire knowledge while
organization just create the context for individuals to support the knowledge
acquisition activities (ANH et al., 2006).
Prior
to knowledge acquisition, the individual’s background and internal capabilities
such as existing skills and individual traits will dominate the effectiveness
of knowledge acquisition of a worker (POLITIS, 2003). In a narrower context,
the existing skills and individual traits that encourage knowledge acquisition
activities is similar to absorptive capacity. All of the elements pre requisite
to knowledge acquisition such as having a prior knowledge in related area,
possessing good skills, and positive individual traits are connected to
absorptive capacity. Generally, knowledge management scholars define knowledge
acquisition as a part of the process in knowledge transfer activities (DARR et
al., 1995; ARGOTE & INGRAM, 2000) and it involves accessing and sourcing
knowledge from those who are already in possession of that knowledge (GNYAWALỊ,
SINGAL, & MU, 2009).
Additionally,
individuals are naturally heterogeneous, and therefore their capability to
acquire knowledge and the behavioral pattern of knowledge acquisition itself
will manifest at different stages especially in the context of
intra-organizational knowledge transfer, where knowledge acquisition will ensue
when it is only required. In order to absorb the knowledge transferred from
transferor, employees must have prior knowledge related to that area in order
for the knowledge to be transferred smoothly (MINBAEVA et al., 2010; COHEN
& LEVINTHAL, 1990). Moreover, knowledge acquisition also involves acquiring
information and knowledge to be applied for problem solving activities. In this
aspect, individual cognition will have priority, in order to facilitate how the
data are acquired, organized, assimilated, and applied within a specific
organizational context (LEMON & SAHOTA, 2004).
Further
explanation concerning knowledge acquisition is also described in Anderson’s
Skill Acquisition Model (ANDERSON, 1982; 1983). This model explains the flow in
the acquisition process. During the first stage or at ‘declarative stage’, knowledge
is acquired as a set of facts verbally. It is followed by ‘knowledge
compilation stage’, referring to the conversion of knowledge into a procedural
form of practice. The last stage refers to the ‘procedural stage’ involving
application of knowledge in an appropriate manner (ANDERSON, 1982; 1983). In
this study, knowledge acquisition will be portrayed as behavior consistent with
the social cognitive theory that explains the interaction between environment,
individual, and behavior.
The
relationship between absorptive capacity and knowledge acquisition has been
acknowledged in previous research such by Murray and Chao (2005), Zahra and
George (2002), and Cohen and Levinthal (1990). At the organizational level,
absorptive capacity is found to be positively associated with knowledge
acquisition (LYLES & SALK, 2007; SZULANSKI, 1996; MOWERY et al., 1996; GUPTA
& GOVINDARAJAN, 2000; LANE et al., 2001). The organization’s absorptive
capacity is represented by the employees’ cumulative absorptive capacity in a
firm. Specifically, the organizational absorptive capacity is conceptually an
aggregate of individuals’ absorptive capacity in a firm.
In a nutshell, individual
absorptive capacity refers to the capability of oneself to understand new
knowledge, assimilate, and applying it as activities that can be commercialized
(COHEN & LEVINTHAL, 1990). At the individual level, absorptive capacity has
the potential to influence the knowledge acquisition behavior of an individual
since the behavior of acquiring knowledge relies on ones’ capabilities and
knowledge in the respective field. In knowledge acquisition activities,
absorptive capacity has perceived to be very important during this process (COHEN
& LEVINTHAL, 1990; MURRAY & CHAO, 2005). The behavior of knowledge
acquisition is a process to which knowledge is acquired from any domain expert
or any authenticated source of knowledge. This behavior can also be viewed as a
major learning process in an individual learning behavior (ZHANG et al., 2007).
During this process, the capability to learn while equipped with prior related
knowledge and skills is a prerequisite for successful knowledge acquisition (MYKYTYN
et al., 1994).
