Inter-organisational Knowledge Transfer Processes: Structured and Unstructured

Chen (2010) and Chen and McQueen (2010) propose inter-organisational KT processes can be distinguished between structured and unstructured processes. The structured process is deliberate and prescribed, with planned and sequenced stages, whereas the unstructured process is spontaneous and unplanned (Chen & McQueen, 2010). The unstructured KT process can jump directly to a stage without going through the previous stage(s) as in the structured process (Chen, 2010). For instance, in DDP partnerships, the jointly developed curriculum is an example of the structured KT process. Developing the curriculum requires planning some sequences that allow the Indonesian university to eventually acquire and utilise the knowledge.

Whereas, a lecturer who picks up a couple of reading materials after briefly looking at another university’s curriculum to be used in his or her course can be seen as an example of the unstructured KT process. In the following paragraphs, the four stages of the structured KT process proposed by Szulanski (1996; 2000) are discussed.

Subsequently, the explanation about the unstructured KT process is presented.

Structured knowledge transfer process

Although initially developed for investigating internal KT processes in a commercial setting, Szulanski’s (1996; 2000) structured KT framework has recently been applied in various KT studies. Chen and McQueen (2010) used it to study KT processes in offshore technical support centres. They found that novice organisational members used it to acquire explicit knowledge, whilst the more experienced organisational members tended to use unstructured process. Fichter, Helfen, and Sydow (2011) found the stages applicable to investigate KT through transnational companies’ global union labour federations. The study discovered that the global union federation as an external source of knowledge influenced the initial stages of KT (i.e., identification of the knowledge required, negotiation between the involved parties, and the mutual agreement to transfer the knowledge) to the home country union as the recipient of knowledge. Burns, Acar, and Datta (2011) applied the framework to study the effectiveness of learning before doing and learning by doing for KT in entrepreneurial product development of technology-based firms.

High reliance on learning by doing was found to be inefficient, causing delays in the absorption of knowledge; whereas, carefully conducted learning before doing could create more KT opportunities. While the above reviewed studies produced particular conclusions that may not be fully transferable to the university context, they show the versatility of Szulanski’s framework to investigate different aspects of KT in different organisational settings. Hence, the framework can also be utilised for studying KT between universities. To the author’s knowledge, studies of structured KT processes in an Indonesian university setting are almost non-existent. This present study can be one of the first utilising Szulanski’s framework in the Indonesian HE context.

There are four stages in Szulanski’s structured KT process: initiation, implementation, ramp-up and integration. The initiation and implementation stages require collaboration between the sender (the Australian university) and the receiver of knowledge (the Indonesian university) (Fichter et al., 2011). According to Szulanski (1996; 2000), the initiation stage begins with the identification of a problem and the demand for desired knowledge. Once a problem is recognised, the organisation can begin to search for the desired knowledge that can assist in solving the problem. As the context is DDPs, this desired knowledge is derived from the DDP partner as an external source. This process is supposedly time consuming as the receiver organisation surveys various solutions to their problem and seeks a perfect match between the problem and the desired knowledge (Szulanski, 1996; 2000).

Potential sender organisations are then approached and the one willing to share that knowledge to the receiver organisation is the eventual partner. Identifying and approaching the sender organisation is a complex process where issues of unequal power relations and social ties have to be addressed (Easterby-Smith et al., 2008).

In the context of this current study, the initiation stage may take several hypothetical scenarios. First, some Indonesian universities perhaps commence their DDPs with specific intentions to acquire knowledge from an Australian partner in order to improve their capacities. In this case, this is a Szulanski’s ideal initiation stage. Second, some DDPs may commence because of serendipity. Fielden (2011) described the establishment of a DDP between a Chinese and British university happened because of an unanticipated encounter during an education fair. Third, the DDPs may start because of offers made by the Australian universities. As previously

discussed, the Australian universities seek to expand their market presence in Asia to recruit more students (Healey, 2008), and in accordance with the Indonesian government regulation, they can only establish DDPs with Indonesian partners to access the local market. The Indonesian universities subsequently welcome the Australian partners’ offers and negotiate agreements which perhaps include some opportunities for KT in line with the Indonesian universities’ capacity development purpose. Consequently, in this scenario, the initiation stage of KT differs from Szulanski’s conceptualisation. The Indonesian universities as the knowledge receivers did not identify and approach the knowledge senders, i.e. the Australian universities.

