SECI and inter-organizational and intercultural knowledge transfer: a case-study of controversies around a project of co-operation between France and China in the health sector

– The purpose of this paper is to study the obstacles to knowledge transfer between organizations belonging to different cultures by making use of the socialization–externalization – combination – internalization (SECI) model. The contribution made by this paper is in the use of the SECI model for studying this type of issue. Although it recognizes the epistemological duality between tacit and explicit knowledge, the traditional literature had not adopted this theoretical structure. The explanation for this is an excessively simplistic interpretation of the SECI model in its 1995 version together with a lack of knowledge about Nonaka’s more recent works – Nonaka et al. (2008). , – The authors use a comparative case study opposing a failure and a success, and rely on Latour controversies to account for the context and contradictions. One of the authors worked for five years as a mediator in these projects and adopted the reflective practitioner posture of Schon. , – Using the SECI model is relevant for studying this question. The results obtained converge with the literature and mark the SECI’s first stage – socialization – as an operation of major importance. The authors show that the failure in knowledge transfer is due to a deficit of socialization, as the lack of prolonged situations of co-presence of the actors, i.e. the lack of shared context, impedes knowledge conversion. , – To go further, conditions of the socialization context must be better specified and developed. Second, cases in other areas than the health sector to observe the circulation of knowledge could be developed. , – The findings suggest ways for managers to fight against knowledge transfer barriers in multicultural contexts, relying on the socialization process. , – Accounting for the problem of knowledge transfer in a multicultural context through the SECI model, which focusses on the interaction between tacit and explicit knowledge, opens a fruitful line of reflexion. It would organize trips for French managers in China with a strong intercultural dimension. , – Accounting for the problem of knowledge transfer in a multi culural context through the SECI model, which focusses on the interaction between tacit and explicit knowledge, opens a fruitful line of reflexion.

[1]  D. Schoen,et al.  The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action , 1985 .

[2]  Dai Senoo,et al.  Shaping knowledge management: organization and national culture , 2010, J. Knowl. Manag..

[3]  西田 幾多郎,et al.  Fundamental problems of philosophy : the world of action and the dialectical world , 1970 .

[4]  D. Teece Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance , 2007 .

[5]  Y. Aharoni Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind , 1992 .

[6]  Linda Argote,et al.  Managing Knowledge in Organizations: An Integrative Framework and Review of Emerging Themes , 2003, Manag. Sci..

[7]  I. Nonaka,et al.  Managing flow: a process theory of the knowledge-based firm , 2009 .

[8]  I. Nonaka,et al.  The Knowledge Creating Company , 2008 .

[9]  Leyland M. Lucas The Role of Culture on Knowledge Transfer: The Case of the Multinational Corporation. , 2006 .

[10]  B. Kogut,et al.  Exploring internal stickiness : Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm , 2007 .

[11]  A. Strauss,et al.  The Discovery of Grounded Theory , 1967 .

[12]  I. Nonaka A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation , 1994 .

[13]  H. Triandis,et al.  Cultural Variations in the Cross-Border Transfer of Organizational Knowledge: An Integrative Framework , 2002 .

[14]  B. S. Reiche,et al.  Knowledge transfer in multinationals: The role of inpatriates' boundary spanning , 2011 .

[15]  M. Polanyi Chapter 7 – The Tacit Dimension , 1997 .

[16]  M. Cassier,et al.  Économie de la connaissance : le rôle des consortiums de haute technologie dans la production d'un bien public , 2001 .

[17]  Ikujiro Nonaka,et al.  A firm as a dialectical being: towards a dynamic theory of a firm , 2002 .

[18]  E. Vaara,et al.  Cultural differences, convergence, and crossvergence as explanations of knowledge transfer in international acquisitions , 2010 .

[19]  P. Fayard Le réveil du samouraï : culture et stratégie japonaises dans la société de la connaissance , 2006 .

[20]  A. Bruni,et al.  Reassembling the Social—An Introduction to Actor Network Theory , 2007 .

[21]  Li Lin,et al.  Meta-analytic comparison on the influencing factors of knowledge transfer in different cultural contexts , 2014, J. Knowl. Manag..

[22]  野中 郁次郎,et al.  The Knowledge-Creating Company: How , 1995 .

[23]  I. Nonaka,et al.  The Theory of the Knowledge-Creating Firm: Subjectivity, Objectivity and Synthesis , 2005 .

[24]  I. Nonaka,et al.  The Concept of “Ba”: Building a Foundation for Knowledge Creation , 1998 .

[25]  I. Nonaka,et al.  Managing the new product development process , 1985 .

[26]  Ikujiro Nonaka,et al.  The knowledge-creating theory revisited: knowledge creation as a synthesizing process , 2003 .

[27]  Georg von Krogh,et al.  Perspective - Tacit Knowledge and Knowledge Conversion: Controversy and Advancement in Organizational Knowledge Creation Theory , 2009, Organ. Sci..

[28]  Felix C. Brodbeck,et al.  Cross-border transfer of knowledge: Cultural lessons from Project GLOBE , 2005 .

[29]  K. Nishida,et al.  An Inquiry into the Good , 1911 .

[30]  Pierre-Marie Fayard Strategic communities for knowledge creation: a Western proposal for the Japanese concept of , 2003, J. Knowl. Manag..

[31]  George A. Boyne,et al.  Public and Private Management: What's the Difference? , 2002 .

[32]  Jean Hartley,et al.  Case study research , 2004 .

[33]  M. Cassier Relations entre secteurs public et privé dans la recherche sur le génome. , 2000 .