Prior
related knowledge such as fundamental skills, shared language or basic
knowledge in scientific and technological area in the other hand presents the
true ability of oneself to acquire specific knowledge. Specifically, that capability is allude to
the absorptive capacity of individuals that may vary from one to another due to
the differences in their professional experience, educational background, and
prior working experience (KWOK & GAO, 2006).Theoretically, individuals with
refined absorptive capacity will be able to acquire more knowledge since the
relationship between absorptive capacity and knowledge acquisition is expected
to be present (MURRAY & CHAO, 2005; MYKYTYN et al., 1994; KWOK & GAO,
2006), but the strength of the relationship is yet to be proven. Therefore,
this study empirically investigates the direct linkage between individuals’
absorptive capacity and knowledge acquisition. Therefore, this study proposes
the hypotheses as follows:
H1: Individual absorptive capacity will
significantly influence individual knowledge acquisition.
H1a: The ability to identify knowledge will
significantly influence individual knowledge acquisition.
H1b: The
ability to assimilate knowledge will significantly influence individual
knowledge acquisition.
H1c: The ability to apply knowledge will significantly
influence individual knowledge acquisition.
3. METHODOLOGY
In
the sample selection process, the researcher began with identifying the MNCs
that operate in electrical and electronic (E&E) sector. A master list that
contained 334 MNC companies that actively operate in E&E sector was
obtained from Malaysian Investment Development Authority (MIDA). Out of 334
MNCs, the sample companies are randomly chosen based on systematic sampling
technique. All odd numbered firms from the list were chosen as sample companies
for data collection process. Out of 334 companies from MIDA directory, 169
companies were chosen. For each company, five questionnaires were distributed
to the engineers via the human resource manager, which involves a total of 845
set of questionnaires distributed.
In
this study, the data was collected via survey method. The survey questionnaires
were distributed through mail survey and ‘drop and collect’ approach. The
reason for the selection of these two methods is due to the ability to obtain
the data in a wider geographical area with lower costs compared to interview
and phone call approaches (HOCHSTIM & ATHANASOPOULOS, 1970), respondents
can answer the questionnaire conveniently, the identity of the respondents are
kept confidential, and the data is able to portray the population accurately (ZIKMUND,
2003; BRYMAN & BELL, 2011).
In
this study, a total of 1245 questionnaires were distributed using mail survey
and drop-and-collect approach. The reason for applying various techniques in
data collection procedure is due to the ability of the combination techniques
to gain higher response rate (PARKER, 1992; SCHAEFER & DILLMAN, 1998). In
this study, the questionnaires’ distribution was broken-up into 845
questionnaires for mail survey and 400 questionnaires for drop-and-collect
approach. Of 400 questionnaires distributed via ‘drop-and-collect’ approach,
there were 111 responses from this method and there were 194 responses from the
mail survey method. In total there were 305 (24.5%) responses.
To
test the hypotheses of this study, PLS (Partial Least Square) analysis was
utilized as it is the most appropriate method to meet the research objectives and
to adapt to the research data conditions. Conceptually, the partial least square
(PLS) is similar to multiple regression analysis because both objectives are to
maximize the explained variance in the dependent constructs (MARCOULIDES et al.,
2009).
The
measurement for individual absorptive capacity in this study was adapted from
the work of Wall et al. (2011), Pedrosa and Jasmand (2011), Whangthomkum et al.
(2006), Kwok and Gao (2006), and Flatten et al. (2011). The justification
behind the selection of the instruments from these authors is due to the
inability of the instrument from a single individual author to properly capture
the concept of absorptive capacity. The combination of instruments from
different authors into specific dimensions is essential in order to match it to
the central conceptualization of absorptive capacity based on Cohen and
Levinthal (1989; 1990). They conceptualized the absorptive capacity as the
capability to identify, assimilate, and apply knowledge. In this study, the
instrument of individual absorptive capacity is divided into three dimensions,
which involve the ability to identify, assimilate, and apply. All of the items
apply five-point scale, ranging from very low (1) to very high (5).
Basically,
knowledge acquisition is defined as accessing and getting knowledge from other
parties, manuals and self-learning through trial and error (GNYWALI et al.,
2009). Knowledge acquisition is classified as a behavior and it ‘could be
further deconstructed into internal process’ (MINBAEVA et al., 2010, p.5). In
other words, knowledge acquisition is also ‘an overt act of the person that can
be observed and measured’ (Tosi et al., 2003, p.32). Therefore, the constructs
must fall under behavioral domain, specifically in this context applied as
individual behavior. Rooted from an extensive literature review, eight items
were adapted from Junaidah (2007), Kim and Lee (2010) and Silver and Marvel
(2011). The purpose of these instrument items is to obtain the information
concerning the engagement of local employees in MNCs knowledge acquisition
activities at their workplace. The measure applies five point scale ranged from
(1) for “strongly disagree” to (5) for “strongly agree”.
