1

Knowledge transfer mechanisms in service businessacquisition

Miia Kosonen 1

Riitta Forsten-Astikainen 1

Kirsimarja Blomqvist 1

Tatiana Andreeva 2

1 Lappeenranta University of Technology, School of Business, Finland2 Graduate School of Management, St.Petersburg State University, Russia

miia.kosonen@lut.firiitta.forsten-astikainen@lut.fi

kirsimarja.blomqvist@lut.fiandreeva@som.pu.ru

AbstractThe fact that service provision involves a lot of human-related and tacit knowledge makesservices sector promising for studying knowledge transfer mechanisms. We applied servicebusiness acquisitions as an illustrative context to study the issue, drawing on a qualitativeempirical study of one B2B service firm, in order to identify knowledge transfer mechanismsand classify them. As a result, six mechanisms were identified: acquisition management team,unit managers, formal training, rooming-in, e-communication, and codified database. Thesecan be further classified into management-, learning- and technology-related mechanisms.The contribution of the study is twofold. Firstly, it adds to the literature of knowledgemanagement by providing a classification of knowledge transfer mechanisms. Secondly, itpresents empirical evidence about the role and use of such mechanisms in service businessacquisition, hereby contributing to managerial understanding about how to facilitateknowledge transfer between the acquirer and the acquired target in the field of knowledge-intensive service firms.

Keywordsknowledge, knowledge transfer, knowledge transfer mechanisms, service business

Introduction

Within knowledge management, knowledge transfer constitutes a strategic research area(Jasimuddin, 2007) and a source for firm competitiveness. Indeed, transfer of existingknowledge within an organization helps the company use available resources in the mostefficient way by transferring the best practices — those that have proven to bring the bestresults, lower costs, or very satisfied customers — from one department to another, from oneproject or client to another and so on. Existing empirical research on knowledge transfer hasbeen criticized for focusing predominantly on the technological knowledge transfer and/or onthe domain of R&D function (Bresman et al., 1999, Simonin, 1999). Secondly, as noted by

2

Jasimuddin (2007), there is a plethora of research regarding the various aspects of knowledgetransfer but only a few studies on focusing the related transfer mechanisms and theirappropriateness in different circumstances.

Our study aims to contribute to these two research gaps. Service business acquisition providesa rich context for our research due to its intangible value-creating processes, where the role ofindividuals is critical. The literature suggests that the distinctive characteristics of services,intangibility, heterogeneity, inseparability and perishability (typically referred as IHIP), makeservices highly dependent on human factor – employees who actually provide the service.This fact implies the importance of employees’ skills and knowledge (including the tacit one)for all types of services, and, consequently, the importance of knowledge transfer within theservice company, both between individual employees and between units (Gittel & Seidner,2009). The fact that service provision involves a lot of human-related and tacit knowledgemakes services sector even more promising for research on knowledge transfer mechanismsin the light of the criticisms of the existing research. In the case of a service firm acquisition,knowledge transfer is a particularly important issue as the access to new knowledge aboutclients, products, markets or technology is considered one of the key motivations for theacquisitions (e.g. Haleblian et al., 2009; Kongpichayanond, 2009; Tsang, 2008; Bresman etal., 1999).

Hence, we apply service business acquisitions as an illustrative context to study knowledgetransfer mechanisms, drawing on a qualitative empirical study of one B2B service firm. Ourresearch question can thus be stated as the following: What types of mechanisms forknowledge transfer in service business acquisitions can be identified, and how can thesemechanisms be classified?

The rest of the paper is structured as follows: firstly, we present the theoretical background ofour study. Thereafter, we describe our research design, methods and data, after which theempirical findings are presented. Our paper contributes by providing a classification of theknowledge transfer mechanisms involved in service business acquisition. We conclude bydiscussing the theoretical and practical implications of our study.

Theoretical background

In this section we briefly review the existing literature on knowledge transfer mechanisms andexplain the specifics of the services and acquisitions context for the knowledge transfer.