The stage that follows is the implementation stage where knowledge flows from the sender to the receiver organisation. The stage commences after the agreement to proceed sharing of knowledge. The required activities and mechanisms to effectuate KT, such as team teaching, seminars, e-mail communication, are implemented (Chen, 2010).The knowledge sender and receiver engage in intensive communication with the aim of introducing the knowledge in an affable atmosphere for the receiver (Szulanski, 1996; 2000). In accordance with the previous discussion on the function of soft and hard KT mechanisms (Jasimuddin & Zhang, 2009), the soft KT mechanisms, such as face-to-face meetings, may initiate the KT process.

Gradually, more hard KT mechanisms, such as e-mail, can be used to carry on the process (Perrin et al., 2007). At the end of this stage, the knowledge is acquired, but not necessarily utilised.

In the ramp-up stage, the receiver organisation begins to utilise the acquired knowledge and rectify any unexpected problems that may hamper the successful utilisation of the knowledge. Although, initially it may be problematic, but as the receiver organisation gets better acquainted with the new knowledge it may gradually improve the utilisation of knowledge to achieve a satisfactory result (Szulanski, 1996; 2000). The acquired knowledge is further adjusted to the context of the Indonesian university as the knowledge receiver in this stage.

The last stage is integration. This stage begins after the knowledge receiver is satisfied with the results of the acquired knowledge and the knowledge is then routinely utilised and ceases to be a novelty. Shared understanding about the knowledge and common practices in utilising the knowledge are eventually

crystallised, thus integrated into the receiver organisation (Szulanski, 1996; 2000).

Within this stage, the acquired knowledge may be codified by the receiver organisation to assist in disseminating the knowledge throughout the organisation, resulting in revision or production of organisational policies, standard operational procedures, and databases (Crossan et al., 1999; Jasimuddin & Zhang, 2011). In other words, the knowledge is eventually institutionalised by the receiver. To ensure that the knowledge is not lost due to the staff turnover, organisations build the capacity to encode, store, and retrieve organisational knowledge, i.e. knowledge management (Argote et al., 2003; Flores et al., 2012).

In light of the previous discussion on the four stages of structured KT process, there are four corresponding areas of investigation for this present study. First, it investigates how Indonesian universities initiate the structured KT process, which may differ from Szulanski’s conceptualisation. Second, the present study clarifies the partner universities’ interaction in the implementation stage as exemplified by the activities undertaken to enact KT. Some studies on KT in the university context claim that KT has been successfully accomplished but lack clear descriptions of the process and activities undertaken by both the sender and receiver universities to enact KT (see for example Courtney & Anderson, 2009; Li-Hua, 2007). Thus this present study aims to describe and analyse the interaction that occurs in the implementation stage. This interaction also involves the KT mechanisms, knowledge types, dynamics of relationship between the partnering universities, and university’s intentions to acquire and share knowledge. Third, the present study examines the measures taken to contextualise the acquired knowledge by the Indonesian universities in the ramp up stage. Finally, it ascertains the integration of acquired knowledge by perusing the extent of its codification and dissemination within the Indonesian universities. Hence, this present study records and analyses the Indonesian and Australian universities’ understanding and implementation of the stages. While it is expected that KT through DDP partnerships between the Indonesian and Australian universities involve preparation and planned stages, there are also possibilities that KT can take place without prior planning—through unstructured KT processes, which is discussed in the next section.

