MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Innovation Practice Transfer and Capability Development within the Multinational Enterprise

2012· article· en· W54267312 on OpenAlexaff
Nathaniel C. Lupton, Paul W. Beamish

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademy of Management Proceedings · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInnovation and Knowledge Management
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultinational corporationBusinessInterdependenceKnowledge managementKnowledge transferContext (archaeology)SubsidiaryPromotion (chess)Knowledge flowIndustrial organizationProcess managementComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Establishing innovation mandates within foreign affiliates often requires the transfer of practices from elsewhere within the MNE network. If, in accordance with the knowledge based theory of the firm, the MNE is superior to markets in the exploitation and diffusion of knowledge and capabilities, it must identify and diffuse superior practices throughout the innovation network. Case study methodology was used to examine the transfer of innovation practices and the resulting development and enhancement of associated capabilities within four MNEs in technologically advanced industries. Primary contributions of this study are the identification of the role of headquarters in creating mutual interdependencies amongst subsidiaries in order to hasten innovation capability development and enhance knowledge flow, and the role of practice transfer in creating shared context through promotion of organizational knowledge use and the facilitating role of communication technologies. The manner in which these coordination and control mechanisms are implemented facilitates the integration of different units within the MNE innovation network.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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)0.003
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.968
Threshold uncertainty score0.629

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademy of Management ProceedingsSame topicInnovation and Knowledge ManagementFrench-language works237,207