Knowledge management in knowledge clusters

(1)

1

Knowledge management in knowledge clusters

By:

Gert Jan Leving,

Msc. Technology management University of Groningen

Faculty of Economics and Business

Soendastraat 20 9715 NH Groningen g.j.leving@student.rug.nl Student number 1831259 Supervisor: Drs. W.A. Prins University of Groningen Nettelbosje 2 9747 AE Groningen Second supervisor

prof. dr. ir. G.J.C. Gaalman University of Groningen

Nettelbosje 2 9747 AE Groningen

Initiator:

Ing. J. Horvath MBA

Syntens Innovation network

Paterswoldseweg 810 9728 BM

Groningen

(2)

2

1. Introduction

This report describes a research that was commissioned by Syntens. Syntens is a governmental organization concerned with stimulating innovation in SMEs in the Netherlands is Syntens. On behalf of the Ministry of Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation their mission is: strengthening the innovative ability of SMEs, inciting SMEs to innovate successfully in order to contribute to sustainable grow (Syntens Handboek Primaire process, 2010).

Encouraging innovation in SMEs is central to policy initiatives for stimulating economic development by governments (Jones and Tilley, 2003). The important question in this respect is how to facilitate innovation in SMEs, trying to discover which factors contributed to the success (or failure) of their innovation efforts. Specifically, as technology becomes so complex that it cannot be handled by one firm alone, and relevant knowledge is evermore scattered across various firms, collaboration between firms is increasingly regarded as an important factor for success (Lee, Park, Yoon & Park 2010).

Over the past 25 years, the number of strategic alliances has grown considerably (e.g. Anand and Khanna 2000; Dyer et al. 2004; Grant and Baden-Fuller 2004). Motives for firms to join alliances discussed in literature are; to gain market power, reduce and share risks and costs, increase efficiency, and access and acquire external knowledge (Bleeke and Ernst 1991; Grant and Baden-Fuller 2004; Hennart 1988; Kogut 1988; Osland and Yaprak 1995; Powell 1987).

As knowledge emerges as a central resource critical to the development of capabilities, products and services, alliances are being recognized increasingly as an organizational form to acquire and

internalize the knowledge needed to gain competitive advantage (Grant 1996b; Inkpen 1996; Kale et al. 2000; Simonin 2004; Spender 1996).

Syntens recognizes the importance of alliances in stimulating innovation and therefore they developed a cluster approach in order to facilitate the collaboration process between SMEs. In this approach Syntens employees take on the role of intermediary to facilitate the process between two or more organizations. Syntens makes a distinction between two forms of alliances, or clusters as they are referred too. There are “Business Clusters” which are strategic alliances between two or more entrepreneurs who invest in a joint innovation or in entering new markets, and there are “Knowledge Clusters” which are alliances between entrepreneurs and knowledge institutes with a focus on developing, sharing and applying knowledge.

(4)

4 This research will focus on the Knowledge Clusters because the influence that the intermediaries have on the process in these types of clusters is more substantial than in Business Clusters. In

Business Clusters the role of a Syntens intermediary limits to acquiring the right subsidy and does not focus so much on the process of collaboration between SMEs.

Syntens intermediaries use the cluster approach to facilitate knowledge clusters in creating, sharing, and applying knowledge but their clients do not report a positive or negative effect of these

activities. For both Syntens and their clients this situation is perceived as undesirable. Therefore Syntens wishes to address this problem. At this moment it is unclear if the problem in the output of the cluster approach is caused by the approach itself or by an unrealistic image of the desired outcomes. Does the cluster efforts of Syntens focus on the wrong factors, does the personal touch of the intermediary effect the outcomes or does the measurement survey lack sufficient parameters? The goal of this study is to determine how the cluster efforts of Syntens affect creating, sharing, and applying knowledge in knowledge clusters between SMEs.

The research question central to this research is: How do the cluster efforts of Syntens affect creating, sharing, and applying knowledge in knowledge clusters between SMEs?

In order to find an answer to this question, chapter 2 will describe the theory on “Knowledge Management” in alliances. Knowledge Management is best described as the combination of practices and strategies used by organizations to create, share and apply knowledge (Meier, 2011). From the theory a framework will emerge which describes the implications that Knowledge

(5)

5

2. Theoretical framework for Knowledge Management

In order to determine how the cluster efforts of Syntens affect creating, sharing, and applying knowledge in knowledge clusters, this chapter aims to identify the theoretical view on factors that influence creating, sharing and applying knowledge. The theoretical framework that will be described in this chapter is developed based on a review article of Mattias MeierAfter extensive literature search in scholarly databases on the topics of intermediaries, collaboration in alliances, knowledge brokering, strategic alliances and knowledge management I came across the article of Meier (2011), Knowledge Management in Strategic Alliances: A Review of Empirical Evidence.

This article will be the basis for the theoretical framework in this study because it complements the topic under investigation and because of its completeness in the reviewed literature. This article identifies the factors that should be taken into consideration when managing knowledge in strategic alliances. Syntens’ Knowledge Clusters can be perceived as strategic alliances because the cluster members engage in a relationship in which they jointly pursue a goal, in this case creating, sharing and/or applying knowledge. In this article, Matthias Meier (2011) made a review of the known literature on the topic of knowledge management in strategic alliances. In this article he describes knowledge management in terms of four sets of factors; Knowledge characteristics, Partner characteristics, Partner interaction and Active knowledge management. The following sections will describe these sets of factors in more detail.

2.1 Knowledge characteristics

Reed and DeFillippi (1990) discuss tacitness, complexity and specificity as knowledge dimensions that lead to competitive advantage and ambiguity. The first distinction between tacit and explicit

knowledge was made by Polanyi (1966) where he described explicit knowledge as knowledge that can be codified in a formal and systematic language and tacit knowledge as non-verbalizable, intuitive and unarticulated. According to Nonaka (1994) tacit knowledge is context specific, difficult to articulate, personally bound, and deeply rooted in action. According to Kogut and Zander (1992) explicit knowledge is more easy to transfer than tacit knowledge because of the ease in which it can be codified. The organizational embeddedness of tacit knowledge impedes its codifiability and therefore the ease in which it can be transferred. Tacitness as knowledge dimension determines the ease of knowledge transfer (Grant 1996a, b). The degree of complexity of the knowledge is

determined by the amount of knowledge that is integrated into organizational routines,

technologies, and individual- or team-based experiences (Grant 1996a; Reed and Defillippe 1990).

2.2 Partner characteristics

Much research effort is invested in the question how the characteristics of the alliance partners influence the knowledge management outcomes. Factors that are discussed by scholars on this topic are knowledge related alliance motives, learning intention and absorptive capacity of the partners.

