The DOI matches its Crossref record; 31 of the 31 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 14 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Knowledge of the Firm and the Evolutionary Theory of the Multinational Corporation
Open accessAbstract
Firms are social communities that specialize in the creation and internal transfer of knowledge. The multinational corporation arises not out of the failure of markets for the buying and selling of knowledge, but out of its superior efficiency as an organizational vehicle by which to transfer this knowledge across borders. We test the claim that firms specialize in the internal transfer of tacit knowledge by empirically examining the decision to transfer the capability to manufacture new products to wholly owned subsidiaries or to other parties. The empirical results show that the less codifiable and the harder to teach is the technology, the more likely the transfer will be to wholly owned operations. This result implies that the choice of transfer mode is determined by the efficiency of the multinational corporation in transferring knowledge relative to other firms, not relative to an abstract market transaction. The notion of the firm as specializing in the transfer and recombination of knowledge is the foundation to an evolutionary theory of the multinational corporation.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
60 Own interpretation · 9 Own result · 8 Own method · 7 No full text of the sources · 5 Sources not found · 5 No basis given
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“strong support was found for the proposition that the choice of transfer mode is explained by the degree of tacitness of technology.”
- Also stated in: § Results · hedged
“They consistently show that the more tacit the technology is, the more likely it will be transferred to a wholly owned subsidiary.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > Abstract
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Results · hedged
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The empirical results show that the less codifiable and the harder to teach is the technology, the more likely the transfer will be to wholly owned operations.”
- Also stated in: § Results · hedged
“They consistently show that the more tacit the technology is, the more likely it will be transferred to a wholly owned subsidiary.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Results · hedged
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The following investigation is meant to show that knowledge that is difficult to codify or teach and is also complex will tend to be transferredwithin the firm.”
- Also stated in: § Results · hedged
“The positive coefficient to Complexity indicates that as technologies increase in their complexity, they are more likely to be transferred to wholly owned subsidiaries.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > AN EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Results · hedged
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Ourresults suggest, though, that there remains a distinguishable boundary in the knowledge between the partner firms.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > Results
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We also partitionedthe sample by groupingjoint venturesand wholly owned subsidiaries together.The significance levels of the coefficients deteriorated.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The effect of age of the technology is insignificant.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The above results provide support for the contention that firms specialize in the transfer of knowledge that is difficult to understandand codify.”
- Also stated in: § 16. The validation of the questionnaire design and the reliability and validity of the constructs are discussed in detail in Zander [1991a] and Zander and Kogut [forthcoming]. · hedged
“Ourfindings suggesting that firms specialize in the transfer of relatively tacit and idiosyncratic knowledge are consistent with this broader evolutionary perspective.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > Results
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 16. The validation of the questionnaire design and the reliability and validity of the constructs are discussed in detail in Zander [1991a] and Zander and Kogut [forthcoming]. · hedged
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The coefficients to the variables Codifiabilityand Teachabilityarenegative and significant, indicating that as the knowledge becomes more codified and more easily taught, the more likely it will be transferred to a third party rather than to a wholly owned subsidiary.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > Results
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“What firms do is to specialize in the creation and transfer of specialized knowledge.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The positive coefficient to Complexity indicates that as technologies increase in their complexity, they are more likely to be transferred to wholly owned subsidiaries.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > Results
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 25
- Probably not a substantial claim. 15
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Knowledge is transferredby joint ventures, but for uncodified knowledge, the preferred vehicle is transfer between wholly owned units.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > Results
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The number of previous transfers is negatively related to transfer to wholly owned subsidiaries, contrary to expectation, but the relationship is insignificant.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The multinational corporation arises not out of the failure of markets for the buying and selling of knowledge, but out of its superior efficiency as an organizational vehicle by which to transfer this knowledge across borders.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Firms are social communities that specialize in the creation and internal transfer of knowledge.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is difficult to discuss and analyze the growth of the firm, and its boundaries, in the context of comparative statics.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > 16. The validation of the questionnaire design and the reliability and validity of the constructs are discussed in detail in Zander [1991a] and Zander and Kogut [forthcoming].