According to the knowledge-based view of the firm (Grant, 1996), all products and servicesare fundamentally tangible or intangible embodiments of human knowledge. Therefore,knowledge is viewed as one of the key sources for the creation and maintenance of asustainable competitive advantage, especially in the context of a post-industrial economy(Kogut & Zander, 1992; Grant, 1996; Teece, 2004). Consequently, the tasks of managingvarious knowledge-related processes in an organization are brought to the forefront.Knowledge transfer is one of such processes that enable organizations to save costs, increaseefficiency and creativity by transferring the best practices, efficient allocation of existingknowledge resources and sharing new ideas across the company.

3

Knowledge transfer is defined in the literature as a process through which one unit is affectedby the experience of another (Argote & Ingram, 2000, see also Szulanski, 2000); in thisprocess, the organization provides its members knowledge to extend its knowledge base andleverage unique skills (Kalling, 2003). However, organizations do not always know whatknowledge they possess, and transferring knowledge may be challenging due to its stickiness(Szulanski, 1996). As Argote & Ingram (2000) note, the most difficult types of knowledge totransfer are interactions among people, tasks and tools. Yet in the context of service co-creation, finding solutions to customer’s problems requires such complex interactions (Ritalaet al. 2010).

Knowledge transfer mechanisms have not been studied as a single homogenous mechanismsystem. The concept of mechanism is not explicitly defined in current literature, either. Basedon current research, knowledge transfer mechanisms can be understood as policies, models,tools and practices through which knowledge can be transferred between and across differentlevels, i.e. at individual, organizational and industry level. The nature of the mechanisms iscontext-dependent and multidimensional. Hereby, due to our focus in service business and thefocal role of human-bound tacit knowledge (e.g. Gittel & Seidner, 2010) we are interested instudying the micro-level mechanisms that directly involve people.

Acquisitions also represent the context that is rich in knowledge transfer. On the one hand,one of the frequent reasons for acquisitions is desire of the acquiring company to access somevaluable knowledge of the acquired target. On the other hand, the process of integrationinvolves transfer of the knowledge from the parent firm to the acquired target, aimed tocoordinate consolidated operations. The intensity of such knowledge transfer depends on thelevel of integration. Typically, three levels of integration are identified in the literature – (1)procedures (that does not go beyond unification of financial and other reports), (2) assets andproducts (that may involve integration of the product range, production systems andtechnologies, and (3) organization (that involves integration of organizational structures,management teams and organizational culture) (Nahavandi & Malekzadeh, 1988; Cartwright& Cooper, 1996).

From knowledge perspective, these integration levels can be differentiated from more focusedon explicit knowledge transfer (procedural level) to more focused on tacit knowledge transfer(organizational level). They also differ in the complexity of knowledge, as organizationallevel of integration typically involves transfer of the complex body of organizationalknowledge, embedded in people, documents, routines and culture. Thus the levels ofintegration represent different modes and also challenges in terms of knowledge transfer.These challenges also depend on the relationship between parties of the knowledge transfer.Evidence from practice and research suggest that relationships between acquirer and acquiredfrequently are uneasy (Cartwright & Cooper, 1996), and in such a case the tensions betweenparties make knowledge transfer a challenging task.

Methods and data collection

The choice of research design was based on the objectives of the study. We considered acomparative case-study approach (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007) as suitable for increasingunderstanding about the knowledge transfer mechanisms. Within this setting, each case is

4

treated as an independent experiment standing on its own as an analytical unit (Yin, 2003). Bycomparing findings from the individual cases, researchers are able to justify whether anemergent finding is idiosyncratic to a single case, or consistent within a number of them(Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007).

Firstly, we selected one company, under which we further identified four different cases thatallowed us to investigate the processes and practices related to knowledge transfer in servicebusiness acquisitions. Our research design allowed us to contrast the cases and single out thedifferences better, as the parent strategy and culture remained constant. The acquiring firmAlpha is a well managed and strongly growth-oriented B2B service provider that had almosttripled its size through several acquisitions during the last ten years. It has invested both in ITto enhance efficiency, in customer relationship management as well as a team-likeorganization to enhance both efficiency and effectiveness. It has a unique culture aiming forhigh efficiency, continuous development and family-like organizational climate.

The acquiring firm Alpha produces routine expert services and increasingly also consultingtype of services for its B2B customers (on the typology of various types of services andrelated customer-supplier knowledge interaction, please see Ritala et al. 2010). Types ofknowledge that is transferred to acquired new companies are related to B2B professionalservice software (in cases when different between the acquirer and the acquired target), ERPsystem, ways of organizing e.g. team structure, coordination processes e.g. financial reportsand HR processes, services portfolio sold to B2B customers, and customer processes andorganizational culture aiming for efficiency and effectiveness. All the merged companieswere small privately owned firms operating within the same B2B service industry. Inaddition, all the acquisitions had taken place quite recently, less than three years ago.

We used theme interviews and focus group interviews (e.g. Morgan, 1996) as data collectionmethods. Focus groups can be used for theory development purposes, i.e. buildingpropositions from participant subjective experiences (Auerbach & Silverstein, 2003). Theycan be useful when studying topics that do not have dense sets of observations readilyavailable (see e.g. Berg, 2004). At best they can elicit participant tacit knowledge, subjectiveunderstandings and interpretations for shared understanding of complex phenomenon such asknowledge transfer in acquisitions. The theme interviews focused on the role and types ofknowledge, and the means to transfer it to the merged companies. The interviews werepurposefully open and narrative in type, following the lead of the interviewees and allowingthem to reflect their experiences and present examples. The focus group interviews, in turn,focused on the types of knowledge, means of knowledge transfer, critical or important factorsrelated to transfer processes, and ideas for improving them from the perspective of the mergedcompanies’ representatives.

Altogether, we interviewed 25 people from the company. Of these, six intervieweesparticipated in individual interviews and 19 interviewees in focus-group interviews. We heldfour focus groups sessions, in which there were 3-6 participants in each. All the interviewslasted between 70 and 110 minutes. Overall, theme interviews and focus group interviewsresulted in 152 pages of transcribed data.

The analysis started by looking at individual cases. To provide a data-grounded understandingof the phenomenon, the first analysis round focused on capturing the variety of means to

5

transfer knowledge within each case. In the second part of the analysis, recurrent themes werecompared and contrasted with each other between cases. The themes were then categorizedunder descriptive labels, resulting in a classification scheme of knowledge transfermechanisms. Two members of the research group contributed to the category labelingindependently, and the results were double-checked and agreed upon jointly. We will nowturn into the findings of the empirical study.

Results

The study yielded a classification of six knowledge transfer mechanisms in the context ofservice business acquisition: acquisition management team, unit managers, formal training,rooming-in, e-communication, and codified database. We will now describe each of themechanisms in turn.

1. Acquisition management team as an initiator

The so-called acquisition management team represented an important mechanism in the earlystages of the process. It consists of the managing director, HR manager, group controller andexperts in IT processes and training. The types of knowledge that were transferred weremostly explicit in nature, such operating manuals and routines, and the use of IT systems.However, also new practices and modes of thinking related e.g. to the customer managementmodel were transferred.

While in pre-acquisition situation it is typically only the entrepreneur with whom the acquirerengages in discussion with, in post-acquisition (post-contract) phase a larger team tookresponsibility about transferring knowledge between the two parties. Its role is to facilitatechange in terms of providing legitimacy and supporting the acquired unit’s employees bygiving both formal (information, processes and structures) and informal (social) support. Forinstance, the benefits obtained from the acquisition for both parties are introduced. One of theinterviewees from the acquiring firm described the role of the initial contact with the acquiredunit:

“It is important how you make the first contact… We visit there, sit around the same table andstart building the cooperative practices. I tell people we are operating in the same field, doingthe same things, but of course there are also changes taking place.”

