Search results

This study aims to empirically investigate how knowledge paradox affects collaboration performance. Knowledge paradox, which arises from the simultaneous need for knowledge sharing and protection, is common in interorganizational collaboration. Using the ambidexterity perspective, this paper aims to reexamine the effect of the knowledge paradox on collaborative performance to explore the moderating roles of structural and contextual ambidexterity.

This study used a sample of 153 firms involved in vertical and horizontal collaboration, collected via questionnaires. Hypotheses were tested using hierarchical regression analysis.

This study demonstrates that the stronger the knowledge paradox is, the higher the potential for value creation. Thus, knowledge paradox has a positive impact on collaborative performance. The functions of structural ambidexterity and contextual ambidexterity strengthen this positive relationship.

This paper not only expands the theoretical application of the knowledge paradox and ambidexterity theory in the context of interorganizational relationships but also provides significant managerial implications. By comprehending the dynamics of the knowledge paradox and the role of ambidexterity, managers can make well-informed decisions to enhance their collaborative performance.

This study aims to investigate whether higher value creation leads to higher value appropriation and to identify the boundary conditions in a buyer–supplier relationship that can explain why a particular supplier can appropriate higher value than others.

The study uses questionnaire surveys. The sample of the survey has 150 publicly-listed supplier firms in Taiwan. The unit of analysis is the buyer–supplier relationship.

In the buyer–supplier relationship, suppliers’ bargaining power, partnership and a supplier’s original brand manufacturing (OBM) business can strengthen the positive relationship between value creation and value appropriation.

This study adopts the unilateral viewpoint of suppliers; however, some constructs might require dyadic evaluation. This study only explores the spillover effect of OBM business on the relationship between value creation and appropriation.

The spillover effect of a supplier’s OBM business in a buyer–supplier relationship allows the buyer to share more common benefits and the supplier to capture more private benefits as compensation. By broadening its customer base, a supplier can increase its bargaining power. A supplier can also maintain a strategic partnership with each essential buyer.

To avoid the dark-side effect of partnership, the model provides the contingency that a supplier can capture more value from a buyer–supplier relationship.

Several studies have explored the relationships among the multiple dimensions of knowledge governance mechanisms (KGMs) and knowledge sharing. However, knowledge governance issues and knowledge transfer processes remain under-researched. The empirical results of the relationships among KGMs, motivations to share knowledge and knowledge sharing behavior remain inconsistent. This paper aims at re-examining the mediating effects of knowledge sharing motivations and knowledge sharing opportunities on the relationship between KGMs and knowledge sharing behavior of repatriates at multinational corporations.

Survey data were collected from 140 repatriates from 66 multinational companies that operated in five different geographic locations. Structural equation modelling was used to assess the research model.

The empirical results indicate the mediating roles of knowledge sharing motivation and opportunity in the relationship between KGMs and the knowledge sharing behavior of repatriates. Two sets of KGMs – formal and informal mechanisms – have significant influence on knowledge sharing motivation and opportunity.

This investigation focuses on the functions of KGMs that facilitate the knowledge sharing behavior of repatriates. The contextual effects of task-level, firm-level, and external environmental characteristics on knowledge sharing may need further studies to substantiate.

This study argues that even when employees are encouraged and rewarded by extrinsic and intrinsic motivations to share knowledge, effective knowledge sharing would not necessarily be guaranteed. This paper offers a conceptual framework where knowledge sharing motivations and opportunities simultaneously play the mediating roles in a successful knowledge sharing. The framework associates KGMs with knowledge sharing behavior and echoes the growing acknowledgement of the need for additional research on micro-foundations of knowledge sharing to complement the macro research.

In the Netherlands, thesis assessment quality is a growing concern for the national accreditation organization due to increasing student numbers and supervisor workload. However, the accreditation framework lacks guidance on how to meet quality standards. This study aims to address these issues by sharing our experience, identifying problems and proposing guidelines for quality assurance for a thesis assessment system.

This study has two parts. The first part is a narrative literature review conducted to derive guidelines for thesis assessment based on observations made at four Dutch universities. The second part is a case study conducted in one bachelor’s psychology-related program, where the assessment practitioners and the vice program director analyzed the assessment documents based on the guidelines developed from the literature review.

The findings of this study include a list of guidelines based on the four standards. The case study results showed that the program meets most of the guidelines, as it has a comprehensive set of thesis learning outcomes, peer coaching for novice supervisors, clear and complete assessment information and procedures for both examiners and students, and a concise assessment form.

This study is original in that it demonstrates how to holistically ensure the quality of thesis assessments by considering the context of the program and paying more attention to validity (e.g. program curriculum and assessment design), transparency (e.g. integrating assessment into the supervision process) and the assessment expertise of teaching staff.