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Rather, these costs are derived from the efforts of codifying and teaching complex knowledge to recipients; more efforts must be expended, the less capable the user.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > DIRECT INVESTMENT AND KNOWLEDGEAS A PUBLIC GOOD
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“And surely, when such a decision is considered, an importantaspect would be the extent to which a firm has an advantage in specialized knowledge of cooperating with agents and the extent to which their shared knowledge will further accumulate and provide platforms for future opportunities.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > 16. The validation of the questionnaire design and the reliability and validity of the constructs are discussed in detail in Zander [1991a] and Zander and Kogut [forthcoming].
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Horizontal foreign direct investment is, therefore, the transferof knowledge within the firm and across borders, and in this regard, such transfers are the primary expression of the growth of the firm.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > 16. The validation of the questionnaire design and the reliability and validity of the constructs are discussed in detail in Zander [1991a] and Zander and Kogut [forthcoming].
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Another interpretation,rarely discussed in the literature,is that technologies that are difficult to codify also representplatforms for expansion into future markets.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Multiple respondents for an innovation were not used, though, for some questionnaires, one individual scored the basic information and another answered the section dealing with the manufacturing process.(As the questions did not reflect on the respondent's performance, the risk of misattributionis low.)”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > AN EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A response rate of 80% was attained; the remaining 20% were similar in size and industry affiliation to the responding organizations.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > AN EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By our results, tacitness will increase the costs of transfer and decrease the speed by which knowledge is transferred within the firm or between partners.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > Results
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“What our propositions and empirical tests have sought to put forth is the view that the attributes of knowledge influence the decision of where to draw the boundaries of the firm.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > 16. The validation of the questionnaire design and the reliability and validity of the constructs are discussed in detail in Zander [1991a] and Zander and Kogut [forthcoming].
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In short, the decision to license is not simply based on the costs of this made relative to an internal transfer; it is also influenced by the expectation of revenues that would be foregone by failing to accumulate experiential knowledge in the foreign market.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > 16. The validation of the questionnaire design and the reliability and validity of the constructs are discussed in detail in Zander [1991a] and Zander and Kogut [forthcoming].
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We include these additional two variables in our estimations, as it is unlikely that the three scales measuring codifiability, teachability, and complexity (or any set of measures) can fully specify the tacitness of technology.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > AN EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“These findings are perfectly consistent with Teece's discovery that the costs of transfer vary widely.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > Results
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Teece
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In short, it is reasonable to conclude that age and previous transfers act as proxies for a latent variable of tacitness; once more direct measures are provided, their influence should disappear.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > Results
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“These costs declined with each subsequent transfer and with the experience of the recipient of the technology.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > DIRECT INVESTMENT AND KNOWLEDGEAS A PUBLIC GOOD
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Teece [1977] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Davidson and McFetridge [1984] similarly found that transferto unaffiliatedrecipients is promoted if the firm has transferred technology in the past.However, experience in internal transfers encourages more internal transfers in the future.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > Experience with the technology again points to the important relationship between the currentstate of knowledge andlearningcapabilitiesof the adopter.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Davidson and McFetridge [1984] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Competition among firms is based upon their differential capabilities, and their abilities to expand by the creation and replication of new knowledge faster than the imitative and innovative efforts of competitors.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > Results
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The cost of the transfer of technologies should differ among firms, and these differences should have an effect on the desirability to transfer technology within the firm or by license, independent of the issue of opportunism.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > DIRECT INVESTMENT AND KNOWLEDGEAS A PUBLIC GOOD
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Firms compete on the basis of the superiority of their information and know-how, and their abilities to develop new knowledge by experiential learning.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > 16. The validation of the questionnaire design and the reliability and validity of the constructs are discussed in detail in Zander [1991a] and Zander and Kogut [forthcoming].
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In its more advanced evolution, this process alters the global knowledge of the firm and may result in its transformationtowards a network of subsidiaries characterized by the cross-border transfer of learning.20”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > 16. The validation of the questionnaire design and the reliability and validity of the constructs are discussed in detail in Zander [1991a] and Zander and Kogut [forthcoming].
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [20] 20. Semi-Synthetic Penicillin:PENGLOBE1970 (ASTRA) 24. Selective Beta-Blocker:SELOKEN1970 (HASSLE/ASTRA) 25. Roller Bearing: CC 1972 (SKF)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this sense, the view that we put forth is compatible with an evolutionary perspective on the growth of the firm.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > 16. The validation of the questionnaire design and the reliability and validity of the constructs are discussed in detail in Zander [1991a] and Zander and Kogut [forthcoming].