2.2.1 Knowledge related alliance motives

(6)

6 on the firms’ desire to access or acquire knowledge from the partner. Larsson et al. (1998) make a distinction between joint creation of completely new knowledge and the transfer of existing

knowledge among partners. Meier’s (2011) conclusion is that “firms seem to be motivated either by the purpose of creating new knowledge jointly, transferring existing knowledge between partners, or combining existing complementary knowledge via joint knowledge application”.

This assumption is supported by empirical evidence provided by Mowery et al. (1996) and Rothaermel and Deeds (2004). Mowery et al. (1996) found that the knowledge bases of alliance partners substantially converge or diverge during the lifetime of the alliance. Their conclusion is that when knowledge bases converge, partners are motivated by the desire to transfer knowledge and knowledge bases diverge when partners want to increase their knowledge specialization and recombine their specific knowledge. It seems the trade-off between co-operation and competition will result in knowledge management outcomes when all partners are motivated to transfer the existing knowledge. The results of Pérez-Nordtvedt et al’s (2008) study indicate that organizations with valuable tacit knowledge are particularly attractive as partners. Norman (2002) found that firms seem to be aware of their attractiveness and seem to be more protective of their knowledge when tacitness increases. Therefore, co-operation might turn into competition if one firm is overly persistent in appropriating tacit knowledge from its partners while not sharing its own proprietary knowledge (cf. also Khanna et al. 1998). This effect could get stronger when the alliance partners are competitors in the same market. Joint knowledge creation and application will reduce the

competitive pressures whilst the partners are less concerned with unintended knowledge transfer.

2.2.2 Learning intent

The previous section described the different motives for organizations to join an alliance. Learning intent represents the degree of determination to acquire and internalize certain knowledge and skills from the partner (Tsang 2002). This is a precondition of knowledge transfer in the post-formation phase of alliance management (Hamel 1991). According to Pérez-Nordtvedt et al. (2008) the degree of learning intent depends on the potential contribution of the partner’s knowledge to the

competitive advantage of the own organization. This desire is represented by the amount of resources that an organization is willing to invest in the knowledge transfer process (Beamish and Berdrow, 2003).

Pérez-Nordtvedt et al. (2008), Hau and Evangelista (2007) and Simonin (1999b) indicate that a high degree of learning intent enhances the knowledge transfer process. Wu and Cavusgil (2006) show that organizations with a high degree of learning intent are generally more committed to the

alliance. The degree of learning intend is represented by the managements’ commitment to dedicate resources to the process of knowledge transfer (Beamish and Berdrow 2003; Norman 2002; Simonin 2004; Tsang et al. 2004;Wu and Cavusgil 2006). In contrast to these theoretical assumptions Tsang (2002) finds only a weak relation between learning intent and resource allocation and Simonin (2004) provides no evidence that learning intent relates to the allocation of resources to knowledge

(7)

7 logic for the relationship between learning intent and knowledge transfer. “If the learning intent is very low, firms will not devote resources to knowledge transfer – and knowledge transfer remains negligible. Further increases in learning intent will stimulate knowledge transfer to a maximum, until additional increases eventually lead to a restriction of communication and protection of knowledge, as the partner perceives the learning intent of its counterpart as a potential threat (Meier, 2011)”

2.2.3 Absorptive capacity

Absorptive capacity describes the organization’s ability to learn from the partner (Steensma and Lyles, 2000). Cohen and Levinthal (1990) define a firm’s absorptive capacity as ‘the ability of a firm to recognize the value of new, external information, assimilate it, and apply it to commercial ends’. Dyer and Singh (1998) assume that a firm’s absorptive capacity depends on the knowledge overlap between the partners at the beginning of the alliance and the interaction between the partners. According to Lane and Lubatkin (1998) it is important for alliance partners to have an overlap in basic knowledge and a dissimilarity in specialized knowledge. The overlap in basic knowledge supports mutual understanding, which enhances the transfer of knowledge. The dissimilarity in specialized knowledge offers the potential to share unknown knowledge, which is impossible with completely identical bases of specialized knowledge.

Schoenmakers and Duysters (2006) represent the relation between absorptive capacity and

knowledge transfer as a inverted u-shape. When knowledge overlap is small, firms lack an adequate level of absorptive capacity which impedes the transfer of knowledge. As the similarity in knowledge bases increases the potential transfer of unknown knowledge decreases. Their study shows that the amount of knowledge that can be transferred depends on the complementarity of the partners’ knowledge bases.

Lane and Lubatkin also identified more organizational dimensions of absorptive capacity. They assume that firms with similar organizational structures and dominant logics are comparable in the way they manage knowledge. They found that “partners with similar dominant logics achieve significantly higher degrees of joint knowledge creation and transfer in their alliance”.

According to Meier (2011) the existing empirical data confirms the importance of pre-alliance knowledge overlap and similarity in dominant logics. However, absorptive capacity does not undeniably lead to knowledge transfer. Norman (2002) indicates that when organizations perceive the absorptive capacity of their partners as high they will be more protective of their knowledge.

2.2.4 Cultural differences

Differences in national and/or cultural backgrounds can pose knowledge management challenges because of complications in communication due to differences in language, opinions, attitudes, beliefs and geographical distance (e.g. Kale et al. 2000; Lane and Lubatkin 1998; Mowery et al. 1996; Simonin 1999b; Thuc Anh et al. 2006). According to Simonin (1999b) cultural distance complicates mutual understanding which has an impeding effect on knowledge transfer. Mowery et al. (1996) discovered that alliances between partners with different nationality are less successful in transferring knowledge than alliances between partners with the same nationality.

(8)

8 (2009) the knowledge type is also an influencing factor. Lam (1997) illustrates that knowledge that is culturally embedded might impede the transfer across national borders and Evangelista and Hau (2009) found that negative effect of cultural distance is stronger with tacit than with explicit knowledge.

2.3 Partner interaction

Openness is described by Hamel (1991) as an important factor in knowledge management outcomes. Openness refers to the interaction between the alliance partners. “It represents the willingness and ability of partners to communicate freely, share knowledge, and risk unintended knowledge transfer Inkpen 2000; Lane et al. 2001; Steensma and Lyles 2000).” According to Inkpen (2000) the level of competitive overlap and trust influence the level of conflict in an alliance and therefore these factors determine the openness in the relationship.

2.3.1 Competitive overlap

Competitive overlap can have both positive and negative effects on the openness between alliance partners. A high degree of competitive overlap will generally result in more proprietary knowledge protection, because unintended knowledge transfer could endanger an organizations’ competitive advantage (Khanna et al. 1998). From an absorptive capacity point of view, competitive overlap might have a positive influence because the knowledge base of the partners are more likely to show resembles (Inkpen 2000; Kale et al. 2000).

According to Mowery et al. (1996) the knowledge transfer between organizations in learning alliances is lower when they compete in end-product markets. According to Schoenmakers and Duysters (2006) sharing an industry has a positive influence on knowledge transfer between alliance partners. This effect is not supported by Chen (2004) and Muthusamy and White (2005). Both their studies do not show an effect of industry sharing on joint knowledge creation and transfer.

Meier (2012) points out two possible explanations for these contradictory results. The first

explanation is that the degree of competitive overlap differs between alliances that share an industry and alliances between direct competitors. According to Park and Russo (1996) an alliance is more likely to fail when the partners compete directly in comparison to alliances that only share an industry (see also Faems et al. 2007). Alliances between partners who share an industry experience less competitive pressures while benefiting from the positive influence of absorptive capacity.

2.3.2 Trust

(9)

9 Based on the above mentioned statements trust seems to be a good predictor of general knowledge management outcomes (Meier, 2011) however, empirical evidence from Becerra et al. (2008), Dhanaraj et al. (2004) and Evangelista and Hau (2009) points out that it is particularly important for the transfer of tacit knowledge where the creates the necessary proximity.

According to Inkpen and Curral (2004) the relationship between trust and knowledge management outcomes continually changes. An increase in trust makes the transfer of tacit knowledge easier. When one partner is more able to acquire knowledge, and ‘outlearn’ the others the level of trust might shift resulting in more control and protection (Inkpen and Beamish 1997; Inkpen and Currall 2004).

2.3.3 Conflict

Conflict in an alliance can lead to direct failure (Steensma and Lyles 2000) but it can also lead to a decline in trust which eventually will impede knowledge transfer (e.g. Tsang et al. 2004). According to Kale et al. (2000), the way alliances manage conflict can also have a positive effect on trust and knowledge transfer. According to their results joint conflict management can function as a trust building mechanism and therefore also as a knowledge management practice on its own. Berdrow and Lane (2003), Chen (2004), and Collins and Hitt (2006) reaffirm these findings: firms that frequently engage in partner interaction, which in turn is characterized by a high level of

communication quality and perceived fairness in the resolution of conflicts, are found to transfer more knowledge within alliances.

2.3.4 Prior ties

The above mentioned theory focuses on the relationship between partners during the alliance. Inkpen (1996) focuses on the pre-alliance relationship between the partners and states that “top management involvement and prior ties contribute to a trustworthy climate in subsequent relationships”. The effect of prior ties remains unclear in other empirical studies. Muthusamy and White (2005) report a positive and significant effect whereas Kale et al. (2000) and Norman (2002) do not report an influence of prior ties on knowledge management outcomes. Schoenmakers and Duysters find the surprising effect that stronger prior equity-based ties show a significant negative effect on subsequent knowledge transfer. According to the authors this is caused by

over-embeddedness of the partners knowledge bases.

Based on these varying results, Meier (2011) concludes the following “If we accept that firms are not less protective if they know each other from prior relationships (Kale et al; Norman 2002; Sampson 2004) and are more capable of absorbing knowledge from a well-known partner at the same time (Dhanaraj et al. 2004; Muthusamy and White 2005; Nielsen 2007; Schoenmakers and Duysters 2006), we can conclude that prior ties contribute to absorptive capacity, but are no guarantee for a

subsequent relationship.”

2.4 Active knowledge management

(10)

10

2.4.1 Alliance governance

There is a wide variety of governance forms but the distinction between equity and contract-based alliances is most clear (e.g. Das and Teng 1998; Gulati 1995; Inkpen 2000). According to Kale et al. (2000) “the transaction cost literature suggests that equity-based alliances have the potential to align interests among alliance partners, offering opportunities for intended knowledge transfer and simultaneous protection against knowledge leakage.” Chen (2004) and Mowery et al. (1996) state that equity-based alliances are better in knowledge transfer. According to Chen (2004) equity-based alliances are better in transferring tacit knowledge in comparison with explicit knowledge. With regard to the efficiency of the knowledge transfer Chen (2004) states that tacit knowledge is most efficiently transferred in equity-based alliances and explicit knowledge is most efficiently transferred in contract-based alliances.

In contrast to the above mentioned statements no effect of alliance governance on knowledge creation or transfer is found in the studies of Kale et al. (2000) and Muthusamy and White (2005). Chen (2004) shows that knowledge transfer is determined by the governance form, the knowledge characteristics and the firm’s absorptive capacity. Most existing research focuses on the relation between alliance form and knowledge transfer. Jiang and Li (2009) focus on the influence of alliance form and knowledge creation. Their results show that also knowledge creation benefits from a equity-based alliance governance. As a conclusion to this topic Meier (2011) states that “the reviewed studies indicate that the choice of alliance governance is not a simple decision that determines knowledge management outcomes, but a relatively complex decision problem.

2.4.2 Knowledge management practices

‘Knowledge management practices’ are all organizational routines, control and co-ordination mechanisms and systems that firms use to manage knowledge management outcomes (cf. Gray 2001). According to the analysis of Meier, prior research shows that alliances that actively apply knowledge management practices are more effective in knowledge transfer. Knowledge

management practices that are stated to be beneficial for knowledge transfer in the studies reviewed by Meier (2011) are ‘advisory systems’, ‘alliance liaison offices’, ‘learning networks’, ’the delegation of expatriates’, ‘mutual visits/plant tours’, ‘training programmes’ and ‘on site meetings’ (Berdrow and Lane 2003; Collins and Hitt 2006; Inkpen 2005; Inkpen and Pien 2006). Based on an analysis of a number of different knowledge management practices Lyles and Salk (1996) argue that articulated goals create organizational commitment and a point of reference in decision making in the alliance. Other enhancing practices that get mentioned in their analysis are ‘knowledge transfer agendas’, ‘technological and managerial knowledge contribution’, ‘emotional support’, ‘labour deivision between partners’ and ‘personnel training’. According to Meier (2011) the positive effect of articulated goals , the delegation of expatriates, and active involvement on knowledge transfer get general support. Tsang (2002) also finds a supporting effect of the involvement and overseeing effort of a parent firms alliance manager.

(11)

11

2.5 Theoretical implications

To develop an understanding of the possible factors that contribute to the problem stated in the introduction, table 1 sums up the statements derived from the theory that are relevant for the context in which the problem of Syntens occurs.

Table 1. Theoretical implications of knowledge management

Determinants of knowledge management

Variables Theoretical implications

1. Knowledge characteristics

Tacitness, complexity and specificity contribute to the ambiguity of knowledge, which in turn impedes the transfer of knowledge. 2. Partner

characteristics

2.1 Knowledge related alliance motives

Co-operation can turn into competition if one firm is overly persistent in appropriating tacit knowledge from its partner while not sharing its own proprietary knowledge.

Joint knowledge creation and complementary application will exert lesser competitive pressures on the alliance, as partners are less concerned with unintended knowledge transfer.

