Commenced in January 2007
Frequency: Monthly
Edition: International
Paper Count: 30121
Knowledge Transfer among Cross-Functional Teams as a Continual Improvement Process

Authors: Sergio Mauricio Pérez López, Luis Rodrigo Valencia Pérez, Juan Manuel Peña Aguilar, Adelina Morita Alexander

Abstract:

The culture of continuous improvement in organizations is very important as it represents a source of competitive advantage. This article discusses the transfer of knowledge between companies which formed cross-functional teams and used a dynamic model for knowledge creation as a framework. In addition, the article discusses the structure of cognitive assets in companies and the concept of "stickiness" (which is defined as an obstacle to the transfer of knowledge). The purpose of this analysis is to show that an improvement in the attitude of individual members of an organization creates opportunities, and that an exchange of information and knowledge leads to generating continuous improvements in the company as a whole. This article also discusses the importance of creating the proper conditions for sharing tacit knowledge. By narrowing gaps between people, mutual trust can be created and thus contribute to an increase in sharing. The concept of adapting knowledge to new environments will be highlighted, as it is essential for companies to translate and modify information so that such information can fit the context of receiving organizations. Adaptation will ensure that the transfer process is carried out smoothly by preventing "stickiness". When developing the transfer process on cross-functional teams (as opposed to working groups), the team acquires the flexibility and responsiveness necessary to meet objectives. These types of cross-functional teams also generate synergy due to the array of different work backgrounds of their individuals. When synergy is established, a culture of continuous improvement is created.

Keywords: Knowledge transfer, continuous improvement, teamwork, cognitive assets.

Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1125175

Procedia APA BibTeX Chicago EndNote Harvard JSON MLA RIS XML ISO 690 PDF Downloads 1125

References:


[1] Arias, A. and Dutrénit, G., (2003). Acumulación de Capacidades Tecnológicas Locales de Empresas Globales en México: El Caso del Centro Técnico de Delphi Corp. Revista Iberoamericana de Ciencia, Tecnología, Sociedad e Innovación, Número 6 / Mayo - Agosto.
[2] Argote, L. and Ingram, P. (2000), Knowledge Transfer: A basis for competitive advantage in firms, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82 (1): 150-169. USA
[3] Cook, S.D.N. and Brown, J.S. (1999). Bridging Epistemologies: The Generative Dance between Organizational Knowledge and Organizational Knowing, Organization Science, 10(4): 381-400 USA
[4] Cataldo, J. and Prochno, P. (2005). Cognitive assets: a model to understand the organizational appropriation of collective tacit knowledge. In L. Morel-Guimares, T.M. Khalil and Y.A. Hosni (Ed): Management of technology: Key success factors for innovation and sustainable development: (123-133). Rio de Janeiro, BR: Elsevier Ltd.
[5] Davenport, T.H. and Prusak, L. (2001). Conocimiento en Acción: Cómo las organizaciones manejan lo que saben. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Pearson Education, S.A.
[6] Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., and Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and Organizations (Software of the mind): Intercultural Cooperation and Its Importance for Survival. USA: McGraw Hill.
[7] Montazemi, A. R., Pittaway, J., Saremi, H.Q., and Wei Y. (2012). Factors of stickiness in transfers of Know-how between MNC units. Journal of Strategic Information Systems. 21 (2012) 31–57.
[8] Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1999). La organización Creadora del Conocimiento: Cómo las Compañías Japonesas crean la dinámica de la Innovación. Ed: Oxford University Press
[9] Robbins, S.P. and Judge T.A. (2013). Organizational behavior, 15th ed. USA: Pearson
[10] Szulanski G. (2000). The process of knowledge transfer: a diachronic analysis of stickiness. Organizational behavior and human decision processes: 82 (1) 9-27.