4. RESULTS
The
construct Absorptive Capacity (AC) consists of three basic components, the
ability to identify
(ABS1), assimilate (ABS2), and apply
(ABS3) knowledge. Overall, the mean value for these three components is 3.87, with standard deviation 0.41, implying that the mean score is
representative with small differences in the respondents’ answers. The
individual mean values for these three components are 3.88 for the ability to
identify knowledge, 3.89 for the ability to assimilate knowledge, and 3.87 for
the ability to apply knowledge. The
mean value of individual absorptive capacity at 3.87,
which is approaching 4.0, and a very small standard error of 0.023, shows that on average, indicating the
ability of local workers in foreign
MNCs to absorb knowledge
is relatively high.
Table 1: Descriptive Statistics for
Absorptive Capacity
Construct |
Number of Items |
N Statistics |
|
|
Mean |
|
Std. Deviation |
|
|
|
Statistic |
Std. Error |
|
Statistic |
|||
ABS
1 |
4 |
305 |
|
|
3.88 |
.02644 |
|
.46167 |
ABS
2 |
4 |
305 |
|
|
3.89 |
.02825 |
|
.49336 |
ABS
3 |
6 |
305 |
|
|
3.87 |
.02840 |
|
.49620 |
The
mean value for the construct individual knowledge acquisition is 3.97, with a
standard deviation of 0.48 and standard error for mean of 0.02. These results
suggest that the mean score of this construct is representative of the majority
of the respondents. That is, on the average, the respondents who work with
foreign MNCs performed the knowledge acquisition activities at their workplace
to a substantial level. This is a good indicator for knowledge spillover effect
from MNCs to local workers.
Table 2: Descriptive Statistics for Knowledge Acquisition
Construct |
Number of Items |
N Statistics |
|
|
Mean |
|
Std. Deviation |
|
|
|
Statistic |
Std. Error |
|
Statistic |
|||
KA |
5 |
305 |
|
|
3.9765 |
.02782 |
|
.48587 |
Based
on the results from the hypotheses testing, the ability to identify knowledge
has a significant effect on individual knowledge acquisition as evidenced by
the coefficient value of 15.8 percent with T = 2.46 which is significant at p
< 0.01. However, the ability of an employee to assimilate knowledge does not
affect the individual knowledge acquisition. This is demonstrated by a very
small T value of 0.13 with coefficient value of 0.9 percent. As for the item
ability to apply knowledge, it significantly influences individual knowledge
acquisition, with a beta value of 26 percent (T = 3.35) and significance at p
< 0.01. Overall, hypotheses H1a and H1c are supported, but H1b is not
supported.
Table 3: The Summary of Hypothesized Structural
Relationship between Absorptive Capacity and Knowledge Acquisition
Hypotheses |
Relationship |
Full Model |
Supported |
||
β |
S.E |
T |
|||
H1 |
ABS à KA |
|
|
||
H1a |
ABS1 à KA |
0.1588 |
0.0646 |
2.46** |
Yes |
H1b |
ABS2 à KA |
0.0099 |
0.0783 |
0.13 |
No |
H1c |
ABS3 à KA |
0.2672 |
0.0767 |
3.48** |
Yes |
Note:,(*) Significant at p<0.05, (**)
Significant at p<0.01 base on one-tailed t-statistics table, as t-value greater than 1.65, it is
significant at p <0.05, while t-value at 2.35 or greater, it is
significant at p<0.01. |
As
indicated by the results of H1a and H1c, this study has proven that individual
absorptive capacity has partial influence on employees’ knowledge acquisition.
This result is parallel to the results obtained by Murray and Chao (2005),
Mykytyn et al. (1994), and Kwok and Gao (2006).