These opening sessions were also appreciated by the units, particularly in terms of reducinguncertainty and ‘giving faces’ to change. They also build social identification by reducing thedistance between the personnel in acquired and acquiring firm, manifesting change from asmall unit into a part of a large international player. Hereby, managing director emphasizedsimilarities and shared professional identity, yet also the opportunities and challenges relatedto being part of a larger, and development-oriented firm. One challenge in terms ofknowledge transfer is how to make the communicative processes two-way right from thebeginning:

6

“Of course our aim is to make it more interactive, but people tend to act rather distant then, itis quire natural that they are afraid of asking questions and discussing with the visitors. Ittakes time.”

Two-way communication can be seen critical for the evolution of trust. Especially themanaging director and HR manager emphasized the role of trust in acquisitions. Themanaging director’s role can be seen as “ice-breaker” and giving face to the acquiring firm,whereas the HR manager stepped in later, when personnel in the acquired firm was moreready for a dialogue.

2. Unit manager as a translator

The role of the unit manager was highlighted across a variety of the cases, and across alllevels of the organization: parent company, unit managers themselves, and the employees insubsidiary units. Regarding knowledge transfer, unit manager seemed to serve as a linkbetween the parent company and the unit’s employees. He or she was the first to receiveknowledge from the parent company and based on their long experience, the employees wereable to trust their unit manager’s expertise and ability. As a result, the employees felt they hadthe knowledge they needed. The unit manager helped to ‘localize’ knowledge, i.e. the focuswas in internalizing and thus in tacit-types of knowledge.

“As we are now part of a large company… The operation models and practices must have putthrough to the personnel and it is unit manager’s task.”

An illustrative example of management’s focal role in the acquisition was one of the cases,where the unit operated for a short while without unit manager. Even if every employee wasskilled enough related to their professional work, they faced severe problems in learning “theways of the house” and felt like they were left alone.

“We were uncertain and lonely, and we had to solve a lot of things alone. We would haveneeded someone who guided us in how to do things.”

Unit manager’s managerial competence was established through a training program. Itspurpose was to educate the unit managers in order to transfer e.g. the customer-orientedapproach to their employees:

“In management’s training program, the model of customer care is one of the key areas, andI find it very important, because it allows us to distinguish – it is not just reporting andbilling, but continuous dialogue with the customer.”

All in all, the role of unit managers was to bridge knowledge across various stakeholders,both in the acquisition phase and in the everyday operations. They also supported each otherin this task. One of the unit managers described a situation of having another manager withwhom to share feelings; she could ask for advice, solve similar problems together and thusdevelop in her work. Other unit managers were having regular ‘peer group’ meetings wherethey could share experiences and engage in discussions about a variety of topics.

7

3. Formal training

The role of training was also emphasized in each case. Acquisitions represent a major changefor organizations, and the employees considered well-planned training as an efficient meansto transfer knowledge in such a situation. The unit’s employees need to be trained to thepractices and tools of the parent company, using the sources of data, and serving customersappropriately, i.e. the main focus was on transferring explicit knowledge. In addition,industry-specific areas of training were also considered important, regarding e.g. the changinglegislation.

However, considering the acquisition situation, in some cases the employees felt the trainingorganized by the parent company was not sufficient in its amount and quality. Firstly, some ofour interviewees described how there should have been guidance on how to use the new tools,for instance, instead of a two-hour presentation given by the expert from the parent company.In other words, the focus was in “what” instead of “how”. Secondly, the transferredknowledge should have been split into smaller coherent pieces instead of a continuous “push”effect. Thirdly, experts having enough competence related to the substance areas should havebeen deployed. Pedagogically poorly planned training resulted in much confusion amongemployees:

“In the beginning, there were just huge amount of new knowledge and no clear idea of wherewe should end up and why… It caused much uncertainty about goals, objectives and timing.”

In contrast, in some units there was in-room guidance available for employees and thissignificantly lowered the barrier to adapt to the new systems:

“The most basic thing is what we needed to do and have done since the beginning…eachemployee was demonstrated hand-to-hand how the system is used.”

