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 501–600 of 3,993
Process perspectives in international business research in CEE
Meyer, K. E., & Gelbūda, M. (2006) · Management International Review · doi:10.1007/s11575-006-0042-5 · Cited by 114
Productivity and the role of complementary assets in firms' demand for technology innovations
Ceccagnoli, M., Graham, S. J. H., Higgins, M. J., et al. (2010) · Industrial and Corporate Change · doi:10.1093/icc/dtq033 · Cited by 114
Skibniewski, M. J., & Ghosh, S. (2009) · Journal of Construction Engineering and Management · doi:10.1061/(asce)0733-9364(2009)135:10(965 · Cited by 113
Barriers to knowledge seeking within MNC teams: Which differences matter most?
Haas, M. R., & Cummings, J. N. (2014) · Journal of International Business Studies · doi:10.1057/jibs.2014.37 · Cited by 112
Rangan, S., & Sengul, M. (2009) · Journal of International Business Studies · doi:10.1057/jibs.2009.55 · Cited by 111
Time compression diseconomies in foreign expansion
Jiang, R. J., Beamish, P. W., & Makino, S. (2013) · Journal of World Business · doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2013.02.003 · Cited by 117
Measuring the Impact of Knowledge Loss: More Than Ripples on a Pond?
Massingham, P. R. (2008) · Management Learning · doi:10.1177/1350507608096040 · Cited by 121
Barnard, H. C. (2010) · Journal of International Management · doi:10.1016/j.intman.2010.03.007 · Cited by 111
10 Learning and Strategic Alliances
Inkpen, A. C., & Tsang, E. W. K. (2007) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.1080/078559815 · Cited by 165
An architectural framework for global talent management
Morris, S. S., Snell, S. A., & Björkman, I. (2015) · Journal of International Business Studies · doi:10.1057/jibs.2015.25 · Cited by 111
Location strategy in cluster networks
Li, P., & Bathelt, H. (2017) · Journal of International Business Studies · doi:10.1057/s41267-017-0088-6 · Cited by 111
Interpersonal similarity and knowledge sharing within multinational organizations
Mäkelä, K., Andersson, U., & Seppälä, T. (2011) · International Business Review · doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2011.05.003 · Cited by 110
A global market advantage framework: the role of global market knowledge competencies
Yeniyurt, S., Cavusgil, S. T., & Hult, G. T. M. (2004) · International Business Review · doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2004.10.002 · Cited by 112
Strategy, Economic Organization, and the Knowledge Economy
Foss, N. J. (2005) · doi:10.1093/0199240647.001.0001 · Cited by 114
The Multinational Enterprise as an Organization
Westney, E., & Zaheer, S. (2009) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199234257.003.0013 · Cited by 114
Goerzen, A., & Makino, S. (2007) · Journal of International Business Studies · doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400310 · Cited by 108
The Perception and Measurement of Transaction Costs
Buckley, P. J., & Chapman, M. (1998) · International Business · doi:10.1007/978-1-349-26416-2_3 · Cited by 111
Knowledge management: securing the future
Randeree, E. (2006) · Journal of Knowledge Management · doi:10.1108/13673270610679435 · Cited by 116
Multinational enterprises and intangible capital
Cadestin, C., Jaax, A., Miroudot, S., & Zürcher, C. (2021) · OECD science, technology and industry policy papers · doi:10.1787/6827b3c9-en · Cited by 113
User Communities and Social Software in the Video Game Industry
Burger‐Helmchen, T., & Cohendet, P. S. (2011) · Long Range Planning · doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2011.09.003 · Cited by 117
Using experiments in corporate strategy research
Croson, R. T. A., Anand, J., & Agarwal, R. (2007) · European Management Review · doi:10.1057/palgrave.emr.1500082 · Cited by 110
Park, C., Vertinsky, I. B., & Becerra, M. (2014) · International Business Review · doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2014.06.004 · Cited by 113
Barnes, J., & Liao, Y. (2012) · International Journal of Production Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.07.010 · Cited by 109
Monteiro, L. F. (2015) · Journal of International Business Studies · doi:10.1057/jibs.2014.72 · Cited by 110
Expanding Our Resources: Including Community in the Resource-Based View of the Firm
Gibson, C. B., Gibson, S. C., & Webster, Q. (2021) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206320987289 · Cited by 147
Enhancing knowledge transfer in multinational corporations: a dynamic capabilities driven model
Gooderham, P. N. (2007) · Knowledge Management Research & Practice · doi:10.1057/palgrave.kmrp.8500119 · Cited by 109
Learning Before Making the Big Leap
Elango, B., & Pattnaik, C. (2011) · Management International Review · doi:10.1007/s11575-011-0085-0 · Cited by 109
Bridging the distance: Managing cross-border knowledge holders
Li, S., & Scullion, H. (2006) · Asia Pacific Journal of Management · doi:10.1007/s10490-006-6116-x · Cited by 109
Un, C. A., & Rodríguez, A. (2017) · Journal of International Management · doi:10.1016/j.intman.2017.09.001 · Cited by 108
Eden, L., Levitas, E., & Martinez, R. J. (1997) · Small Business Economics · doi:10.1023/a:1007955832161 · Cited by 108
On the implementation of a ‘global’ environmental strategy: The role of absorptive capacity
Pinkse, J., Kuss, M., & Hoffmann, V. H. (2010) · International Business Review · doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2009.11.005 · Cited by 110
Liability of foreignness as a barrier to knowledge spillovers: Lost in translation?