2.2 Leaning intent

Low learning intent: firms will not devote resources to knowledge transfer Further increases in learning intent will stimulate knowledge transfer to a maximum

High Learning intent: lead to a restriction of communication and protection of knowledge.

2.3 Absorptive capacity

A firm’s absorptive capacity depends on its pre-alliance knowledge overlap with the partner and on the interaction routines between the partners. An overlap in basic knowledge supports mutual understanding and eventually joint knowledge creation and transfer.

Knowledge creation and transfer are determined by the degree of dissimilarity in specialized knowledge, since completely identical bases of specialized knowledge would not offer potential for the transfer of unknown knowledge.

Partners with similar dominant logics achieve significantly higher degrees of joint knowledge creation and transfer in their alliance.

Firms capable of internalizing the lessons learned from past alliances will be more capable of managing knowledge.

2.4 Cultural differences

Cultural distance among partners impedes knowledge transfer, as it complicates understanding.

The impeding effect of cultural/national differences does not necessarily constitute a given fact, but can be overcome with appropriate knowledge management efforts.

(12)

12 3. Partner

interaction

3.1 Competitive overlap

Alliances between direct competitors are more likely to fail compared with alliances among partners which share a similar industry background but do not compete directly.

Partners who share a similar industry background seem to benefit from an adequate level of absorptive capacity while simultaneously experiencing less competitive pressure resulting in a lower level of knowledge protection.

3.2 Trust Trust is particularly important for the transfer of tacit knowledge, as it creates the necessary proximity between partners.

3.3 Conflict Joint conflict management seems to function as a trust-building mechanism and as a knowledge transfer practice in its own right.

3.4 Prior ties Prior ties contribute to absorptive capacity, but are no guarantee for a subsequent trustworthy relationship.

4. Active knowledge management

4.1 Alliance governance

Equity-based alliances are better in transferring tacit knowledge in comparison with explicit knowledge while explicit knowledge is more efficiently transferred in contract-based alliances.

4.2 Knowledge management practices

Knowledge management practices beneficial to knowledge transfer are advisory systems, alliance liaison offices, learning networks, the delegation of expatriates, mutual visits/plant tours, training programmes and on-site meetings.

Articulated goals create organizational commitment and a point of reference in decision processes for organizational members.

The involvement and overseeing effort of a parent firm’s alliance managers supports the transfer of knowledge.

Frequent communication, on-site meetings and partner visits help to build the necessary relational capital to transfer tacit knowledge.

Explicit knowledge is transferred via technology sharing practices. Commitment of top management has a greater positive influence on the transfer of explicit knowledge than on the transfer of tacit knowledge. Alliance partners are able to reduce the tacitness and complexity

associated with knowledge by dedicating resources to the transfer process.

2.6 Conclusion

According to the theory the factors (1) knowledge characteristics, (2) partner characteristics, (3) partner interaction and (4) active knowledge management practices influence the creation, sharing and application of knowledge in alliances. These factors have implications for the way knowledge management should be put into practice and therefore they are considered to be important for the efforts Syntens makes in guiding clusters.

(13)

13

3. Syntens’ Cluster Approach

This chapter will describe the cluster approach according to internal Syntens documents. The cluster approach of Syntens consists of several documents and tools which provide guidance to Syntens intermediaries who are concerned with guiding clusters. At the end of this chapter the formal process of Syntens will be compared with the theoretical implications from chapter 2 in order to identify how the Knowledge Management factors are handled by Syntens. Figure 1 shows a general image of how Syntens perceives a cluster progresses and the activities and tools that are relevant too this process.

Figure 1. Clusterproces

Section 3.1 covers the different phases that Syntens distinguishes in the cluster process and the results and effects that are associated with each phase. The different tools which can be used in the cluster approach are described in section 3.2. Section 3.3 will describe striking points and

(14)

14

3.1 Cluster phases

Table 2 shows a representation of four different phases that, according tot Syntens, occur during the development of a cluster.

Tabel 2. Phases of the cluster approach

Phase Actions Results/deliverables Effects

Initiative - Identifying issues and

opportunities for innovation in a sector

- Cluster Idea generating, - Assistance in partner selection. - Searching for potential

participants.

- Networking, bring participats together,

- Developing a vision

- First cluster plan version - An overview of individual and common goals - A summary of the cluster concept and the intentions of the participants - Intentions of participants clear (preferably recorded in a letter of intent). - Increased mutual trust Plan

- Agreeing on targets, actions and budgets

- Setup cooperation structure - Process support (making sure that concrete agreements are recorded background knowledge, intellectual

property, operations, efforts, budgets and revenues). - Feasibility studies - Read plans, advising and - Register commitment.

- Vision on the final plan: i.e. on the

cooperation agreement (for a business cluster) or the plan or program of a knowledge cluster

- Final cluster plan - Cooperation Agreement

- The plan will be executed - Cluster participants are commited Realization - Supervising implementation - Group coaching the group, monitor progress and success and make interventions

- Organizing meetings, agenda lining

- Utilize activities

- Reports (results of a Cluster Radar or annual program of a knowledge cluster) - A successful joint innovation or a successful running knowledge cluster, - Realization of the cluster targets. Evaluation

- Cluster evaluation base don cluster plan

- Final report for entrepreneurs and / or stakeholders.

- Measure of success and recognition.

3.2 Tools and instruments

(15)

15 3.2.1 Basic Questions

The tool basic questions consists of 12 open questions to screen the goals that individual organizations have to join a cluster. The tool aims to identify and review the intentions of the potential participant.

1. Wat is úw doel om samen te werken?

2. Wat is het termijn wat u voor ogen heeft voor de duur van de samenwerking (op projectbasis (tijdelijk en hoelang) of structureel).

3. Hoe ziet het cluster er over een jaar uit (benoem een tijdstip)?

4. Wat hebben we over een jaar bereikt? Wat hebben we gedaan en waaruit blijkt dat? 5. Wat brengt u zelf in?

6. Wat brengt ieder ander in?

7. Welke inbreng mist u? Wat vindt u wat het collectief nog nodig heeft? 8. Wie zou het best ‘trekker’ kunnen zijn?

9. Op welke manier gaat u kennis uitwisselen? 10. Welke samenwerkingsvorm wilt u bereiken? 11. Welke risico’s ziet u en…

12. Hoe denkt u de genoemde risico's te ondervangen? Hoe gaat men over één jaar met de risico's om. By comparing the anwsers of the individual participants and by presenting these results to the potential cluster composition yields a clear image of all the motives to cooperate. According to Syntens this tool covers the information that is needed to complete the initiative phase. The intermediary is free to modify and or expand the list of questions.