Another illustrating example of the importance of training was the parent company’s model ofcustomer care and training units to treat their customers with a more professional‘consultative touch’. Before the acquisitions, the unit employees contacted their customers byoffice visits or by email, including general discussion about customer-related issues. After theacquisition, it was more like adapting to the mode of solving problems together withcustomers and engaging in continuous dialogue with them. Such a notable change cannot beexecuted on the side, but it presupposed purposeful and concrete actions from the parentcompany in the form of training. The employees also faced responsibility to start the so-calledadditional services sales and thinking of how to ease customer’s own work.

However, an interesting contradiction could be perceived from here. While the parentcompany seemed to rely on the units’ employees ability to perform their tasks and acquire theknowledge needed, the employees assumed that the parent company would support them inthis task and organize more training and practical guidance:

“They [the parent company] trusted that we can do everything here…and yes, we can doeverything.”

8

“Training is very superficial. Here in our unit we do things so that if someone knows oneissue better than others, he or she will advise them.”

In other words, the parent company and the subsidiaries at times seemed to shirkresponsibility by demonstrating a kind of “someone else should take care of this” attitude.Another type of barrier was the resistance of change in some of units being acquired. The unitmanagers were in the box seat to sense the atmosphere:

“Earlier we had been able to do just like we want…and naturally, the resistance of changeagainst certain authorities was significant.”

“Of course we are dealing with such a major change that it takes time to internalizeeverything, it is not an easy task for each of us.”

In some cases the resistance of change did not hamper the knowledge transfer processes in asimilar vein. For instance, one group of interviewees discussed how personal advance in usingcomputerized systems was clearly required after the acquisition phase. While this naturallycaused additional workload to the employees, it was often considered as a positive ‘sideeffect’, forcing the employees out of their own comfort zone to learn new. They also feltproud of being part of a larger company carrying a more professional image and reputationthan the small unit, which may have acted as a catalyst for their motivation to engage in theprocesses of learning and adapting to the new modes of operation.

4. Rooming-in

As noted in previous section, many of our interviewees considered training inadequate interms of how to use the new IT systems, for instance. Hereby, we can identify anotherdistinctive mechanism for knowledge transfer that is of particular importance inorganizational-level integration: having an in-room support person whose role is to ensurethat all employees will adapt to the systems and the related practices. In other words, it isabout proactive support, personal care-taking and introducing new employees “the way of thehouse”. This could be seen as a kind of precondition for effective individual performance afterthe acquisition: the employees only start learning after they feel secure enough to operate withthe new systems and experiment with them.

Respectively, we see rooming-in as a second embodiment of learning-related transfermechanisms. It is of particular importance regarding the absorption of tacit knowledge. Theobjective is both to make the employees feel more secure, and to support them in establishingthe basic routines in daily work after the changes raised by the acquisition.

“If we only had someone who would have sat here for two week and demonstrated how tooperate in different situations.”

In the absence of rooming-in, the unit manager acted in that role, for instance, when clarifyingissues and discussing with employees in weekly meetings. His or her role was to informemployees about current topics, seek the information needed and thus enhance problemsolving. Thereafter, concrete processes of learning on how to use the systems wereestablished and conducted in smaller groups.

9

“In weekly meetings it is not possible to study things, it is more about informing… In smallgroups, the IT system issues can be dealt with in a greater depth and reach more practicallevels.”

In addition to acting as a support person, unit managers had an important role regardingknowledge transfer between the parent company and subsidiaries in general, as illustratedearlier. Having presented the mechanisms related to the ‘human’ dimension in the form ofmanagement and learning, we will now turn into the mechanisms reflecting the ‘technology’dimension.

5. E-communication

E-communication represents a mechanism that involves human-to-human interaction, relyingon electronic means to transfer knowledge between two or more communicating parties. Inour cases, the most applied channel was e-mail, which was described as an importantinstrument both to contact people and to document knowledge, allowing employees to traceback what has been done and when.

Typically to the organizational use of e-mail, it was mainly applied to inform employeesabout current topics i.e. to transfer explicit knowledge. The unit managers practically receivedall information from the parent company via e-mail and decided whether it should bedelivered further.