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One interpretationof this result is that firms are able to transfer these technologies at a lower cost to wholly owned subsidiaries than to third parties.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > Results
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Contractor[1981] found thattechnologytransfer(via licensing) increases with the number of other firms using a technology, suggesting that spillovers can create a generalized and cumulative capability in its use.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > Experience with the technology again points to the important relationship between the currentstate of knowledge andlearningcapabilitiesof the adopter.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Contractor [1981]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The standardizationof evaluation systems and procedures is an expression of the shared knowledge, values, and assumptions and eases the transfer of knowledge within the firm.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > Experience with the technology again points to the important relationship between the currentstate of knowledge andlearningcapabilitiesof the adopter.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These scales measure the latent construct of the tacitness of knowledge.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > AN EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At any point in time, given the current stock of knowledge of the firm, managers will face the problem of deciding how to service a foreign market: by license, export, or direct investment.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > 16. The validation of the questionnaire design and the reliability and validity of the constructs are discussed in detail in Zander [1991a] and Zander and Kogut [forthcoming].
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At the same time, novel technologies are likely to be less codified.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > Results
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Discriminant validity could not be tested by factor analysis, but a comparison within and between correlations of the items indicated reasonably strong discrimination.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > Construction of the Measures
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These findings lend themselves to the interpretationthatthe experience in internal transfers is codified in a way idiosyncratic to the firm, but once a firm has invested in codifying knowledge for the purpose of licensing, external transfers are subsequently promoted.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > Experience with the technology again points to the important relationship between the currentstate of knowledge andlearningcapabilitiesof the adopter.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In a seminal paper, Teece [1977] established that technology is not a public good, estimating the costs of transfer to range from 2% to 59% of total costs of the twenty-seven projects he analyzed.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > DIRECT INVESTMENT AND KNOWLEDGEAS A PUBLIC GOOD
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Teece [1977] source
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The more complex a manufacturing technology, the more difficult it should be to transfer or to imitate.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > AN EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But what is more important, the second point suggests a notion of team skills independentof individualswhich is difficult to reconcile with a belief that internalization defines the boundary of the firm.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > Results
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One explanation is simply that such a procedure grouped fifty-three cases of transfer into the joint venture/wholly owned category, and only twentynine into the licensing/contract choice; given the sample size, this imbalance may have affected the results.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > Results
hedgedconditionaln = 53- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The problem with the argument that the firm exists due to market failure is that it is overdetermined; the assumption of opportunism is not needed, only the differential in costs in the transmission of knowledge within the firm as opposed to between firms.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > DIRECT INVESTMENT AND KNOWLEDGEAS A PUBLIC GOOD
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We recognize that this test is by no means fully specified.In particular,we do not look at the capabilities of the recipient.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > AN EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
The 35 Swedish innovations and 82 transfer cases are representative of technology transfer by multinational corporations generally.
“The innovations were identified from a studyby Walhmark andMcQueen [1986] on 100 majorSwedish innovations.”
“The sample size of the tests thus consists of the eightytwo instances of the transfer of the capability to manufacture.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Markets are imperfect even if they rarely fail, and human behavior can be motivated by self-interest.
“Markets, even if they rarely fail, are imperfect; human behavior can be motivated by self-interest.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Knowledge transfer is not trivial even within the firm.
“That the transfer of knowledge is not trivial even within the firm is a fundamental observation.”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > Results
“The number of previous transfers is negatively related to transfer to wholly owned subsidiaries, contrary to expectation, but the relationship is insignificant.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > AN EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION
“As a secondary interest, we test the variables of the age and previous times transferred,as suggested by Teece and others, and predict a negative relationship to the choice of wholly owned subsidiaries.”
Citations
Cites
Rogers, E. M., Singhal, A., & Quinlan, M. M. (2019) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203710753-35 · Cited by 37,670
An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change.
Loasby, B. J., Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1983) · The Economic Journal · doi:10.2307/2232409 · Cited by 21,426
Psychometric theory (2nd ed.).
Sitgreaves, R. (1979) · Contemporary Psychology · doi:10.1037/018882 · Cited by 14,384
Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications.