3.2.4 Cluster Radar

The Cluster Radar is used to monitor the progress of the cluster and to review the potential to get a successful cluster outcome. Figure 2 shows an example of a Cluster Radar outcome.

(16)

16 The tool measures the collaboration based on critical success factors on the factors organization, strategy, relation and knowledge transfer. The aim of this tool is to stimulate the cluster participants to focus on the issues that are important for the collaboration.

The Cluster Radar makes a distinction between knowledge clusters and business clusters. For the knowledge clusters (which are the scope of this research) the Cluster Radar indicators focus more on knowledge transfer and developing new products and services as a result of new knowledge. According to Syntens it is important that the Cluster Radar is used when the participants already are engaged in a collaboration in order to gain reliable results. They state that the cluster radar can be used in the following situations:

- When the cluster stages in the plan or realization phase.

- When the cluster wants to review its expectations or health; The Cluster Radar supports in mapping the expectations of the participants and by strengthening the health of a cluster. If either one is needed the cluster can be equipped.

- Used as a monitoring instrument

- Used as an evaluation instrument; to review the satisfaction and to identify points of improvement for future developments.

- Used to complement other tools; to ensure a greater understanding of underlying motives. No strict rules or obligations are attached to the application of the cluster radar. It is a tool not a goal in itself. It is up to the intermediary to estimate whether or not the application of the Cluster Radar contributes to the strengthening of the cluster. The point in time on which it can be applied is also flexible. Its no precondition that the participants already developed a connection. Eventually the intermediary and the cluster participants decide if and when to use the cluster radar.

After reviewing the Cluster Radar tool there are two notable issues:

- The description speaks of objective and reliable results. However, the cluster radar is a tool to measure opinions (subjective) and intentions.

- The right moment to use the tool is ambiguous.

- Het moment waarop de clusterradar ingezet kan worden niet eenduidig wordt besproken. In the First instance they say that the tool is applicable when the participants have dealt with each other fors ome time. In a latter section the state that: The point in time on which it can be applied is also flexible. Its no precondition that the participants already developed a connection. Eventually the intermediary and the cluster participants decide if and when to use the cluster radar.”

3.3 Theoretical implications compared with the Syntens’ Cluster Approach

(17)

17 Table 3. Theoretical implications compared with the Syntens’ Cluster Approach

Theoretical implications Activities, effects and results Cluster radar/basic questions

Tacitness, complexity and specificity contribute to the ambiguity of knowledge, which in turn impedes the transfer of knowledge.

None Cluster radar:

We can learn each others knowledge via documentation or already existing courses

(seminars/tutorials?). Co-operation can turn into competition if

one firm is overly persistent in appropriating tacit knowledge from its partner while not sharing its own proprietary knowledge.

Handelingen initiatief fase: Netwerken, partijen samen brengen

Helpen bij partnerselectie.

Cluster radar:

We think a like about what we want to accomplish.

Basic Questions: Wat brengt u zelf in? Wat brengt ieder ander in? Joint knowledge creation and

complementary application will exert lesser competitive pressures on the alliance, as partners are less concerned with unintended knowledge transfer.

None Cluster radar:

We stellen onze eigen

waardevolle kennis beschikbaar aan de samenwerking.

Low learning intent: firms will not devote resources to knowledge transfer Further increases in learning intent will stimulate knowledge transfer to a maximum

High Learning intent: lead to a restriction of communication and protection of knowledge.

Effect initiatief fase: Intenties van deelnemers helder (liefst vastgelegd in een intentieverklaring).

Basic Questions: Wat brengt u zelf in? Wat brengt ieder ander in?

An overlap in basic knowledge supports mutual understanding and eventually joint knowledge creation and transfer.

Handelingen initiatief fase: Netwerken, partijen samen brengen

Helpen bij partnerselectie.

Cluster radar:

We have basic knowledge of each other’s technical areas We can easily understand each other’s knowledge.

Knowledge creation and transfer are determined by the degree of dissimilarity in specialized knowledge, since

completely identical bases of specialized knowledge would not offer potential for the transfer of unknown knowledge.

Handelingen initiatief fase: - Netwerken, partijen samen brengen

- Helpen bij partnerselectie.

Cluster radar:

We stellen onze eigen

Basic Questions:

Welke inbreng mist u? Wat vindt u wat het collectief nog nodig heeft?

Partners with similar dominant logics achieve significantly higher degrees of joint knowledge creation and transfer in their alliance.

Cluster radar:

We think a like about what the market wants.

Basic questions:

(18)

18 Firms capable of internalizing the lessons

learned from past alliances will be more capable of managing knowledge.

Handeling evaluatie fase: - Evaluatiegesprek, toetsing t.a.v. clusterplan.

Resultaat evaluatie fase: - Eindrapportage voor ondernemers en/of stakeholders.

Cluster radar:

Previously we shared and exchanged knowledge in a Group.

Cultural distance among partners impedes knowledge transfer, as it complicates understanding.

Cluster radar:

Nothing in our own organization stands in the way of a good collaboration.

The impeding effect of cultural/national differences does not necessarily constitute a given fact, but can be overcome with appropriate knowledge management efforts.

Cluster radar:

Cultural distance has a stronger negative effect on the transfer of tacit than of explicit knowledge.

Cluster radar:

Alliances between direct competitors are more likely to fail compared with alliances among partners which share a similar industry background but do not compete directly.

Cluster radar:

We have basic knowledge of each other’s technical areas

Partners who share a similar industry background seem to benefit from an adequate level of absorptive capacity while simultaneously experiencing less competitive pressure resulting in a lower level of knowledge protection.

Cluster radar: We stellen onze eigen

Trust is particularly important for the transfer of tacit knowledge, as it creates the necessary proximity between partners.

Effect initiatief:

- Toegenomen onderling vertrouwen

Cluster radar:

We can trust each other. If someone has a problem, we will help him.

Joint conflict management seems to function as a trust-building mechanism and as a knowledge transfer practice in its own right.

- Coachen van de groep, monitoren van voortgang en kans op succes en interventies plegen,

None

Prior ties contribute to absorptive capacity, but are no guarantee for a subsequent trustworthy relationship.

Cluster radar:

Previously we shared and exchanged knowledge in a Group.

Equity-based alliances are better in transferring tacit knowledge in

comparison with explicit knowledge while explicit knowledge is more efficiently transferred in contract-based alliances.

None Basic Questions:

(19)

19 Knowledge management practices

beneficial to knowledge transfer are advisory systems, alliance liaison offices, learning networks, the delegation of expatriates, mutual visits/plant tours, training programmes and on-site meetings. Handelingen realisatiefase: - Organiseren, agendavoering van bijeenkomsten, - Inzetten voorlichtingsactiviteiten Basic Questions:

Op welke manier gaat u kennis uitwisselen?