Schmidt, T. F. N., & Sofka, W. (2009) · Journal of International Management · doi:10.1016/j.intman.2009.03.003 · Cited by 106
Processes of building cross-border knowledge pipelines
Bathelt, H., & Li, P. (2020) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2020.103928 · Cited by 114
Innovating or Doing as Told? Status Differences and Overlapping Boundaries in Offshore CollaborationPreprint
Levina, N., & Vaast, E. (2008) · MIS Q. · doi:10.2139/ssrn.1136880 · Cited by 603
UNPACKING INTERUNIT KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER IN MULTINATIONAL ENTERPRISES
Andersson, U. R., Gaur, A. S., Mudambi, R., & Persson, M. (2015) · Global Strategy Journal · doi:10.1002/gsj.1100 · Cited by 96
Managing Cross-Border Complementary Knowledge
Buckley, P. J., & Carter, M. J. (1999) · International Studies of Management and Organization · doi:10.1080/00208825.1999.11656758 · Cited by 111
Zenger, T. R. (2002) · International Journal of the Economics of Business · doi:10.1080/13571510110102985 · Cited by 109
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (2003) · Journal of International Business Studies · doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400066 · Cited by 107
Self-citationLee, R. P., Chen, Q., Kim, D., & Johnson, J. L. (2008) · Journal of International Marketing · doi:10.1509/jimk.16.2.1 · Cited by 109
Research in the Strategic Theory of the Firm: ‘Isolationism’ and ‘Integrationism’
Foss, N. J. (1999) · Journal of Management Studies · doi:10.1111/1467-6486.00156 · Cited by 105
“This is a problem with the one study known to me that comes out in favour of the knowledge-based view as it applies to economic organization, namely Kogut and Zander (1993).”
BackgroundInfluentialLamb, P., & Liesch, P. W. (2002) · Management International Review · Cited by 102
Kuivalainen, O., Sundqvist, S., Puumalainen, K., & Cadogan, J. W. (2004) · Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences / Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l Administration · doi:10.1111/j.1936-4490.2004.tb00321.x · Cited by 110
Creating knowledge: the power and logic of articulation
Håkanson, L. (2007) · Industrial and Corporate Change · doi:10.1093/icc/dtl033 · Cited by 104
Mahnke, V., Venzin, M., & Zahra, S. (2007) · Journal of Management Studies · doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00730.x · Cited by 87
What drives the process of knowledge management in a cross-cultural setting
Rezaei, M., Jafari‐Sadeghi, V., & Bresciani, S. (2020) · European Business Review · doi:10.1108/ebr-06-2019-0127 · Cited by 104
Knowledge creation in a supply chain
Wu, C.-I. (2008) · Supply Chain Management An International Journal · doi:10.1108/13598540810871280 · Cited by 106
Malhotra, S., Sivakumar, K., & Zhu, P. (2011) · Journal of International Management · doi:10.1016/j.intman.2011.06.001 · Cited by 103
“…to lack of complete hierarchical control over the CBA, costs due to adaptation, performance monitoring, handling of inter-firm conflict, and protection against opportunistic behavior (Anderson and Gatignon, 1986; Chari and Chang, 2009; Hennart, 1991; Kogut and Zander, 1993; Wang and Schaan, 2008).”
BackgroundCavaliere, V. F., & Lombardi, S. (2015) · Journal of Knowledge Management · doi:10.1108/jkm-04-2014-0167 · Cited by 110
Dynamic capability in a small global factory
Eriksson, T., Nummela, N., & Saarenketo, S. (2013) · International Business Review · doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2013.03.007 · Cited by 113
Product innovation and decision-making autonomy in subsidiaries of multinational companies
Beugelsdijk, S., & Jindra, B. (2018) · Journal of World Business · doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2018.02.007 · Cited by 103
The emergence of multi-sided platform MNEs: Internalization theory and networks
Zeng, J., Khan, Z., & Silva, M. D. (2019) · International Business Review · doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2019.101598 · Cited by 106
“An overemphasis on protecting the profitable exploitation of FSAs could lead to neglecting the development of new ones (Kogut & Zander, 1993).”