O'Brien, D. P., & Williamson, O. E. (1976) · The Economic Journal · doi:10.2307/2230812 · Cited by 13,469
Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.3.3.383 · Cited by 12,939
Self-citationTransaction-Cost Economics: The Governance of Contractual Relations
Williamson, O. E. (1979) · The Journal of Law and Economics · doi:10.1086/466942 · Cited by 10,190
An evolutionary theory of economic change
Winter, & Sidney, G. (1982) · Cited by 6,343
Multinational Enterprise and Economic Analysis: Frontmatter
Casson, M., & Caves, R. (1984) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511619113 · Cited by 3,745
Joint ventures: Theoretical and empirical perspectives
Kogut, B. (1988) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.4250090403 · Cited by 3,333
Self-citationMarkets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications.
Ouchi, W. G., & Williamson, O. E. (1977) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2392191 · Cited by 2,733
Research works printed but not linked: 8
- [7]7. Quintus Type Steel Press for Use in the ASEA-STORA Process 1962 (ASEA)
- [15]15. Isostatic Press for Steel Processing 1967 (ASEA)
- [33]33. Casson, Mark. 1987. Thefirmnand the mlarket.Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
- [39]39. Hall, G. & R. Johnson. 1970. Transfers of United Aerospace Technology to Japan. In Raymond Vernon, editor, The technology factor in international trade. New York: Columbia University Press.
- [44]44. Hymer, Stephen. 1976. The international operations of national firms: A study of direct investment. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press (reprint of Ph.D. thesis, Department of Economics, MIT, 1960).
- [45]45. Johnson, Harry. 1970. The efficiency and welfare implications of the multinational corporation. In Charles Kindleberger, editor, The international corporation. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
- [53]53. Nunnally, John C. 1978 (second edition). Psychomletric theory. New York: McGraw Hill.
- [55]55. Rogers, Everett. 1962. Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 201–300 of 3,993
Resource-Based Explanation of Entry Mode Choice
Sharma, V. M., & Erramilli, M. K. (2004) · The Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice · doi:10.1080/10696679.2004.11658509 · Cited by 281
Current paradigms in the international management field: An author co-citation analysis
Acedo, F. J., & Bueno, J. C. C. (2005) · International Business Review · doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2005.05.003 · Cited by 255
Do we need different frameworks to explain infant MNEs from developing countries?
Narula, R. (2012) · Global Strategy Journal · doi:10.1111/j.2042-5805.2012.01035.x · Cited by 258
Clemens, B., & Douglas, T. J. (2005) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2005.09.016 · Cited by 264
Managerial decision-making in international business: A forty-five-year retrospective
Aharoni, Y., Tihanyi, L., & Connelly, B. L. (2010) · Journal of World Business · doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2010.05.001 · Cited by 260
The Bridging Role of Expatriates and Inpatriates in Knowledge Transfer in Multinational Corporations
Harzing, A.-W. K., Pudelko, M., & Reiche, B. S. (2015) · Human Resource Management · doi:10.1002/hrm.21681 · Cited by 254
Is Nepotism Good or Bad? Types of Nepotism and Implications for Knowledge Management
Jaskiewicz, P., Uhlenbruck, K., Balkin, D. B., & Reay, T. (2013) · Family Business Review · doi:10.1177/0894486512470841 · Cited by 303
Jönsson, A., & Foss, N. J. (2011) · Journal of International Business Studies · doi:10.1057/jibs.2011.32 · Cited by 254
Cui, A., Griffith, D., & Cavusgil, S. (2005) · Journal of International Marketing · doi:10.1509/jimk.13.3.32 · Cited by 274
Michailova, S., & Mustaffa, Z. (2011) · Journal of World Business · doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2011.05.006 · Cited by 252
Path Dependence and Knowledge Development in the Internationalization Process
Eriksson, K., Majkgård, A., & Sharma, D. D. (2000) · Management International Review · Cited by 245
Local R&D Strategies and Multilocation Firms: The Role of Internal Linkages
Alcácer, J., & Zhao, M. (2011) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.1110.1451 · Cited by 240
Choice Between Non-Equity Entry Modes: An Organizational Capability Perspective
