Group Decision and Negotiation

, Volume 15, Issue 4, pp 407–423 | Cite as

Supporting Technologies and Organizational Practices for the Transfer of Knowledge in Virtual Environments

Sponsored in part by the Leavey School of Business, and NSF Grants SES-0422845 and SES-0422772
  • Terri L. GriffithEmail author
  • John E. Sawyer


A field study of a global science/technology company provides evidence of the value of both organizational practices and technology tools for supporting knowledge attainment (the combined tacit and explicit knowledge gained in a focal area – in this study we focus on product knowledge attainment) in virtual environments. We present a three-dimensional typology of knowledge management systems. Method of input, form of content, and how the users accrue the benefit of the knowledge help us to argue that organizational practices and technological tools will have independent positive effects on user knowledge attainment. We find attendance at face-to-face community of practice meetings, use of searchable archives, video-on-demand, and full-text search of video-on-demand all positively predict knowledge attainment. We suggest that organizations develop both organizational practices and technical supports for knowledge transfer. An interview with the video-on-demand vendor gives us the context to discuss issues for the support of tacit knowledge in more virtual environments as well as issues of expertise as it relates to support for formal and informal learning.


Virtual work virtual teams knowledge management knowledge transfer video-on-demand communities of practice 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alavi, M. and D. E. Leidner. (2001). “Knowledge Management and Knowledge Management Systems: Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues”, MIS Quarterly 25(1), 107–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Argote, L., B. McEvily, and R. Reagans. (2003). “Managing Knowledge in Organizations: An Integrative Framework and Review of Emerging Themes”, Management Science 49(4), 571–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown, J. S. and P. Duguid. (1991). “Organizational Learning and Communities-of-Practice: Toward a Unified View of Working, Learning, and Innovation”, Organization Science 2(1), 40–57.Google Scholar
  4. Brown, J. S. and P. Duguid. (2000). The Social Life of Information. Harvard Business School Press, Boston.Google Scholar
  5. Cadiz, D., T.L. Griffith, and J.E. Sawyer. (2005). Developing and Validating Field Measurement Scales for Absorptive Capacity and Experienced Community of Practice. (Manuscript under review.)Google Scholar
  6. Cohen, W. M. and D.A. Levinthal. (1990). “Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation”, Administrative Science Quarterly 35, 128–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cross, R. and L. Baird. (2000). “Technology is Not Enough: Improving Performance by Building Organizational Memory”, Sloan Management Review 41(3), 69–78.Google Scholar
  8. Daft, R. L. and R.H. Lengel. (1986). “Organizational Information Requirements, Media Richness, and Structural Design”, Management Science 32(5), 554–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Davenport, T. H. and J. Glaser. (2002). “Just-In-Time Delivery Comes to Knowledge Management”, Harvard Business Review July, 5–9.Google Scholar
  10. Davenport, T. H. and L. Prusak. (1998). Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know. Harvard Business School Press, Boston.Google Scholar
  11. DeSanctis, G. and M.S. Poole. (1994). “Capturing the Complexity in Advanced Technology Use: Adaptive Structuration Theory”, Organization Science 5(2), 121–147.Google Scholar