Wat hebben we over een jaar bereikt? Wat hebben we gedaan en waaruit blijkt dat?

Articulated goals create organizational commitment and a point of reference in decision processes for organizational members.

Result initiatief fase:

- Een overzicht van individuele en gemeenschappelijke doelstellingen

Effect plan fase: - Commitment bij clusterdeelnemers - Men gaat het plan uitvoeren.

Cluster radar:

We think a like about what we want to accomplish.

We know what our tasks are.

The involvement and overseeing effort of a parent firm’s alliance managers supports the transfer of knowledge.

Handeling Plan fase: - Proces ondersteunen zodat concrete afspraken vastgelegd worden

Cluster radar:

One of the partners is leading. Basic Questions:

Wie zou het best ‘trekker’ kunnen zijn?

Frequent communication, on-site meetings and partner visits help to build the necessary relational capital to transfer tacit knowledge.

Handeling plan fase: - Proces ondersteunen zodat concrete afspraken vastgelegd worden

Cluster radar:

We zijn allemaal bereikbaar (voor overleg en

kennisuitwisseling). Explicit knowledge is transferred via

technology sharing practices.

None Cluster radar:

We can learn each others knowledge via documentation or already excisting cursussen (seminars/tutorials?). Commitment of top management has a

greater positive influence on the transfer of explicit knowledge than on the transfer of tacit knowledge.

None Cluster radar:

We are 100% commited

Alliance partners are able to reduce the tacitness and complexity associated with knowledge by dedicating resources to the transfer process.

Handeling plan fase: - Proces ondersteunen zodat concrete afspraken vastgelegd worden

Cluster radar:

We want to invest money in this collaboration

We are 100% commited

3.4 Conclusion

(20)

20

4. Diagnosis

Chapter 2 described the important factors that influence the outcomes of Knowledge Management in strategic alliances and chapter 3 analyzed the formal process Syntens formed to guide Knowledge Clusters in achieving the desired Knowledge Management outcomes. This chapter aims to identify possible causes for the problem stated in the introduction (Syntens intermediaries use a cluster approach, consisting of tools and guidelines, to facilitate knowledge clusters in creating, sharing, and applying knowledge but their clients do not report a positive or negative effect of their activities) by studying the intermediaries practical approach on Knowledge Management.

In order to identify how the theoretical implications and their representation in the formal process of Syntens are covered in practice, six semi-structured interviews were conducted. The respondents were all Syntens intermediaries responsible for guiding knowledge clusters. The formal process represented in chapter 3 formed the basis for the interviews. The respondents were asked to describe the process of guiding knowledge clusters from the first initiative (the motive to form a knowledge cluster) to the end result (the desired knowledge management outcome was achieved and/or the cluster was decomposed). During their description of this process the knowledge management factors mentioned in the theory were brought up and the way they handled these factors was discussed. The topic list used to conduct these interviews can be found in appendix 1. Each interview was transcribed and the individual answers of the respondents were grouped by subject and translated into a general image of the intermediaries’ efforts.

Based on these general images of the intermediaries’ efforts propositions and hypotheses were formulated. By formulating hypotheses the underlying assumptions as to why a certain cause is presumed to contribute to the problem become clear in the form of propositions. These propositions form the basic elements on which the empirical testing is conducted (Chapter 5).

From the interview results a general process scheme (figure 3) was derived that describes the method that the intermediaries use and helps to understand the context in which the following results take place. A cluster idea or opportunity originates in the network of a Syntens intermediary. Then the intermediary creates awareness among the SMEs and knowledge institutes that could benefit from participating in this cluster opportunity. In this process of creating awareness the potential participants decide whether they join the cluster or not (cost-benefit consideration). Then a first meeting is setup in which the participants meet and develop an approach to make the cluster opportunity into a profitable innovation. During the meetings and alongside the meetings the cluster opportunity gets elaborated until it reaches the desired end-state or dispatches in a pre-mature state.

Figure 3. Process scheme of the of a cluster progress

(21)

21

4.1 Partner characteristics

Partner characteristics have important implications for the selection of participants, which is the main activity in the initiative phase. The goal of this phase is to select the appropriate partners who can jointly develop the initial cluster idea into a profitable innovation.

The interview results indicate that the first step of partner selection is creating awareness among potential participants. The Intermediaries’ network relations are invited for a meeting or they are notified individually. The intermediary selects these potential participants based on a personal assessment. The close relations of the intermediary are invited. The intermediaries indicate that they select participants on their intention to share knowledge, their willingness to collaborate with others and their innovative abilities. One respondent states:

“The potential participants obviously have to be innovative; they have to deal with the topic on which we want to start a cluster. The first meeting is particularly attended by excising Syntens clients from which we know they are innovative, venturous and they want to collaborate. During the preparation we, as intermediaries, look at the cases we want to use en which clients suit these cases.”

4.1.1 Knowledge related alliance motives

After the potential participants are selected and they are introduced to the subject it is time to see if clusters can be formed. According to the theory, an important trade-off for organizations to join a cluster is between collaboration and competition. The following two proposition on this topic are derived from the theory.

Proposition 1.1: Co-operation can turn into competition if one firm is overly persistent in

appropriating tacit knowledge from its partner while not sharing its own proprietary knowledge. Proposition 1.2: Joint knowledge creation and complementary application will exert lesser

competitive pressures on the alliance, as partners are less concerned with unintended knowledge transfer.

The results from the interviews indicate that the risk of co-operation turning into competition does not occur according to the intermediaries. The intermediaries select participants who differ in end-market or application of the knowledge or they make a selection based on the participant’s position in the value chain. In this respect also the personal assessment of the intermediary plays a role:

- You have to bring people together that have the intention to share knowledge. The base of a knowledge cluster is that the participants get knowledge out, but also bring knowledge in the collaboration.”

According to the intermediaries, all participants are motivated to innovate on a certain topic but they do not want/can’t bare the risk associated with it. The subsidy is then used to create development space for the cluster participants.

According to the intermediaries the following other motivations play a role for participants in participating in a cluster.

- Creating new knowledge jointly: All participants have similar or identical knowledge questions.

(22)

22 Proposition 1.3: Participants are motivated to create knowledge jointly and/or to combine

complementary knowledge.

Four of six respondents indicate that the trade-off between co-operation and competition does not play a role in their clusters, because they strive for diversity or establishing a value chain in their combination of participants. Problems that did get mentioned concerning this trade-off are intellectual property and competition distortions due to pricing agreements.

- “Als er straks twee of drie technologieën zijn die redelijk concurrerend zijn qua effectiviteit, wie gaat daarmee dan aan de haal.”

One respondent approaches this trade-off from the other way around and states:

- “Als concurrenten bij elkaar aan tafel gaan zitten is het onderwerp dusdanig interessant dat ze op de koop toe nemen dat ze bij hun concurrenten aan tafel zitten. Als mijn concurrenten meedoen, wil ik ook meedoen anders mis ik de boot.”