Krishna Erramilli, M., Agarwal, S., & Dev, C. S. (2002) · Journal of International Business Studies · doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8491014 · Cited by 243
An integrative model of the role of knowledge in the internationalization process
Bueno, J. C. C., Moreno, A. M., Acedo, F. J., Gallego, M. A., & Hidalgo, E. R. (2008) · Journal of World Business · doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2008.08.001 · Cited by 259
The Development and Impact of Marketing Capabilities in Central Europe
Fahy, J., Hooley, G., Cox, T., Berács, J., Fonfara, K., & Snoj, B. (2000) · Journal of International Business Studies · doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490907 · Cited by 260
Kumar, S. (2008) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.724 · Cited by 235
The link between non‐technological innovations and technological innovation
Mothe, C., & Nguyen-Thi, T. U. (2010) · European Journal of Innovation Management · doi:10.1108/14601061011060148 · Cited by 240
Some Notes on Institutions in Evolutionary Economic Geography
Boschma, R. A., & Frenken, K. (2009) · Economic Geography · doi:10.1111/j.1944-8287.2009.01018.x · Cited by 240
Global integration and innovation: Multicountry knowledge generation within MNC s
Berry, H. (2013) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.2140 · Cited by 232
SALOMON, R. M., & Jin, B. (2007) · Journal of International Business Studies · doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400320 · Cited by 233
Multinational firms, global value chains and the organization of knowledge transfer
Saliola, F., & Zanfei, A. (2009) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2008.11.003 · Cited by 242
Carson, S. J., Madhok, A., Varman, R., & John, G. (2003) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.14.1.45.12811 · Cited by 233
Towards more realistic conceptualisations of foreign operation modes
Benito, G. R. G., Petersen, B., & Welch, L. S. (2009) · Journal of International Business Studies · doi:10.1057/jibs.2009.54 · Cited by 232
Agency Perspectives on Corporate Governance of Multinational Enterprises
Filatotchev, I. V., & Wright, M. (2010) · Journal of Management Studies · doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00921.x · Cited by 231
A general framework of digitization risks in international business
Luo, Y. (2021) · Journal of International Business Studies · doi:10.1057/s41267-021-00448-9 · Cited by 278
Resource-based theory and international growth strategies: an exploratory study
Andersen, O., & Kheam, L. S. (1998) · International Business Review · doi:10.1016/s0969-5931(98)00004-3 · Cited by 229
Frenkel, M. (2008) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2008.34422002 · Cited by 245
Creating a Superior Customer-Relating Capability
Day, G. S. (2003) · ScholarlyCommons (University of Pennsylvania) · Cited by 233
Managing knowledge in foreign entry strategies: a resource-based analysis
Meyer, K., Wright, M., & Pruthi, S. (2009) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.756 · Cited by 253
Greenfield or acquisition entry: A review of the empirical foreign establishment mode literature
Slangen, A., & Hennart, J. (2007) · Journal of International Management · doi:10.1016/j.intman.2007.08.001 · Cited by 218
Foss, N. J., & Pedersen, T. (2019) · Journal of International Business Studies · doi:10.1057/s41267-019-00270-4 · Cited by 238
Narula, R. (2014) · Long Range Planning · doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2013.10.006 · Cited by 223
Building knowledge: developing a knowledge‐based dynamic capabilities typology
Denford, J. S. (2013) · Journal of Knowledge Management · doi:10.1108/13673271311315150 · Cited by 238
International strategy: From local to global and beyond
Hitt, M. A., Li, D., & Xu, K. (2015) · Journal of World Business · doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2015.08.016 · Cited by 247
Schwens, C., Zapkau, F. B., Bierwerth, M., Isidor, R., Knight, G., & Kabst, R. (2018) · Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice · doi:10.1177/1042258718795346 · Cited by 230
“The protection of knowledge from unwanted dissemination particularly pertains to a firm’s knowledge that is easy to transfer but difficult to protect such as its technological knowledge (Kogut & Zander, 1993; Prashantham, 2005).”
