Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Factors affecting the performance of knowledge collaboration in virtual team based on capital appreciation

  • Published:
Information Technology and Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Knowledge collaboration (KC) is an important strategy measure to improve knowledge management, focusing on not only efficiency of knowledge cooperation, but also adding value of intellectual capital and social capital. In virtual teams, many factors, such as team’s network characteristics, collaborative culture, and individual collaborative intention, affect the performance of KC. By discussing the nature of KC, this paper presents that the performance of can be measured from two aspects: effectiveness of collaboration and efficiency of cooperation. Among them, effectiveness of collaboration is measured through value added and efficiency of cooperation is measured through accuracy and timeliness. Then the paper discusses the factors affecting the performance of KC from network characteristics, individual attributes and team attributes. The results show that network characteristics, individual attributes and team attributes in virtual team have significant impacts on the performance of KC.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Artigues C (2009) Predictors of knowledge creation performance: a quantitative qualitative comparative study of European Doctor-andi. University of Girona, Girona

    Google Scholar 

  2. Benassi M, Greve A, Harkova J (1999) Looking for a network organization: the case of GESTO. Mark Focus Manag 4:205–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bollen KA, Stine RA (1992) Bootstrapping goodness-of-fit measures in structural equation models. Sociol Methods Res 21:205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bourdieu P (1986) The forms of social capital. In: Richardson J (ed) Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education. Greenwood Press, Westport, pp 241–258

    Google Scholar 

  5. Cao Y, Li RH, Wang XD (2010) Rsearch on assessment model and evaluation index for the effect of tacit know ledge conversion on tech-transfer. Sci Res Manag 31(1):1–8

    Google Scholar 

  6. Chen KY, Chen KQ (2002) On company knowledge synergy. Information. Science 9:986–989

    Google Scholar 

  7. Divya C, Ankita T (2012) Knowledge management in outsourcing environment: people empowering people. IUP J Knowl Manag 10(2):61–87

    Google Scholar 

  8. Ellen E, Sebastian H (2014) Preparing for distant collaboration: antecedents to potential absorptive capacity in cross-industry innovation. Technovation 34(4):242–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Firer S, Williams SM (2003) Intellectual capital and traditional measures of corporate performance. J Intellect Cap 4(3):348–360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Fritsch M, Kauffeld-Monz M (2010) The impact of network structure on knowledge transfer: an application of social network analysis in the context of regional innovation networks. Ann Reg Sci 44(1):21–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Glogel L, Howell P, Hugh H, et al (2006) Knowledge collaboration for IT support. http://www.thinkhdi.com/hdi2006/files/strategicAdvisoryboardpaperknowledgecol-laboration.Pdf

  12. Granovetter M (1973) The strength of weak ties. Am J Sociol 78(6):1360–1380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hedlund G, Nonaka I (1993) Models of knowledge management in the west and Japan. In: Lorange B (ed) Implementing strategic processes, change, and cooperation. Macmillian, London

    Google Scholar 

  14. Huang YF, Chen CJ (2010) The impact of technological diversity and organizational slack on innovation. Technovation 30(7):420–428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Karlenzig W (2002) Tap into the power of knowledge collaboration. Dimension Data, www.tmcnet.com/

  16. Ke JL, Jianmin S, Jintao S (2007) An empirical study of enterprise R&D team social capital and team effectiveness. Manag World 3:89–101

    Google Scholar 

  17. Kirkman BL, Rosen B, Gibson CB (2002) Five challenges to virtual team success: lessons from Sabre, Inc. Acad Manag Execu 3:16–24

    Google Scholar 

  18. Li GS, Zhang T, Huang JW (2009) Research on the effect of collaborative culture and leadership roles on knowledge sharing. Sci Technol Prog Policy 10:104–108

    Google Scholar 

  19. Li YY, Zhu SY (2013) A study of current literature in virtual innovation teams in China basic on the I-P-O model. Sci Technol Process Policy 2:157–160

    Google Scholar 

  20. Lipnack J, Jeffrey S (1997) Virtual teams: reaching across space, time and organizations with technology. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  21. Liu C, Ghauri PN, Sinkovics RR (2010) Understanding the impact of relational capital and organizational learning on alliance outcomes. J World Bus 45:237–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Liu JJ, Chen T, Zhu ZM (2013) Sharing between the access to knowledge as intermediary variables of corporate social capital and knowledge. Sci Technol Prog Policy 30(4):86–90

    Google Scholar 

  23. López SP, Peón JMM, Ordás CJV (2004) Managing knowledge: the link between culture and organizational learning. J Knowl Manag 8(6):93–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Marsden PV, Campbell KE (1984) Measuring tie strength. Soc Forces 63(2):482–501

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. McFadyen MA, Cannella AA (2004) Social capital and knowledge creation: diminishing returns of the number and strength of exchange relationships. Acad Manag J 47(5):735–746