With regard to the basic questions relevant to this knowledge management factor (5/6. Wat brengt u zelf in? Wat brengt ieder ander in?), all respondents agree on the relevance of these questions. They state that the trade-off between giving and taking is most relevant for knowledge clusters. The respondents indicate that the beginning of the cluster development is the right moment to acquire insight in these topics.

Based on the above mentioned statements I assume that the competitive pressures are not particularly high during the cluster. The participants are selected on their added value (through diversity and value chain) and ‘joint knowledge creation’ and ‘complementary application’ are the main motivations to join a cluster, according to the intermediaries. It is possible that competition becomes a more relevant issue after the cluster is dispatched but they state this is not relevant for knowledge management during the cluster. Based on these results the following hypothesis was formulated.

Hypothesis 1: The selection mechanisms used by Syntens prevent competitive pressures from

impeding the knowledge management outcomes. 4.1.2 Learning intent

With regard to determining the learning intent of the participants the intermediaries state that the participant has to be aware of the advantage of the cluster. If the participants find the cluster important enough they will commit themselves to it via an agreed contribution in time, money and resources.

If the participants’ learning intent is to low, they will not commit themselves via contribution in time or money. And when the participants are unwilling to share their own knowledge the other

participants will exclude them from the cluster.

Proposition 2.1: Low learning intent: firms will not devote resources to knowledge transfer High Learning intent: lead to a restriction of communication and protection of knowledge.

Proposition 2.2: Based on this result I find it assumable that the clusters reflect a degree of learning intent that does not impede knowledge management.

Hypothesis 2: The selection mechanisms used by Syntens ensure a degree of learning intent which

(23)

23 4.1.3 Absorptive capacity

A firm’s absorptive capacity depends on its pre-alliance knowledge overlap with the other partners and on the interaction routines between the partners. The following two propositions were derived from the theoretical framework.

Proposition 3.1: An overlap in basic knowledge supports mutual understanding and eventually joint knowledge creation and transfer.

Proposition 3.2: Knowledge creation and transfer are determined by the degree of dissimilarity in specialized knowledge, since completely identical bases of specialized knowledge would not offer potential for the transfer of unknown knowledge.

Overlap in basic knowledge, dissimilarity in specialized knowledge bases, and common knowledge bases are all enabling factors for knowledge management. These characteristics are used in different ways when selecting potential participants for a cluster. Two intermediaries strive for diversity in the combination of participants.

- “Everyone has his own specialism, we want new combinations to develop on the intersection of these specialties. “

Two other intermediaries indicate that they strive for a combination of participants who operate in a value chain. The last two intermediaries did not select participants based on these partner

characteristics because the knowledge component in their cluster was more generic of nature. These generic themes play in every organization (collaboration, finance, creativity etc.).

Proposition 3.3: When striving for a value chain approach, an overlap in basic knowledge is often assured because the participants share the same industry background.

Proposition 3.4: With the diversity approach the intermediaries get participants who share the same knowledge question(s) but who differ in their application of this knowledge.

Both the value chain and the diversity approach, assure a degree of overlap in basic knowledge and dissimilarity in specialized knowledge. This sounds contradictory but the idea behind both

approaches is that the innovations arise on the intersection of the participants specialized knowledge bases. For example, all participants use plastic in their products, but they make totally different products. The knowledge of plastic as a material is their common knowledge base, and for example the influence of weather or water on plastics is specialized knowledge that one participant ads.

Hypothesis 3: Combining participants based on diversity or value chain approach ensures an

overlapping knowledge base and a shared background which enables communication and mutual understanding.

Hypothesis 4: Combining participants based on diversity or value chain approach ensures specific

knowledge bases which enable knowledge management outcomes. 4.1.4 Cultural distance

(24)

24 Proposition 4.1: Striving for diversity and or a value chain in the combination of cluster participants leads to cultural differences in problem and market approach.

Proposition 4.2: Cultural distance among partners impedes knowledge transfer, as it complicates understanding.

Proposition 4.3: The impeding effect of cultural/national differences can be overcome with appropriate knowledge management efforts.

The interview results also imply that the differences in organizational culture can lead to frictions in the cluster.

- Difference in problem approach: Some participants have a more hands on approach than others. An example that was mentioned by one respondent is that some participants will jump to a practical approach sooner than others who first want to acquire more information. - Difference in market approach: Participants are in different markets and therefore they also

have different clients. Some participants are suppliers; their clients determine a greater share of the end-product. Others will develop their own product and will then look at whom to sell it to. On this point also the difference in reputation can play a role. Some SMEs have a higher reputation to retain than others.

One cluster was focused on a specific geographical region. This caused similarity in mentality which accounted for a great sense of belonging. One other respondent stated that there also lies a risk in a cluster with a high proximity between the participants. Due to this proximity participants are more likely to have mutual relations. These mutual relations can have a positive influence but also a negative influence when business and personal interests get entangled.

The respondents do not mention specific efforts to overcome impeding cultural effects. One respondent mentioned a problem in understanding and empathy between two participants. The solution that was mentioned was inviting an authority to solve the misunderstanding by making it deciding what was best.

The assumption that can be made up on this topic is that cultural differences do occur in the clusters and that intermediaries are unable to overcome the impeding effects of these differences. Therefore the following hypothesis is stated.

Hypothesis 5: Combining participants based on diversity or value chain approach leads to cultural

differences which impede communication and mutual understanding.

4.2 Partner interaction

4.3.2 Trust and conflict management

Trust is an aspect that has to grow according to the intermediaries. A decline in trust and interaction can occur when cluster meetings are not always attended by one/or more participants.

“Sometimes you notice that participants stop connecting with the rest of the cluster. The knowledge requirement of this participant will then fall behind. This often results in a lag for the participant and a decrease in interaction with the other members. Trust definitely has to grow, the participants are divers and they do not know each others markets very well. A trustworthy relationship can be built during the meetings we organize”

(25)

25 of the Syntens cluster approach as can also been seen in the process representation in the beginning of this chapter.

Next to trust conflict is also related to openness between cluster members. Conflict between alliance partners is a detrimental force. Conflict not only contributes to alliance failure (Steensma and Lyles 2000), it also reduces the level of trust between partners and eventually impedes knowledge transfer (e.g. Tsang et al. 2004). Tsang et al. (2004) verify empirically that intensity of conflict reduces

knowledge transfer. How alliance partners manage conflict in the relationship is therefore a central question.

Joint conflict management also seems to be the method that Syntens uses and it is assumable that the positive effect, described in the theory, also occurs in practice.