BackgroundMartin, X., & Salomon, R. (2003) · Organ. Sci. · doi:10.1287/orsc.14.3.297.15165 · Cited by 235
NGOs and corporations: conflict and collaboration
(2010) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.47-5125 · Cited by 223
Zaim, H., Muhammed, S., & Tarım, M. (2018) · Knowledge Management Research & Practice · doi:10.1080/14778238.2018.1538669 · Cited by 265
“Knowledge management process has been defined in the literature as comprising of a variety of processes that sometimes overlap each other (Alavi & Leidner, 2001; Earl, 2001; Hussinki, Kianto, Vanhala, & Ritala, 2017; Kogut & Zander, 1993; Spender, 1996; Teece, 1998; Theriou et al., 2014).”
BackgroundThe role of knowledge embeddedness in the creation of synergies in strategic alliances
Nielsen, B. B. (2004) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2004.05.001 · Cited by 212
Organizational Characteristics and Reverse Technology Transfer1
Håkanson, L., & Nobel, R. (2001) · Management International Review · Cited by 209
Employee Turnover and Tacit Knowledge Diffusion: A Network Perspective
Droege, S. B., & Hoobler, J. M. (2003) · Journal of managerial issues · Cited by 213
Managing Knowledge for Innovation: The Case of Business‐to‐Business Services*
Leiponen, A. E. (2006) · Journal of Product Innovation Management · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5885.2006.00196.x · Cited by 227
Interpersonal similarity as a driver of knowledge sharing within multinational corporations
Mäkelä, K., Kalla, H. K., & Piekkari, R. (2007) · International Business Review · doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2006.11.002 · Cited by 211
Global production networks: Design and operation
Lanza, G., Ferdows, K., Kara, S., Mourtzis, D., Schuh, G., Váncza, J., Wang, L., & Wiendahl, H. (2019) · CIRP Annals · doi:10.1016/j.cirp.2019.05.008 · Cited by 218
How digital technology promotes entrepreneurship in ecosystems
Zahra, S. A., Liu, W., & Si, S. (2022) · Technovation · doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2022.102457 · Cited by 216
Social capital, knowledge management, and sustained superior performance
Hoffman, J. J., Hoelscher, M. L., & Sherif, K. (2005) · Journal of Knowledge Management · doi:10.1108/13673270510602791 · Cited by 209
Big data text analytics: an enabler of knowledge management
Khan, Z., & Vorley, T. (2017) · Journal of Knowledge Management · doi:10.1108/jkm-06-2015-0238 · Cited by 211
Globalization of an ethnocentric firm: An evolutionary perspective
Malnight, T. W. (1995) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.4250160204 · Cited by 177
Haas, M. R. (2010) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2010.54533180 · Cited by 215
International attention and multinational enterprise performance
Bouquet, C., Morrison, A. J., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008) · Journal of International Business Studies · doi:10.1057/jibs.2008.64 · Cited by 211
“The concept of attention potentially represents a ‘‘missing link’’ between studies examining the value-added function of corporate HQ (Chandler, 1977, 1991) and knowledge-based notions of competitive advantage (Grant, 1996; Kogut & Zander, 1993).”
BackgroundMNE institutional advantage: How subunits shape, transpose and evade host country institutions
Regnér, P., & Edman, J. (2013) · Journal of International Business Studies · doi:10.1057/jibs.2013.66 · Cited by 212
Actions to overcome knowledge transfer barriers in MNCs
Riege, A. M. (2007) · Journal of Knowledge Management · doi:10.1108/13673270710728231 · Cited by 211
International diversification, subsidiary performance, and the mobility of knowledge resources
Fang, Y., Wade, M. R., Delios, A., & Beamish, P. W. (2007) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.619 · Cited by 213
Pitelis, C. N. (2007) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1060.0244 · Cited by 215
Khan, Z., Lew, Y. K., & Marinova, S. T. (2018) · International Business Review · doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2018.11.007 · Cited by 215
Technology, innovation and knowledge: The importance of ideas and international connectivity
Andersson, U., Dasí, À., Mudambi, R., & Pedersen, T. (2015) · Journal of World Business · doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2015.08.017 · Cited by 223
Hutzschenreuter, T., Voll, J., & Verbeke, A. C. (2010) · Journal of Management Studies · doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00966.x · Cited by 207
Reshoring and insourcing: drivers and future research directions
Foerstl, K. D., Kirchoff, J. F., & Bals, L. (2016) · International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management · doi:10.1108/ijpdlm-02-2015-0045 · Cited by 230
Lin, B. (2003) · R and D Management · doi:10.1111/1467-9310.00301 · Cited by 211
Make, buy, organize: The interplay between research, external knowledge, and firm structure
Arora, A., Sharon Belenzon, Y., & Rios, L. A. (2013) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.2098 · Cited by 203
“Internal research helps rms identify, evaluate, and assimilate external knowledge (Rosenberg, 1979; Cohen and Levinthal, 1990), which often comes via acquisitions (Kogut and Zander, 1993; Fleming, 2001).”