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Mckelvey M, Almb H, RiccaboniI M (2003) Does co-location matter for formal knowledge collaboration in the Swedish biotechnology-pharmaceutical sector. Res Policy 32:483–501

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Nahapiet J, Ghoshal S (1998) Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Acad Manag Rev 23(2):242–266

    Google Scholar 

  28. Nooteboom B, Haverbekeb WV et al (2007) Optimal cognitive distance and absorptive capacity. Res Policy 36(7):1016–1034

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Peter VM, Karen EC (1984) Measuring tie strength. Soc Forces 63(2):482–501

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Reagans R, MeEvily B (2003) Network structure and knowledge transfer: the effects of cohesion and range. Adm Sci Q 48(2):240–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Shen HM, Ke Q, Liu GY (2013) Building analytical model for knowledge collaboration community: an empirical study. J Intell 32(2):121–127

    Google Scholar 

  32. Shi HB (2008) Study on the concept analysis and psychological contract knowledge collaboration. Northeastern University, Shen Yang

    Google Scholar 

  33. Shi LP, Du ZW, Liu Q (2013) Study on the effect of transactive memory system on performance of knowledge team. Sci Technol Prog Policy 4:132–137

    Google Scholar 

  34. Sveiby KE, Simons R (2002) Collaborative climate and effectiveness of knowledge work-an empirical study. J Knowl Manag 6(5):420–433

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Tong ZH (2012) Knowledge Collaboration (KC) and the relationship between KC and some related concepts. Libr Inf Serv 8:107–112

    Google Scholar 

  36. Uzzi B, Laneaster R (2003) Relational embeddedness and leaning: the case of bank loan managers and their clients. Manage Sci 49(4):383–399

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Vrande VVD (2013) Balancing your technology-sourcing portfolio: how sourcing mode diversity enhances innovative performance. Strateg Manag J 34(5):610–621

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Wang H (2009) Research on collaborative knowledge inside enterprises. Shandong University, JiNan

    Google Scholar 

  39. Wang PL, Zhou Y (2015) Rational thinking on knowledge damage of the tacit knowledge transfer in industry-university-research cooperation. Inf Stud Theory Appl 38(2):39–43

    Google Scholar 

  40. Wu ML (2009) Structural equation modeling. Chongqing University Press, China

    Google Scholar 

  41. Wu Y, Gu X (2012) Knowledge collaboration process in industry-university-research institute collaborative innovation. Forum Sci Technol China 10:17–23

    Google Scholar 

  42. Xie XL (2010) Influencing factors of knowledge work efficiency of team collaboration and its evaluation model. Doctoral Dissertation of Chongqing University, China, pp 1360–1380

  43. Xu Q, Zheng X (2010) Research on the relationship among the organizational collaboration, knowledge collaboration and innovation performance for parent-subsidiary companies. Sci Technol Prog Policy 16:143–146

    Google Scholar 

  44. Zhang XT, Jing X (2012) The relationship between social capital and enterprise knowledge acquisition performance study. Commer Times 18:90–91

    Google Scholar 

  45. Zhao DL, Zuo MY (2011) Difficulties of knowledge integration and the corresponding governance tactics for the contractors of IT services. Lanzhou Acad J 1:58–62

    Google Scholar 

  46. Zhou F, Guo Y (2012) Research on the relationship among social capital, knowledge sharing and innovation performance for supply chain corporate. Res Financ Econ Issues 12:37–44

    Google Scholar 

  47. Zhou HW, Jiang Q (2012) The impact of knowledge management of IT outsourcing vendors on outsourcing success: knowledge sticky’s moderating effect. Sci Sci Manag S&T 33(11):71–78

    Google Scholar 

  48. Zhu YL (2009) Empirical research on impacting factors of inter-enterprise knowledge transfer from the perspective of social network. Doctoral Dissertation of Zhejiang University, China

  49. Zhu YL, Xu Q, Wu XH (2011) An empirical research on the effect of network density on inter-enterprise knowledge transfer. Stud Sci Sci 3:427–431

    Google Scholar 

  50. Zigurs I (2003) Leadership in virtual teams: oxymoron or opportunity? Org Dyn 31(4):339–351

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the Funding project of research plan from the Education Committee of Beijing (SZ201311417001) (SM201511417002), the Funding Project for Academic Human Resources Development in Beijing Union University (BPHR2012A02).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Business College of Beijing Union University, Beijing, 100025, China

    Shuli Gao, Yanli Guo & Jianbin Chen

  2. Scientific Research Department of Beijing Union University, Beijing, 100101, China

    Lin Li

Authors
  1. Shuli Gao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yanli Guo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jianbin Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Lin Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jianbin Chen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gao, S., Guo, Y., Chen, J. et al. Factors affecting the performance of knowledge collaboration in virtual team based on capital appreciation. Inf Technol Manag 17, 119–131 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10799-015-0248-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10799-015-0248-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation