MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2038208731 · doi:10.1108/jkm-11-2013-0448

Organizational structure and knowledge-practice diffusion in the MNC

2014· article· en· W2038208731 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Knowledge Management · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInnovation and Knowledge Management
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKnowledge managementKnowledge transferMultinational corporationInterdependenceKnowledge sharingBusinessOrganizational structureOriginalityKnowledge value chainOrganizational learningComputer scienceQualitative researchSociologyManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose – This study aims to examine the interaction of formal and informal cross-border knowledge-sharing practices of four large multinational corporations (MNCs) in aerospace, software, IT services and telecommunications industries. The goal was to determine the manner in which coordination and control mechanisms facilitated knowledge transfer. Design/methodology/approach – Case studies comprised secondary data and semi-structured interviews with corporate headquarters and subsidiary managers in large MNCs conducted in the USA, Canada, Mexico, China, India and Eastern Europe. Findings – The primary finding of this study is that knowledge transfer mechanisms arise as a result of both formal and informal structures of the MNC. Formal structures which create either mutual dependencies or occasions for knowledge exchange facilitate transfer. Formal structure which inhibits knowledge transfer can be overcome by knowledge brokers and evaluation metrics. Research limitations/implications – These findings suggest that knowledge transfer is more informal than formal, but that MNC headquarters does play a role, intended or not, through shaping the interdependencies among geographically distributed units. Managers should be mindful of both the manner in which tasks and the organization are structured, as these have an indirect impact on the development of knowledge channels. Originality/value – This paper investigates the role of organizational structure and its effect, both intended and unintended, on the transfer of knowledge-based practices. While knowledge transfer has been heavily researched, this study examines the phenomenon at a finer-grained level of analysis.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.967
Threshold uncertainty score0.652

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.227 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it