BackgroundChen, S.-S., Chuang, Y.-W., & Chen, P. (2012) · Knowledge-Based Systems · doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2012.02.001 · Cited by 215
Hutzschenreuter, T., & Voll, J. (2007) · Journal of International Business Studies · doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400312 · Cited by 197
Entry mode, organizational learning, and R&D in foreign affiliates: evidence from Japanese firms
Belderbos, R. (2002) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.294 · Cited by 205
Entrepreneurship in the Global Firm
Egelhoff, W. G. (2001) · Journal of International Business Studies · doi:10.1057/jibs.2001.14 · Cited by 209
Top management incentive compensation and knowledge sharing in multinational corporations
Fey, C. F., & Furu, P. (2008) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.712 · Cited by 203
Rabbiosi, L. (2010) · Journal of International Management · doi:10.1016/j.intman.2010.10.001 · Cited by 200
The (new) nature and essence of the firm
Pitelis, C. N., & Teece, D. J. (2009) · European Management Review · doi:10.1057/emr.2009.1 · Cited by 208
Structuring Inter-firm Relationships: A Metaanalytic Approach
Sobrero, M., & Schrader, S. (1998) · Organization Studies · doi:10.1177/017084069801900403 · Cited by 195
Iyengar, K. P., Sweeney, J. R., & Montealegre, R. (2015) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2015/39.3.05 · Cited by 204
Internationalization and performance: The moderating effects of organizational learning
Hsu, C., & Pereira, A. (2006) · Omega · doi:10.1016/j.omega.2006.06.004 · Cited by 208
Dunning, J. H., & Lundan, S. M. (2009) · Review of Policy Research · doi:10.1111/j.1541-1338.2008.00367.x · Cited by 212
Organizational choice in R&D alliances: Knowledge‐based and transaction cost perspectives
Sampson, R. C. (2004) · Managerial and Decision Economics · doi:10.1002/mde.1199 · Cited by 195
The liabilities of origin: an emerging economy perspective on the costs of doing business abroad
Ramachandran, J., & Pant, A. (2010) · Advances in international management · doi:10.1108/s1571-5027(2010)00000230017 · Cited by 214
Internationalization as a learning process: Singapore MNCs in China
Tsang, E. W. K. (1999) · Academy of Management Perspectives · doi:10.5465/ame.1999.1567359 · Cited by 196
Multinationals and Global Capitalism
Jones, G. G. (2004) · doi:10.1093/0199272093.001.0001 · Cited by 202
Chen, V. Z., Li, J., & Shapiro, D. M. (2012) · European Management Journal · doi:10.1016/j.emj.2012.03.005 · Cited by 193
The Role of Strategic Agility in Acquisitions
Junni, P., Sarala, R. M., Tarba, S. Y., & Weber, Y. (2015) · British Journal of Management · doi:10.1111/1467-8551.12115 · Cited by 218
Reverse Knowledge Transfer in MNEs: Subsidiary Innovativeness and Entry Modes
Mudambi, R., Piscitello, L., & Rabbiosi, L. (2013) · Long Range Planning · doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2013.08.013 · Cited by 194
Proximity, knowledge base and the innovation process: towards an integrated framework
Davids, M., & Frenken, K. (2017) · Regional Studies · doi:10.1080/00343404.2017.1287349 · Cited by 194
Malik, A., Silva, M. T. T. D., Budhwar, P. S., & Srikanth, N. R. (2021) · Journal of International Management · doi:10.1016/j.intman.2021.100871 · Cited by 244
Should We Require Every New Venture to Be a Hybrid Organization?
McMullen, J. S., & Warnick, B. J. (2015) · Journal of Management Studies · doi:10.1111/joms.12150 · Cited by 194
ERP systems as an enabler of sustained business process innovation: A knowledge-based view
Srivardhana, T., & Pawlowski, S. D. (2007) · The Journal of Strategic Information Systems · doi:10.1016/j.jsis.2007.01.003 · Cited by 195
Multinationality and performance: A synthetic review and research agenda
Li, L. (2007) · International Journal of Management Reviews · doi:10.1111/j.1468-2370.2007.00205.x · Cited by 186
Product Technology Transfer in the Upstream Supply Chain
Tatikonda, M. V., & Stock, G. N. (2003) · Journal of Product Innovation Management · doi:10.1111/1540-5885.00042 · Cited by 193
Managing the paradox of inter‐firm learning: the role of governance mechanisms
Mohr, J. J., & Sengupta, S. (2002) · Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing · doi:10.1108/08858620210431688 · Cited by 190
Colakoglu, S. S., & Caligiuri, P. (2008) · The International Journal of Human Resource Management · doi:10.1080/09585190701799804 · Cited by 189
Dunlap‐Hinkler, D., Kotabe, M. “., & Mudambi, R. (2010) · Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal · doi:10.1002/sej.86 · Cited by 186
The external knowledge sourcing process in multinational corporations
Monteiro, F., & Birkinshaw, J. (2015) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.2487 · Cited by 188
Consequences of perception gaps in the headquarters–subsidiary relationship
Birkinshaw, J., Holm, U., Thilenius, P., & Arvidsson, N. (2000) · International Business Review · doi:10.1016/s0969-5931(00)00004-4 · Cited by 189
Dellestrand, H., & Kappen, P. (2012) · Journal of International Business Studies · doi:10.1057/jibs.2011.57 · Cited by 185
Global staffing: a review and thematic research agenda
Collings, D. G., Scullion, H., & Dowling, P. J. (2009) · The International Journal of Human Resource Management · doi:10.1080/09585190902909806 · Cited by 190
Sequencing the expansion of geographic scope and foreign operations by “born global” firms
Hashai, N. (2011) · Journal of International Business Studies · doi:10.1057/jibs.2011.31 · Cited by 185
Boddewyn, J. J., & Doh, J. P. (2011) · Global Strategy Journal · doi:10.1002/gsj.26 · Cited by 185
A typology of project‐level technology transfer processes
Stock, G. N., & Tatikonda, M. V. (2000) · Journal of Operations Management · doi:10.1016/s0272-6963(00)00045-0 · Cited by 190
Overcoming Stickiness: How the Timing of Knowledge Transfer Methods Affects Transfer Difficulty
Szulanski, G., Ringov, D. P., & Jensen, R. J. (2016) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2016.1049 · Cited by 196
Gooderham, P. N., Minbaeva, D., & Pedersen, T. (2009) · Journal of Management Studies · doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00910.x · Cited by 190
International knowledge transfers through expatriates
Riusala, K., & Suutari, V. (2004) · Thunderbird International Business Review · doi:10.1002/tie.20034 · Cited by 186
Hébert, L., Véry, P., & Beamish, P. W. (2005) · Organization Studies · doi:10.1177/0170840605057067 · Cited by 182
Metadata
- Authors
- Kogut, B., & Zander, U.
- Affiliations
- University of Pennsylvania (US)
- Stockholm School of Economics (SE)
- Venue
- Journal of International Business Studies
- Published
- 1993-12
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 625-645
- ISSN
- 0047-2506 (ISSN-L)
- 1478-6990
- OpenAlex
- W3152457815
- Cited by
- 3,967
- References
- 29
- Citations by year
- 2026: 83 · 2025: 89 · 2024: 80 · 2023: 100 · 2022: 102 · 2021: 107 · 2020: 111 · 2019: 139 · 2018: 157 · 2017: 166 · 2016: 164 · 2015: 196 · 2014: 222 · 2013: 220 · 2012: 214
- FWCI
- 43.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- public-domain
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Journal of International Business Studies (publishedVersion, public-domain)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › International Business and FDI
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Innovation and Knowledge Management
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Outsourcing and Supply Chain Management
- Keywords
- multinational corporations, evolutionary theory of the firm, tacit knowledge, knowledge transfer, wholly owned subsidiaries, firm specialization, internal knowledge transfer, technology transfer
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-09-28, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-09-28 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