The downside of relying heavily on e-mail was the amount of incoming information,particularly in the early stages right after the acquisition. Both the amount and mass deliveryof e-mails raised frustration among the employees.

“I just read only the first sentence and then notice it doesn’t concern me at all.”

However, looking this mechanism from the acquisition perspective, it is essential to note howa majority of the parent company’s practices became transferred into the subsidiaries throughincreased use of e-communication. As it became an everyday routine in the form of concreteinteraction and communication patterns, the subsidiaries slightly started to adapt to the parentcompany’s communication culture. This was also one of the major challenges, as all themerged companies represented relatively small units in comparison to the large parentcompany. It raised asymmetry:

“I understand that it was a normal practice in the parent company [to communicate mainlyvia e-mail], and this approach has been transferred to our unit as well, but the parentcompany is so large…we are used to discuss with each other face-to-face.”

Finally, having illustrated the human-to-human (i.e., communication) side of technology-mediated knowledge transfer, we now turn into the human-to-medium types of transfer in theform of codified database.

10

6. Codified database

In our cases, applying codified database represented a key mechanism to transfer knowledge.Across all organizational levels, our informants described the focal role of corporate intranet,where all the necessary knowledge had been stored. The types of knowledge were explicit innature: manuals, guides and instructions needed to provide the professional service. Anotherrepresentation of codified database was the ERP system. Both systems were generallyconsidered as a good means to store and transfer knowledge. However, the widespread use ofthe intranet also had its reverse side: much of the knowledge was obsolete and itsoverwhelming amount prevented many employees to find the right knowledge quickly andeasily.

“Even if you write a clear entry, you do not find it from the intranet.”

Respectively, a common theme regarding the improvement of the knowledge transferprocesses was the better organizing of the content of the intranet, and making it more user-friendly. Time was seen as a critical factor here, as the right knowledge should be found andacquired from the intranet as rapidly as possible. The management ideal were having intranetas all-inclusive knowledge storage, while the employees performing routine tasks might havefound the solution inappropriate and insufficient. Across different organizational levels, theintranet was basically considered as a well-operating system for managing the documents andguidelines needed, but the problems were related to trying to manage too much information.

Having described the knowledge transfer mechanisms, we now turn into discussing ourfindings in the light of prior research.

Discussion

The aim of this study was to identify knowledge transfer mechanisms that are of importancein service business acquisitions. The identified mechanisms can be roughly classified intothree categories: management-related (acquisition management team, unit managers),learning-related (formal training, rooming-in) and technology-related (e-communication,codified database).

As noted by Goh (2002), the role of management is to create favorable conditions andpositive atmosphere for knowledge transfer. Respectively, our study highlights the role of themanagement team and unit managers as separate knowledge transfer mechanisms inacquisitions. Whereas the former creates the conditions for change, initiates the process andintroduces the models and practices (explicit knowledge), unit managers localize knowledgeand support its interpretation in the form of organizational processes (tacit knowledge). Thesame dual logic applies with learning-related mechanisms. Whereas formal training is appliedto transfer explicit knowledge – in other words, to introduce the models, processes and ITsystems to the acquired unit – rooming-in is needed to internalize that knowledge and thussupport employees in establishing the basic operational routines.

11

Table 1 summarizes the identified knowledge transfer mechanisms, examples of types ofknowledge being transferred, and the dominating nature of knowledge.

Table 1. Summary on knowledge transfer mechanisms in acquisitionsMechanism Knowledge being transferred Dominating nature of knowledgeAcquisition management team asan initiator

Modes of organizing, esp. teamOrganizational cultureHRM & HRD practicesIncentive systemsB2B service softwareERP system, Intranet

Explicit

Unit manager as a translator Organizational cultureProcesses

- coordination- customer-related- IT processes

Tacit

Formal training CRM modelCustomer-related processesB2B service softwareERP system, intranet