Thereby,
the ability to identify knowledge and the ability to apply knowledge were found
to be good predictors for individual knowledge acquisition, but the ability to
assimilate knowledge was found to not have any influence on individual
knowledge acquisition. In the context of MNCs, normally, training is provided
to the employees with the objective that the employees will acquire the
knowledge provided during the training and is applied in their workplace. In
most cases, as reflected from the results, the workers identify the training
they require to improve their performance, and after acquiring the knowledge,
it is applied by the employees in their workplace. Hence, in this context, the
presence of the ability to assimilate knowledge is not required to stimulate
individual knowledge acquisition. This phenomenon is potentially due to the
type of knowledge the workers obtain and identify during the training or
knowledge acquisition process.
Due
to their structure and specific needs, procedural knowledge, such as process,
product design, and know-how knowledge, is most commonly distributed across
organizations (GUPTA & GOVINDARAJAN, 2000). Alternatively, declarative
knowledge, such as monthly sales statistics and annual financial data, that
requires higher ability to assimilate since it is less tacit compared with
procedural knowledge (POLANYI, 1967), gains less attention in knowledge
transfer activities in MNCs (GUPTA & GOVINDARAJAN, 2000). The tacit
elements in procedural knowledge that are transferred in MNCs via in-house
training, peer-sharing and mentoring require the ability to identify and apply
knowledge but not to assimilate knowledge, and thus, providing a reason why the
hypothesis relating to the ability to assimilate knowledge is not significant
to individual knowledge acquisition. Nevertheless, the ability to identify and
apply knowledge has significant influence on individual knowledge acquisition,
which is linked to the tacit nature of knowledge transferred in MNCs. In conclusion,
the results suggest that individual knowledge acquisition in MNCs is only
influenced by the employees’ ability to identify and apply knowledge. Both of
these abilities are essential for local employees to successfully perform
knowledge acquisition their respective work environment.
REFERENCES
ALBINO, V., GARAVELLI, A. C., & SCHIUMA, G. (1999).
Knowledge transfer and inter-firm relationships in industrial districts: the
role of the leader firm. Technovation, n. 19, p. 53–63.
ANDERSON, J. R. (1987). Skill acquisition: compilation of
weak-method problem solutions. Psychological Review, v. 94, n. 2, p. 192-210.
ANDERSON, J. R., FINCHAM, J. M., & DOUGLASS, S. (1997).
The role of examples and rules in the acquisition of a cognitive skill. Journal
of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, v. 23, n. 4, p.
932-945.
ANDERSON, J. R. (1983). A spreading activation theory of
memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, n. 22, p. 261-295.
ANDERSON, J. R. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological
Review, v. 89, n. 4, p. 369-406.
ANH, P. T., BAUGHN, C. C., HANG, N. T., & NEUPERT, K. E.
(2006). Knowledge acquisition from foreign parents in international joint
ventures: An empirical study in Vietnam. International Business Review, v. 15,
n. 5, p. 463-487.
ARBUSSA, A., & COENDERS, G. (2007). Innovation
activities, use of appropriation instruments and absorptive capacity: Evidence
from Spanish firms. Research Policy, n. 36, p. 1545–1558.
ARGOTE, L., & INGRAM, P. (2000). Knowledge transfer: A
basis for competitive advantage in firms. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, v. 82, n. 1, p. 150–169.
BANDURA, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and
action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
BANK NEGARA MALAYSIA. (2011). BNM Annual Report 2010.
BEIJERSE, R. P. (1999). Questions in knowledge management:
defining and conceptualising a phenomenon. Journal of Knowledge Management, v.
3, n. 2, p. 94-109.
BOURDIEU, P. (1990). The logic of practice. Cambridge:
Polity Press.
BRYMAN, A., & BELL, E. (2011). Business Research
Method (3rd Edition ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
CARNEIRO, A. (2000). How does knowledge management influence
innovation and competitiveness? Journal of Knowledge Management, v. 4, n. 2,
p. 87-98.
CLARKE, T., & ROLLO, C. (2001). Corporate initiatives in
knowledge management. Education + Training, v. 43, n. 4/5, p. 206-214.
COHEN, W. M., & LEVINTHAL, D. A. (1990). Absorptive
capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative
Science Quarterly , v. 35, n. 1, p. 128-152.