  12. DeSanctis, G., M.S. Poole, and G.W. Dickson. (2000). “Teams and Technology: Interactions Over Time”, In Neale, M. A., Mannix, E. A., and Griffith, T. L. (eds.), Research on Managing Groups and Teams: Technology. JAI Press, Stamford, CT, 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Finholt, T. A., L. Sproull, and S. Kiesler. (2002). “Outsiders on the Inside: Sharing Know-How Across Space and Time”, In Hinds P., and Kiesler, S. (eds.), Distributed Work. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  14. Goodman, P. S. and E.D. Darr. (1998). “Computer-Aided Systems and Communities: Mechanisms for Organizational Learning in Distributed Environments”, MIS Quarterly 22(4), 417–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Griffith, T. L. (1999). “Technology Features as Triggers for Sensemaking”, Academy of Management Review 24(3), 472–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Griffith, T. L., E.A. Mannix, and M.A. Neale. (2003a). “Conflict in Virtual Teams”, In Gibson, C. B., and Cohen, S. G. (eds.), Virtual teams that work. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 335–352.Google Scholar
  17. Griffith, T. L. and M.A. Neale. (2001). “Information Processing in Traditional, Hybrid, and Virtual Teams: From Nascent Knowledge to Transactive Memory”, In Staw, B. M., and Sutton, R. I. (eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior. JAI Press, Stamford, CT, 23, 379–421.Google Scholar
  18. Griffith, T. L., J.E. Sawyer, and M.A. Neale. (2003b). “Virtualness and Knowledge in Teams: Managing the Love Triangle of Organizations, Individuals, and Information Technology”, MIS Quarterly 27(2), 265–287.Google Scholar
  19. Hill, E. (2002). “Joint Inquiry Staff Statement, Eleanor Hill, Staff Director.” Retrieved May 20, 2005, from
  20. IBM. (2005). “From Reengineering to Reinvention: The IBM Journey to Becoming an on Demand Business.” Retrieved May 15, 2005, from
  21. Kankanhalli, A., B.C.Y. Tan, and K. Wei. (2005). “Contributing Knowledge to Electronic Knowledge Repositories: An Empirical Investigation”, MIS Quarterly 29(1), 113–143.Google Scholar
  22. Leonard, D. and S. Sensiper. (1998). “The Role of Tacit Knowledge in Group Innovation”, California Management Review 40(3), 112–132.Google Scholar
  23. Majchrzak, A., L.P. Cooper, and O.E. Neece. (2004). “Knowledge Reuse for Innovation”, Management Science 50(2), 174–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Majchrzak, A., A. Malhotra, and R. John. (2005). “Perceived Individual Collaboration Know-How Development Through Information Technology-Enabled Contextualization: Evidence from Distributed Teams”, Information Systems Research 16(1), 9–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Markus, M. L. (2001). “Towards a Theory of Knowledge Reuse: Types of Knowledge Reuse Situations and Factors in Reuse Success”, Journal of Management Information Systems 18(1), 57–93.Google Scholar
  26. Microsoft. (2005, March 10, 2005). “Microsoft, Groove Networks to Combine Forces to Create Anytime, Anywhere Collaboration.” Retrieved May 11, 2005, from mar05/03-10GrooveQA.asp.
  27. O'Dell, C. and C.J. Grayson. (1998). “If Only We Knew What We Know: Identification and Transfer of Internal Best Practices”, California Management Review 40(3), 154–174.Google Scholar
  28. Orr, J. E. (1996). Talking About Machines: An Ethnography of a Modern Job. ILR Press, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
  29. Orton, J. D. and K.E. Weick. (1990). “Loosely Coupled Systems: A Reconceptualization”, Academy of Management Review 15(2), 203–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Polanyi, M. (1966). The Tacit Dimension. Doubleday, New York.Google Scholar
  31. Ryle, G. (1949). The Concept of Mind. Hutchinson, London.Google Scholar
  32. Spender, J. C. (1996). “Making Knowledge the Basis of a Dynamic Theory of the Firm”, Strategic Management Journal 17(10), 45–62.Google Scholar
  33. Wasko, M. M. and S. Faraj. (2005). “Why Should I Share? Examining Social Capital and Knowledge Contribution in Electronic Networks of Practice”, MIS Quarterly 29(1), 35–57.Google Scholar
  34. Wegner, D. (1986). “Transactive Memory: A Contemporary Analysis of the Group Mind”, In Mullen, G. and Goethals, G. (eds.), Theories of Group Behavior. Springer-Verlag, New York, 185–208.Google Scholar
  35. Weick, K. E. (1979). The Social Psychology of Organizing. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.Google Scholar
  36. Wenger, E., R. McDermott, and W.M. Snyder. (2002). Cultivating Communities of Practice. Harvard Business School Press, Boston.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Leavey School of BusinessSanta Clara UniversitySanta ClaraUSA
  2. 2.Lerner College of Business and EconomicsUniversity of DelawareNewarkUSA

Personalised recommendations