Principles or templates? The antecedents and performance effects of cross‐border knowledge transfer

• Author: James B. Oldroyd,Shad S. Morris,Jeffrey P. Dotson
• Published date: 01 December 2019
• Date: 01 December 2019
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3079

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Principles or templates? The antecedents

and performance effects of cross-border

knowledge transfer

James B. Oldroyd

1

| Shad S. Morris

1

| Jeffrey P. Dotson

2

1

Management Department, Brigham Young

University, Provo, Utah

2

Marketing Department, Brigham Young

University, Provo, Utah

Correspondence

James B. Oldroyd, Management

Department, Brigham Young University,

Provo, UT 84602.

Email: oldroyd@byu.edu

Abstract

Research Summary:Strategic use of codified knowledge

across borders can be a vital component for project-based

work. Analyzing 237 global consulting projects, we exam-

ine the performance effects of drawing upon different types

of codified knowledge. We argue and find that using

principle-based forms of knowledge is likely to improve a

project's customer responsiveness, whereas using template-

based knowledge increases a project's cost effectiveness.

We also explore what drives project managers to select dif-

ferent forms of knowledge in the first place. Specifically,

we find that manager experience drives knowledge princi-

ple use, whereas institutional distance drives knowledge

template use. Taken together, our findings suggest that

organizations need to carefully consider the performance

implications of different types of codified knowledge that

get used and understand what drives managers to use them.

Managerial Summary:Managers understand the impor-

tance of knowledge management systems for project-

based work. Efforts are often made to ensure that knowl-

edge is codified and disseminated throughout the firm so

employees can draw upon them to complete their projects.

Unfortunately, however, such efforts often lead to stock-

piles of information that remain untapped and under-

utilized. This study seeks to answer two questions. First,

how can managers influence workers to utilize different

types of codified knowledge in the first place? Second, do

different types of codified knowledge have differential

Received: 12 August 2016 Revised: 7 June 2019 Accepted: 17 July 2019 Published on: 3 September 2019

DOI: 10.1002/smj.3079

Strat Mgmt J. 2019;40:2191–2213. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/smj © 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 2191

effects on performance? We find that increased individual

experience drives the use of knowledge principles,

whereas workers that are more distant are more likely to

use knowledge templates. At the same time, we find that

when individuals draw upon knowledge principles it

increases the customer responsiveness of their projects,

whereas the use of knowledge templates increases cost

effectiveness. This suggests that project-based firms

should carefully consider codifying both knowledge tem-

plates as well as knowledge principles and consider how

to incentivize workers to draw upon these different forms

of knowledge.

KEYWORDS

Bayesian estimation, cross-border knowledge transfer, knowledge

principles, knowledge templates, project performance

1|INTRODUCTION

Once confined to consulting and aerospace industries, project-based work is increasingly becoming a

predominant form of organizing in high-tech, banking, retail, and other sectors in the global economy

(Barley, Bechky, & Milliken, 2017; ILO, 2015). The success of project-based work is often depen-

dent upon successfully sharing knowledge from one project to the next (Staats, 2012). This requires

project managers to not only identify which forms of knowledge are most likely to lead to success

but it also requires them to proactively turn to codified forms of past knowledge dispersed within a

global context (Hansen & Haas, 2001). The purpose of this article is to explore two questions: First,

how do different forms of codified knowledge relate to performance? Second, what factors at the

individual and organizational level are associated with the use of these different forms of knowledge

in the first place?

Because reusing knowledge across contexts and geographies is difficult (Puranam & Srikanth,

2007), firms try to ensure that knowledge is codified in documents and other forms of institutional

memory (Zollo & Winter, 2002). In terms of how knowledge is codified, there are two primary

forms: (a) general principles of the knowledge, or (b) specific templates of the knowledge

(Baden-Fuller & Winter, 2007). Templates provide a pattern or a model for other individuals to copy.

A template might be a project prototype or how to document that walks a project manager through

the steps needed to successfully replicate a project. For instance, Orr (1996) found that Xerox

workers effectively transferred knowledge by providing strict repair guides (i.e., templates) that

helped other workers fix copiers in a step-by-step fashion.

Principles, conversely, provide a fundamental, primary, or general law or truth to guide individ-

uals (Baden-Fuller & Winter, 2007). A principle may be a list of best practices, key questions, or

cause-and-effect associations that provide a theoretical explanation for why they might be useful as a

general guideline for other projects. For instance, IKEA uses principles to provide “general

2192 OLDROYD ET AL.