COHEN, W. M., & LEVINTHAL, D. A. (1989). Innovation and
learning: the two faces of R&D. The Economic Journal, v. 99, n. 397,
p. 569-596.
DARR,
E. D., ARGOTE, L., & EPPLE, D. (1995). The acquisition, transfer, and depreciation of knowledge in
service organizations: productivity in franchises. Management Science, v. 41,
n. 11, p. 1750-1762.
DAVENPORT, T., DELONG, D. W., & BEERS, M. C. (1998).
Successful knowledge management projects. Sloan Management Review, v. 39, n.
2, p. 43-57.
EVANGELISTA, F., & HAU, L. N. (2009). Organizational
context and knowledge acquisition in IJVs: An emperical study. Journal of
World Business, n. 44, p. 63-73.
GNYAWALỊ, D. R., SINGAL, M., & MU, S. (2009). Knowledge
ties among subsidiaries in MNCs: A multi-level conceptual model. Journal of
International Management, v. 15, n. 4, p. 387-400.
GOH, S. C. (2002). Managing effective knowledge transfer: an
integrative framework and some practice implications. Journal of Knowledge
Management, v. 6, n. 1, p. 23-30.
GUPTA, A. K., & GOVINDARAJAN, V. (2000). Knowledge flows within multinational corporations. Strategic
Management Journal, n. 21, p. 473–496.
HAMEL, G. (1991). Competition for competence and
inter-partner learning within international strategic alliances. Strategic
Management Journal, n. 12, p. 83-103.
HAU, L. N., & EVANGELISTA, F. (2007). Acquiring tacit and explicit marketing knowledge from
foreign partners in IJVs. Journal of Business Research, n. 60, p. 1152-1165.
HUBER, G. P. (1991). Organizational Learning: the
contributing processes and the literatures. Organization Science, v. 2, n.
1, p. 88-115.
HOCHSTIM, J. R., & ATHANASOPOULOS, D. A. (1970). Personal
follow-up in a mail survey: its contribution and its cost. The Public
Opinion Quarterly, v. 34, n. 1, p. 69-81.
INKPEN, A. C. (2000). Learning through joint ventures: a
framework of knowledge acquisition. Journal of Management Studies, v. 40, n.
3, p. 1019-1043.
JUNAIDAH, H. (2007). Competencies acquisition through
self-directed learning among Malaysian managers. Journal of Workplace
Learning, v. 20, n. 4, p. 259-271.
KANFER, R., & ACKERMAN, P. L. (1989). Motivation and
cognitive abilities: an integrative/aptitude-treatment interaction approach to
skill acquisition. Journal of Applied Psychology, v. 74, n. 4, p. 657-690.
KIM, S. H. & LEE, H.
S. (2010) "Factors affecting employee knowledge acquisition and
application capabilities", Asia-Pacific Journal of Business
Administration, v. 2, p.133 - 152
KWOK, S. H., & GAO, S. (2006). Attitude towards knowledge
sharing behavior. Journal of Computer Information Systems, p. 45-51.
LANE, P. J., SALK, J. E., & LYLES, M. A. (2001).
Absorptive capacity, learning, and performance in international joint ventures.
Strategic Management Journal, n. 22, p. 139–1161.
LEMON, M., & SAHOTA, P. (2004). Organizational culture as
a knowledge repository for increased innovative capacity. Technovation, n. 24,
p. 483–498.
LICHTENTHALER, U. (2009). Absorptive capacity, environmental
turbulence, and the complementarity of organizational learning processes. Academy
of Management Journal, v. 52, n. 4, p. 822–846.
LIU, M. S., & LIU, N. C. (2008). Sources of knowledge acquisition and patterns of
knowledge-sharing behaviors - An empirical study of Taiwanese high-tech firms. International
Journal of Information Management, n. 28, p. 423–432.
LYLES, M. A., & SALK, J. E. (2007). Knowledge acquisition
from foreign parents in international joint ventures: an empirical examination
in the Hungarian context. Journal of International Business Studies, n. 38,
p. 3–18.
MARCOULIDES, G. A., CHIN, W. W., & SAUNDERS, C. (2009). A
critical look at partial least squares modeling. MIS Quarterly, v. 33, n.
1, p. 171-175.