All respondents agree that the method for managing conflict is discussing the topics that are troubling. “Het is dus eigenlijk zo dat wanneer de samenwerking belangrijk genoeg is voor alle deelnemers, dan is het conflict nadelig en gaan ze dat conflict vanzelf oplossen. Ik vind het goed als een voorzitter of een trekker zo’n balletje af en toe eens opgooit.”

Seeking for a combination of participants which have prior ties is not something the intermediaries explicitly strive for. However three respondents do point out the positive influence that this factor has. “It assures experience with collaboration.” Based on the results from the interviews I have no reason to assume that this is one of the probable causes for the problem. For the factors trust and conflict management I formulated the sixth hypothesis.

Hypothesis 6: The Syntens cluster approach develops trust between the participants by frequently

meeting and joint conflict management.

4.3 Knowledge characteristics an knowledge management practices

Knowledge management practices are associated with the planning phase which, according to the cluster approach, is about developing an approach to realize the desired cluster outcome; a

profitable innovation. Activities which are important in this phase are: Agreeing on goals, actions and budgets and making sure these are captured in a formal document.

4.3.1 Alliance governance

The theory from chapter 3 shows that the degree in which knowledge is ambiguous or explicit has implications on the further development of the cluster process. Culture and trust are important factors in this respect because they create the proximity between the participants and they enhance communication/overcome communication problems. The theory also states that governance is associated with the knowledge characteristics. “Equity-based alliances are better in transferring tacit knowledge in comparison with explicit knowledge while explicit knowledge is more efficiently transferred in contract-based alliances.”

The knowledge management practices and dedication of resources associated with the transfer and application of tacit knowledge aim to establish personal ties to facilitate the transfer of

tacit/ambiguous knowledge.

Proposition 7.1: Knowledge characteristics have important implications for further cluster development.

(26)

26 DeFillippi 1990)). Simonin (1999b) finds that alliance partners are able to reduce the tacitness and complexity associated with knowledge by dedicating resources to the transfer process.

According to the literature equity-based alliances are better in transferring tacit knowledge and contract based alliances are better for transferring explicit knowledge. All intermediaries indicate that these types of formal agreements are not used.

In the clusters where a subsidy is granted, the agreement with the subsidy provider is also used as a formal agreement between the participants.

- Op het moment dat er een subsidie is verstrekt, wordt aan bepaalde voorwaarden voldaan: “ Omdat het cluster onder het IPC hangt moet men aan de subsidievoorwaarden voldoen. Daar wordt ook een handtekening onder gezet. Daarin leg je vast, ik wil met deze groep

samenwerken en daar hoort dit resultaat bij.” Niet juridisch, maar wel bindend. En ze hebben zich daarin wel gecommitteerd aan een bedrag en een investering in tijd. Het is een

fundament onder de samenwerking om de gelijkwaardigheid te waarborgen.

The general opinion of the intermediaries is that formal agreements like equity-based or contract-based can be seen as a form of weakness in a cluster. The alliances in which they mediate operate based on trust and the intention to cooperate with each other.

The respondents state that the process of agreeing on goals and budgets takes place during the selection of the participants. The intermediaries state that this process is an organic one. One method that is used by three respondents, to steer this organic process is deploying a cluster matrix (table 4). Two other respondents state that their approach to guiding a cluster is not a rigid one; “You should let things take their course”.

Table 4. Example of a cluster matrix Knowledge question 1 Knowledge question 2 Knowledge question … Knowledge question n Knowledge source Participant 1 X Literature

Participant 2 X X Knowledge institute x

Participant … X Experiment

Participant n x University x

The formal agreements identified in the theory are not stated to be used in the guidance of clusters by Syntens. Agreements are based on for example subsidy programs and are formal but not legally binding.

The term ‘knowledge management practices’ captures the organizational routines, control and co-ordination mechanisms, and systems that firms use to manage knowledge management outcomes (cf. Gray 2001)

Syntens is the system that provides advice, alliance liaison roles and learning networks. Coordination mechanisms that occur are frequently meeting, plant visits and organizing seminars and knowledge networks.

Proposition 7.2: The impeding effects of ambiguous knowledge can be overcome by application of knowledge management practices.

(27)

27 In the cluster approach no activities, effects or results can be found on the topic of ambiguous knowledge, the codification of these knowledge types or its implications. The interview results indicate that the intermediary’s estimation of the ambiguity of knowledge is not made in advance. The respondents state that understanding ambiguity and dealing with its implications is an organic process which starts when all cluster participants are identified and committed to work together on the topic.

With regard to the cluster radar question related to this topic ‘We can learn each other’s knowledge via documentation or already existing courses (seminars/tutorials?).’ Three respondents indicate the relevance of this question at the beginning of the cluster process. Two respondents state that this question is relevant at the realization phase and one respondent rates the question to be irrelevant. All respondents stated that articulating a common goal is very important and one of the first things that has to be done in developing a cluster. “It’s the First question that needs to be answered.” Based on the above mentioned statements I assume that the knowledge characteristics, that have important implications according to the theory, are not well represented in the procedures followed by Syntens. Most intermediaries indicate the importance of existing documentation or courses and two intermediaries use a format to explicitly formulate the knowledge questions and the knowledge needed to let the cluster succeed but they do not link this to specific knowledge management practices or to the dedication of resources. The hypothesis that corresponds to this assumption is:

Hypothesis 7: The lack of insight in the knowledge characteristics leads to a non-optimal form of

alliance governance and knowledge management practices.

A problem that is stated by some of the intermediaries is that the expectations of participants concerned with the amount of time and/or energy that the cluster takes to create a result does not match with practice. “Je weet nooit hoe snel zo’n proces gaat. Het duurt altijd langer dan de

deelnemers verwachten, Deelnemers stappen toch iets te optimistisch in het cluster”. Decline in activities and motivation are the effects of these problems.

Hypothesis 8: Lack of expectation management leads to a mismatch between the participants’

expectations and practice which impedes knowledge transfer.

4.4 Conclusion

To summarize the findings of this chapter, table 5 shows the factors of knowledge management, their presence in the cluster approach and the conclusion that is drawn from practice. The factors in table 5 may explain the probable causes of the problem stated in the introduction: ‘Syntens

intermediaries use the cluster approach to facilitate knowledge clusters in creating, sharing, and applying knowledge but their clients do not report a positive or negative effect of their activities.’ The hypotheses form the basis for the empirical assessment amongst the participants of knowledge clusters of Syntens. These hypothesizes are translated into a survey which aims to determine the probability of the above mentioned hypothesizes. The following chapter will describe the results from this survey.

Table 5. Knowledge management factors compared with cluster approach and practice

Partner characteristics

Knowledge related alliance motives

Participants are selected through diversity and value chain approaches and are motivated to create knowledge jointly or apply it

Knowledge management in knowledge clusters