Explicit

Rooming-in B2B service softwareERP system, intranet

Tacit

E-communication DocumentsCoordination processes, know-whom

Explicit

Codified database Documents and reports, know-what

Explicit

According to Day (1994), the transfer of tacit knowledge remains more critical than thetransfer of explicit knowledge. Our study reinforces this notion. Transferring tacit knowledge,in turn, requires active direct communication and participation (e.g. Lam, 1997; Connell et al.,2003). While both the parent company representatives and the merged units’ employees wererelatively satisfied with the available IT solutions (ERP, corporate intranet and in some casesalso the B2B professional software) the latter group demonstrated significant concern on howthey were trained to use them after the acquisition. Due to parent company’s strong focus oncodified knowledge, they mostly relied on explicit-types of knowledge transfer mechanisms.Hereby, the merged small units with a different knowledge strategy were subject to a majorchange regarding both the knowledge as such and the processes to transfer knowledge.

Jasimuddin (2007) notes that people-focused mechanisms of knowledge transfer areinappropriate when the parties of the transfer process are geographically dispersed. Our studyprovides a different perspective: even if the acquired units were geographically separatedfrom the parent company, transferring knowledge would have required not relying only ontechnology-mediated mechanisms. Instead, an effective combination of the two types ofmechanisms could better facilitate the transfer process. Also Minbaeva et al. (2010) found outthat the increased use of electronic networks did not moderate the acquisition of knowledge,as personal relationships and socialization were considered more satisfactory by intrinsicallymotivated people.

Finally, the management team should pay special attention to the role of personal caretakingand providing in-room guidance (e.g. how to use the new IT systems) instead of an excessiveweight on transferring explicit and “what” types of knowledge. As distinct from prior

12

research, our study thus underlines the importance of combining “hard” knowledge transfermediated by technology and “soft” knowledge transfer mediated by human interactionpatterns such as learning and management practices.

Conclusions

The objective of this study was to find out what types of mechanisms for knowledge transferin service business acquisitions can be identified, and to classify them. We applied servicebusiness acquisitions as an illustrative research context, drawing on a qualitative empiricalstudy of one B2B service firm. As a result, our study provided a typology of six knowledgetransfer mechanisms: acquisition management team as an initiator, unit management as atranslator, formal training, rooming-in, e-communication, and codified database. These can befurther classified into management-, learning-, and technology-related mechanisms.

The contribution of the study is twofold. Firstly, it adds to the literature of knowledgemanagement by providing a classification of knowledge transfer mechanisms. Secondly, itpresents empirical evidence about the role and use of such mechanisms in service businessacquisition, hereby contributing to managerial understanding about how to facilitateknowledge transfer between the acquirer and the acquired target in the field of knowledge-intensive service firms. From managerial point of view, our study highlights how the transfermechanisms should be tailored to match to the type of knowledge being transferred (see alsoGupta & Govindarajan, 2000). This requires increased awareness of different knowledgestrategies and the related managerial actions needed, in particular when there is asymmetrybetween the acquirer and the acquired target.

The main limitation of our study is that we only investigated one company and hereby fourdifferent acquisition cases. As the results of the empirical study represent one industry, theidentified knowledge transfer mechanisms should be further tested and validated in othertypes of service industries and other cultural contexts.

References

Argote, L. and Ingram, P. 2000. Knowledge transfer: A basis for competitive advantage in firms.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes Vol. 82 No 1, pp 150-169.

Auerbach C.F. and Silverstein L.B (2003). Qualitative Data. An Introduction to Coding and Analysis,New York University Press, New York.

Berg, B.L. 2004. Focus Group Interviewing, in Qualitative Research Methods for Social Sciences,Fifth Edition, Pearson Education Inc, USA, pp 123-145.

Bresman, H., Birkinshaw, J. and Nobel, R. 1999. Knowlegde transfer in international acquisitions.Journal of International Business Studies Vol. 30 No 3, pp 439-462.

Cartwright, S. and Cooper, C.L. 1996. Managing Mergers, Acquisitions and Strategic Alliances:Integrating People and Cultures, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.