InfluentialLeadership and business model innovation in late internationalizing SMEs
Colovic, A. (2021) · Long Range Planning · doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2021.102083 · Cited by 103
Mehralian, G., Rasekh, H. R., Akhavan, P., et al. (2012) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2012.10.002 · Cited by 103
Ernst, D. (1998) · Asia Pacific Journal of Management · doi:10.1023/a:1015493615652 · Cited by 101
Knowledge embeddedness and the transfer mechanisms in multinational corporations
Hong, J. F. L., & Nguyen, T. V. (2009) · Journal of World Business · doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2009.01.001 · Cited by 102
Knowledge effects on competitiveness: from firms to regional advantage
Caiazza, R., Richardson, A., & Audretsch, D. B. (2015) · The Journal of Technology Transfer · doi:10.1007/s10961-015-9425-8 · Cited by 101
Knowledge and internationalization of returnee entrepreneurial firms
Bai, W., Johanson, M., & Martín, Ó. M. (2016) · International Business Review · doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2016.12.006 · Cited by 103
The importance of knowledge transfer on the energy market
Miśkiewicz, R. (2018) · Polityka Energetyczna – Energy Policy Journal · doi:10.33223/epj/96208 · Cited by 102
Internationalization and Performance of Retail Firms: A Bayesian Dynamic Model
Assaf, A. G., Josiassen, A., Ratchford, B. T., & Barros, C. P. (2012) · Journal of Retailing · doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2011.11.005 · Cited by 102
Liu, C. (2011) · International Business Review · doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2011.05.005 · Cited by 106
Knowledge management practices for innovation: a multinational corporation’s perspective
Jiménez, D. J., Costa, M. M., & Sanz-Valle, R. (2014) · Journal of Knowledge Management · doi:10.1108/jkm-06-2014-0242 · Cited by 100
The impact of fintech M&A on stock returns
Дранев, Ю. Я., Frolova, K., & Очирова, Е. (2019) · Research in International Business and Finance · doi:10.1016/j.ribaf.2019.01.012 · Cited by 101
Knowledge transfer from international joint ventures to local suppliers in a developing economy
Khan, Z., Shenkar, O., & Lew, Y. K. (2015) · Journal of International Business Studies · doi:10.1057/jibs.2015.7 · Cited by 101
Fortwengel, J., & Jackson, G. (2016) · Journal of World Business · doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2016.05.002 · Cited by 107
Murray, J. Y., Kotabe, M. “., & Westjohn, S. A. (2009) · Journal of International Marketing · doi:10.1509/jimk.17.4.90 · Cited by 97
Keeping up with growing complexity of managing global operations
Ferdows, K. (2018) · International Journal of Operations & Production Management · doi:10.1108/ijopm-01-2017-0019 · Cited by 99
Global Organizational Learning in the Supply Chain: A Low versus High Learning Study
Hult, G. T. M., Nichols, E. L., Giunipero, L. C., & Hurley, R. F. (2000) · Journal of International Marketing · doi:10.1509/jimk.8.3.61.19628 · Cited by 101
The geographic scope of the MNC and its alliance portfolio: Resolving the paradox of distance
Zaheer, A., & Hernández, E. (2011) · Global Strategy Journal · doi:10.1002/gsj.6 · Cited by 99
The organizational design of offshoring: Taking stock and moving forward
Jensen, P. D. Ø., Larsen, M. M., & Pedersen, T. (2013) · Journal of International Management · doi:10.1016/j.intman.2013.03.012 · Cited by 104
Organizational Learning and Capabilities for Onshore and Offshore Business Process Outsourcing
Whitaker, J., Mithas, S., & Krishnan, M. S. (2010) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.2753/mis0742-1222270302 · Cited by 101
“Codification facilitates the globalization of local knowledge and reduces the time to transfer knowledge internationally [54].”