MINBAEVA, D., PEDERSEN, T., BJORKMAN, I., FEY, C., &
PARK, H. (2003). MNC knowledge transfer, subsidiary absorptive capacity, and
HRM. Journal of International Business Studies, n. 34, p. 586–599.
MOWERY, D. C., OXLEY, J. E., & SILVERMAN, B. S. (1996).
Strategic alliances and inter-firm knowledge transfer. Strategic Management
Journal , 17 (Winter Special Issue), p. 77-91.
MURRAY, J. Y., & CHAO, M. C. (2005). A cross-team
framework of international knowledge acquisition on new product development
capabilities and new product market performance. Journal of International
Marketing, v. 13, n. 3, p. 54–78.
MYKYTYN, J. P., MYKYTYN, K., & RAJA, M. (1994). Knowledge
acquisition skills and traits: a self-assessment of knowledge engineers. Information
& Management, n. 26, p. 95-104.
NISSEN, M. E. (2002). An extended model of knowledge-flow
dynamics. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, n. 8,
p. 251-266.
PARKER, L. (1992). Collecting data the e-mail way. Training
and Developmen,v. 46, n. 7, p.
52-54.
PEDROSA, A. D., & JASMAND, C. (2011). Individual level absorptive capacity. DRUID 2011.
Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School.
POLANYI, M. (1967). The Tacit Dimension. New York:
Anchor Books.
POLITIS, J. D. (2003). Transformational and transactional
leadership enabling (disabling) knowledge acquisition of self-managed teams:
the consequences for performance. Leadership & Organization Development
Journal, v. 23, n. 4, p. 186-197.
RANFT, A. L., & LORD, M. D. (2000). Acquiring new
knowledge: the role of retaining human capital in acquisitions of high-tech
firms. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, v. 11, n. 2,
p. 295–319.
SCHAEFER, D. R., & DILLMAN, D. A. (1998). Development of
a standard e-mail methodology: results of an experiment. The Public Opinion
Quarterly, v. 62, n. 3, p. 378-397.
SZULANSKI, G. (1996). Exploring internal stickiness:
impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic
Management Journal, 17 (Winter Special Issue), p. 27-43.
TANG, F., MU, J., & MACLACHLAN, D. L. (2010).
Disseminative capacity, organizational structure and knowledge transfer. Expert
Systems with Applications, n. 37, p. 1586–1593.
TEECE, D. J. (1980). Economies of scope and the scope of the
enterprise. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, n. 1, p. 223-247.
TEERAJETGUL, W., & CHAREONNGAM, C. (2008). Tacit
knowledge utilization in Thai construction projects. Journal of Knowledge
Management, v. 12, n. 1, p. 164-174.
TODOROVA, G., & DURISIN, B. (2007). Absorptive capacity:
valuing a reconceptualization. Academy of Management Review, v. 32, n. 3,
p. 774–786.
TOSI,
H., MERO, N., & RIZZO, J. (2003). Managing Organizational Behavior. Massachusetts: Blackwell.
TSANG,
E. W., NGUYEN, D. T., & ERRAMILLI, M. K. (2004). Knowledge acquisition and performance of international joint
ventures in the. Journal of International Marketing, v. 12, n. 2, p.
82–103.
TU, Q., VONDEREMBSE, M. A., RAGU-NATHAN, T., & SHARKEY,
T. W. (2006). Absorptive capacity: Enhancing the assimilation of time-based
manufacturing practices. Journal of Operations Management, n. 24, p. 692–710.
VINDING, A. L. (2006). Absorptive capacity and innovative
performance. Econ. Innov. New Techn., v. 15, n. 4/5, p. 507–517.
WALL,
A. T., CRISCUOLO, P., & SALTER, A. (2011). Absorptive capacity at the individual level: an ambidexterity
approach to external engagement. DRUID 2011 (The Danish Research Unit for
Industrial Dynamics) (p. 1-34). Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School.
WHANGTHOMKUM, N. (2006). An empirical study of the
relationship between absorptive capacity and technology transfer effectiveness.
International Journal of Technology Transfer and Commercialisation, v. 5, n.
1/2, p. 31-55.
ZAHRA, S. A., & GEORGE, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: a
review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review , v. 17, n. 2, p. 185-203.