Connell, N.A.D., Klein, J.H. and Powell, P.L. 2003. It’s tacit knowledge but not as we know:Redirecting the search for knowledge. Journal of Operational Research Society, Vol. 54, pp140-152.

13

Day, G.S. 1994. Managerial representations of competitive advantage. Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58,pp 31-44.

Eisenhardt, K. and Graebner, M.E. 2007. Theory building from cases: opportunities and challenges.Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 50, No 1, pp 25-32.

Gittel, J.H., Seidner, R. 2009. "Human Resource Management in the Service Sector," in A. Wilkinson,T. Redman, S. Snell and N. Bacon (eds.), Handbook of Human Resource Management, SagePublications. pp 509-523.

Goh, S. 2002. Managing effective knowledge transfer: an integrative framework and some practiceimplications. Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 6. No 1, pp 23-30.

Grant, R. 1996. Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal Vol.17,pp 109-122.

Gupta, A.K. and Govindarajan, V. 2000. Knowledge flows within multinational corporations.Strategic Management Journal Vol. 21, pp 473-496.

Haleblian, J., Devers, C.E., McNamara, G., Carpenter, M.A. and Davison, R.B. 2009. Taking Stock ofWhat We Know About Mergers and Acquisitions: A Review and Research Agenda. Journalof Management Vol. 35 No 3, pp 469-502.

Jasimuddin, S.M. 2007. Exploring knowledge transfer mechanisms: The case of a UK-based groupwithin a high-tech global corporation. International Journal of Information Management, Vol.27, pp 294-300.

Kalling, T. 2003. Organization-internal transfer of knowledge and the role of motivation: A qualitativecase study. Knowledge and Process Management Vol. 10 No 2, pp 115-126.

Kogut B. and Zander U. 1992. Knowledge of the firm, Combinative Capabilities, and the Replicationof Technology. Organization Science Vol. 3 No 3, pp 383-397.

Kongpichayanond, P. 2009. Knowledge Management for Sustained Competitive Advantage inMergers and Acquisitions. Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 11 No 3, pp 375-387.

Lam, A. 1997. Embedded firms, embedded knowledge: Problems in collaboration and knowledgetransfer in global cooperative ventures. Organization Studies, Vol. 21 No 3, pp 487-513.

Minbaeva, D. 2007. Knowledge transfer in multinational corporations. Management InternationalReview Vol. 47, pp 567-593.

Minbaeva, D., Mäkelä K. and Rabbiosi, L. 2010. Explaining intra-organizational knowledge transferat the individual level. SMG Working Paper 1/2010, Copenhagen Business School.

Morgan, D. 1996. Focus Groups. Annual Review of Sociology Vol. 22, pp 129-152.Nahavandi, A. and Malekzadeh, A.R. 1988. Acculturation in Mergers and Acquisitions. Academy of

Management Review Vol. 13 No 1, pp 79-91.Ritala, P., Andreeva, T., Kosonen, M. and Blomqvist, K. 2010. A problem-based perspective on

knowledge-intensity in service business. A paper presented in European Conference onKnowledge Management (ECKM), Famalicao, Portugal, 2-3 September, 2010.

Simonin, B. 1999. Ambiguity and the process of knowledge transfer in strategic alliances. StrategicManagement Journal Vol. 20 No 7, pp 595-623.

Szulanski, G. 1996. Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice withinthe firm. Strategic Management Journal Vol. 17, pp. 27-43.

Szulanski, G. 2000. The process of knowledge transfer: A diachronic analysis of stickiness.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes Vol. 82 No 1, pp 9-27.

Teece, D. 2004.Technology and technology transfer: Mansfieldian inspirations and subsequentdevelopments. The Journal of Technology Transfer Vol. 30 Nos 1-2, pp 17-33.

Tsang, E. 2008. Transferring Knowledge to Acquisition Joint Ventures: An Organizational UnlearningPerspective. Management Learning Vol. 39 No 1, pp 5-20.

Yin, R. 2003. Case Study Research. Design and Methods, 3rd Edition. Sage Publications, ThousandOaks.