Innovation-receiving subsidiaries and dual embeddedness: impact on business performance
Bresciani, S., & Ferraris, A. (2015) · Baltic Journal of Management · doi:10.1108/bjm-11-2014-0200 · Cited by 101
R., R. E. B., & Camargo, M. I. B. (2021) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.02.024 · Cited by 130
Determinants of the Use of Relational and Nonrelational Information Sources
Zimmer, J. C., Henry, R. M., & Butler, B. S. (2007) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.2753/mis0742-1222240310 · Cited by 127
Lee, R. P. (2010) · Journal of International Marketing · doi:10.1509/jimk.18.4.58 · Cited by 96
Kotabe, M. “., Sahay, A., & Aulakh, P. S. (1996) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1177/002224299606000107 · Cited by 105
Domestic alliance networks and regional strategies of MNEs: A structural embeddedness perspective
Iurkov, V., & Benito, G. R. G. (2017) · Journal of International Business Studies · doi:10.1057/s41267-017-0089-5 · Cited by 100
A bibliometric study on Ghoshal's Managing across Borders
Ferreira, M. P. (2011) · Multinational Business Review · doi:10.1108/15253831111190180 · Cited by 99
The fundamentals of standardizing global marketing strategy
Viswanathan, N. K., & Dickson, P. R. (2007) · International Marketing Review · doi:10.1108/02651330710727187 · Cited by 99
Structural Reform and Firm Exports
Cuervo-Cazurra, Á., & Dau, L. A. (2009) · Management International Review · doi:10.1007/s11575-009-0005-8 · Cited by 98
Innovation Offshoring: Asia's Emerging Role in Global Innovation Networks
Ernst, D. (2006) · ScholarSpace (University of Hawaii at Manoa) · Cited by 100
Wang, S., Tong, T. W., Chen, G., & Kim, H. (2008) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206308328511 · Cited by 97
Williams, C., & Lee, S. H. (2009) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2009.05.007 · Cited by 98
Tacit Knowledge as a Source of Competitive Advantage in the National Basketball Association
Berman, S. L., Down, J., & Hill, C. W. L. (2002) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/3069282 · Cited by 97
Export market information use, organizational knowledge, and firm performance
Toften, K., & Olsen, S. O. (2003) · International Marketing Review · doi:10.1108/02651330310462284 · Cited by 97
Learning From IJVs: The Unintended Outcome
Beamish, P. W., & Berdrow, I. (2003) · Long Range Planning · doi:10.1016/s0024-6301(03)00047-5 · Cited by 97
Integrating Cross‐Border Knowledge for Transnational New Product Development
Subramaniam, M. (2006) · Journal of Product Innovation Management · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5885.2006.00223.x · Cited by 98
Language and Social Knowledge in Foreign-Knowledge Transfer to China
Buckley, P. J., Carter, M. J., Clegg, J. L., et al. (2005) · International Studies of Management and Organization · doi:10.1080/00208825.2005.11043724 · Cited by 97
Nell, P., Kappen, P., & Laamanen, T. (2017) · Journal of Management Studies · doi:10.1111/joms.12313 · Cited by 87
Fernández‐Méndez, L., Canal, E. G., & Guillén, M. F. (2018) · Journal of World Business · doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2018.03.006 · Cited by 95
Performance feedback and outward foreign direct investment by emerging economy firms
Xie, E., Huang, Y., Stevens, C. E., & Lebedev, S. (2019) · Journal of World Business · doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2019.101014 · Cited by 98
Elia, S., Kafouros, M. I., & Buckley, P. J. (2020) · Journal of International Management · doi:10.1016/j.intman.2020.100801 · Cited by 97
The impact of language barriers on knowledge processing in multinational teams
Tenzer, H., Pudelko, M., & Zellmer-Bruhn, M. E. (2020) · Journal of World Business · doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2020.101184 · Cited by 115
Competitiveness: Business Model Reconfiguration for Innovation and Internationalization
Casadesus-Masanell, R., & Ricart, J. (2010) · Management Research The Journal of the Iberoamerican Academy of Management · doi:10.1108/1536-541011066470 · Cited by 101
Lew, Y., Sinkovics, R., & Kuivalainen, O. (2013) · International Business Review · doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2013.03.001 · Cited by 99
Alfoldi, E. A., Clegg, J. L., & McGaughey, S. L. (2012) · Journal of International Management · doi:10.1016/j.intman.2012.06.003 · Cited by 93
Inter-firm reverse technology transfer: the home country effect of R&D internationalization
Criscuolo, P. (2009) · Industrial and Corporate Change · doi:10.1093/icc/dtp028 · Cited by 95
International Relationship Marketing: Intellectual Foundations and Avenues for Further Research
Samiee, S., Chabowski, B. R., & Hult, G. T. M. (2015) · Journal of International Marketing · doi:10.1509/jim.15.0027 · Cited by 102
Hurtado‐Torres, N. E., Correa, J. A. A., & Ortiz‐de‐Mandojana, N. (2017) · International Business Review · doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2017.10.003 · Cited by 99
What is bullying hiding? Exploring antecedents and potential dimension of knowledge hiding
Yuan, Y., Yang, L.-F., Cheng, X.-Y., & Wei, J. (2020) · Journal of Knowledge Management · doi:10.1108/jkm-04-2020-0256 · Cited by 91
The theory of the flagship firm
Rugman, A. M., & D’cruz, J. R. (1997) · European Management Journal · doi:10.1016/s0263-2373(97)00019-4 · Cited by 95
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