Unstructured knowledge transfer process

Unstructured KT processes are spontaneous, informal and unplanned (Chen, 2010; Chen & McQueen, 2010). This is important to be taken into account because it is perhaps the most commonly used KT process (Davenport & Prusak, 1998). Chen and McQueen (2010) posit that there are three possibilities of an unstructured KT process. First, the process can take place by copying existing knowledge from external sources and applying it to local practices. The transferred knowledge may be derived from pre-existing knowledge sources, such as libraries, websites, and archives. Organisational members copy selectively the required knowledge by taking into account the conditions of their organisations (Chen, 2010). Second, it is also likely that the transferred knowledge is not only copied selectively, but also adapted to the new context of the receiver organisation before being utilised (Chen &

McQueen, 2010). Third, it is possible that the transferred knowledge is newly created by fusing the knowledge from the receiver and the sender organisations. This fusion process occurs because there is no prior knowledge that can be copied and adapted, or the pre-existing knowledge from the sender organisation is not applicable for the receiver organisation. In such instances, experts from each organisation combine their knowledge to create knowledge that may be very different from the pre-existing knowledge known by each expert. According to Chen and McQueen (2010), this fusion does not necessarily involve a long-term face-to-face meeting. A simple conference call is enough to inspire the experts to generate new knowledge and solution for the benefit of their respective organisations.

Chen and McQueen (2010) found that the unstructured KT process took place in daily work of a technical support centre in China. The unstructured copy was mainly used to transfer both tacit and explicit knowledge, whereas the unstructured adaptation and fusion were used to transfer tacit knowledge. These unstructured KT processes took place in a casual manner and are not necessarily documented by the organisation. The unstructured KT process can transfer both the explicit and tacit knowledge, but it mainly facilitates the transfer of tacit knowledge (Chen &

McQueen, 2010). This is in line with Nonaka’s (1994) postulation that the tacit knowledge creation and sharing processes in organisations may take place through informal social interactions.

The aforementioned explanation and research findings on unstructured KT process have relevance for this present study. Evidently, unstructured KT processes cannot be overlooked as they may be useful in the context of KT between Indonesian and Australian universities. Moreover, to further capitalise on the knowledge acquired through the unstructured process, integrating/institutionalising the knowledge is necessary (Argote et al., 2003). Investigating the unstructured KT processes and the integration of knowledge acquired from these processes may be challenging because it is largely undocumented and involves tacit knowledge. That the process may not be planned and well-documented requires carefully designed interview questions that allow the research participants to explore and explain the unstructured KT process, beyond the previously identified areas for KT in DDPs, such as curriculum and marketing knowledge. This is pertinent given some research findings reviewed in Section 2.5.1 state that the transferred knowledge is most likely explicit in nature (Morrison, 2008; Windsperger & Gorovaia, 2010). They seem to emphasise on the structured KT process that is more appropriate for transferring explicit knowledge and may not take into account the unstructured KT process.

Perhaps, in many instances, the unstructured KT process is not fully appreciated and recognised (Davenport & Prusak, 1998). By taking into account both the structured and unstructured KT processes, this current study seeks to provide a fuller picture of KT through DDPs between the Indonesian and Australian universities.

Although universities are often perceived as centres of knowledge creation (Duderstadt & Weber, 2006), how newly acquired knowledge is managed and adopted is not well researched and documented as studies on KT among universities have been found wanting (Li-Hua, 2007). The limited studies available have exposed different isolated aspects of the KT process, such as the mechanisms used to transfer knowledge and the role of trust in the KT process (see Courtney & Anderson, 2009;

Napier, 2005; Ringwald, 2008). There are extremely limited studies that have examined KT between universities using a robust and comprehensive theoretical framework. This present study intends to fill that gap in the literature by researching KT processes in a university context along with the related constructs discussed previously. As section 2.5.5 has concluded the discussion on the KT processes and the relevant constructs, to synthesise the discussion, a theoretical framework to analyse KT through DDPs is explained in the subsequent section.

2.5.6 Theoretical Framework for Inter-university Knowledge Transfer through